On 29/11/16 10:28, Doug Hellmann wrote:
Excerpts from Chris Friesen's message of 2016-11-29 09:09:17 -0600:
On 11/29/2016 08:03 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
I'll rank my preferred solutions, because I don't actually like any of
them.
Just curious...what would you "actually like"?
Chris
My preference is to have teams just handle the drivers voluntarily,
without needing to make it a rule or provide a way to have teams
that only work on a driver. That's not one of the options we proposed,
but the results are like what we would get with option 6 (minus the
precedent of the TC telling teams what code they must manage).
I don't have a lot of background on why the driver was removed from the
Neutron stadium, but reading between the lines it sounds like you think
that Neutron made the Wrong Call, and that you would like, in order of
preference:
a) Neutron to start agreeing with you; or
b) The TC to tell Neutron to agree with you; or
c) To do an end run around Neutron by adding it as a separate project
Individual projects (like Neutron) have pretty wide latitude to add
repositories if they want, and are presumably closer to the issues than
anyone. So it seems strange that we're starting with a discussion about
how to override their judgement, rather than one about why we think
that's necessary.
What are the obstacles to the Neutron team agreeing to host these
drivers? Perhaps the TC is in a position to remove some of those
obstacles? That seems preferable to imposing new obligations on projects.
cheers,
Zane.
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
