Thierry, Thanks for clarifying in your replies to me and Maish:
1. Who is providing is not the issue, but the what is being provided is. 2. Irrespective of who is providing, there are two types of data - binary and structured. Given this, I don’t think there is any reason not to converge into a single framework where both types of data are accommodated. Subbu > On Jun 29, 2015, at 1:51 AM, Thierry Carrez <[email protected]> wrote: > > Subbu Allamaraju wrote: >> People will starting calling "tc this" and "uc that" only if we present >> two sets of data. I think the right question to ask is why not present >> one unified set, which was my original understanding when I read your >> proposal last year. > > Subbu, > > It was indeed our proposal -- provide data under the same framework. > However, the ops workgroup decided to provide a totally different type > of information that the TC provides, using its own framework. I totally > respect your right to do that. But that created, in effect, two > different sets. > > I still think we can consider those two sets two different types of data > provided under the same "project metadata" program. But they are > different types of data. You build complex objective dictionaries of > information around themes. We subjectively define precise labels that > apply or do not apply. Calling them the same won't make them magically > the same. It will just confuse people. > > -- > Thierry Carrez (ttx) > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-operators mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators _______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
