[OpenStack-Infra] OpenDev infra as an OSF pilot project

Hi everyone, I saw some of the discussions on different channels last week about the ongoing move of the OpenDev infra services out of OpenStack project and TC governance. One of the questions that was raised was around setting it up as an OSF pilot project. I wanted to send an email to this

Re: [OpenStack-Infra] Airship project replication/sync to GitHub

On May 16, 2019 08:07:25 "Clark Boylan" wrote: On Wed, May 15, 2019, at 4:17 PM, SKELS, KASPARS wrote: Hi OpenStack infra team, we would like to set up replication From https://opendev.org/airship -> https://github.com/airshipit The GitHub space airshipit should already be

[OpenStack-Infra] Cross-community/generic mailing lists

Hi everyone, I was having a conversation with some people who are working across multiple communities involved in virtualization and container security and they were interested in having a higher level mailing list for open discussions. It doesn’t necessarily make sense to tie it to any

Re: [openstack-dev] Affected by OSIC, Layoffs? Or want to help?

I'll do it too. I can probably do two tickets. On April 21, 2017 11:36:57 AM Lauren Sell wrote: Hi everyone, The Foundation wants to help any Stackers affected by recent layoffs such as OSIC get to the Boston Summit. There are companies hiring and we want to

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Some information about the Forum at the Summit in Boston

Hi Ben, > On Mar 9, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: > > I might be the only one who has negative feelings about the PTG/Forum split, > but I suspect the foundation is suppressing negative feedback from myself and > other developers so I'll express my feelings

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][swg] per-project "Business only" moderated mailing lists

> On Feb 28, 2017, at 4:25 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > Clint Byrum wrote: So, I'll ask more generally: do you believe that the single openstack-dev mailing list is working fine and we should change nothing? If not, what problems has it created for you?

[openstack-dev] Supporting our global community

: https://www.openstack.org/blog/2017/01/supporting-our-global-community/ Jonathan Bryce Mark Collier Lauren Sell __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ

Re: [Openstack-operators] What would you like in Pike?

> On Jan 16, 2017, at 11:03 AM, Matt Riedemann > wrote: > > On 1/12/2017 7:30 PM, Melvin Hillsman wrote: >> Hey everyone, >> >> I am hoping to get a dialogue started to gain some insight around things >> Operators, Application Developers, and End Users would like

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Improving Vendor Driver Discoverability

> On Jan 16, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Jay S. Bryant > wrote: > > On 01/13/2017 10:29 PM, Mike Perez wrote: >> The way validation works is completely up to the project team. In my research >> as shown in the Summit etherpad [5] there's a clear trend in projects doing >>

[OpenStack-Infra] Thanks for enabling a great demo!

Hi Infra team, I wanted to send a note to say thanks for helping us demo the power of a global footprint of clouds powered by OpenStack in Barcelona. If you weren’t there, you can watch the video as Lyz coaches me through adding some regions to nodepool and Clark and fungi push the change out

[openstack-dev] Summit evolution online town halls

Hi everyone, You might have seen the FAQ we posted last week about the continuing work on evolving the format and structure of the Summits: http://www.openstack.org/blog/2016/05/faq-evolving-the-openstack-design-summit/ I wanted to send a reminder note out to highlight that Thierry and I

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack] Rescinding the M name decision

On Jul 9, 2015, at 9:35 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote: On 07/09/2015 09:19 AM, Neil Jerram wrote: In the hope of forestalling an unnecessary sub-thread... Mita was #1 in the vote, so has presumably already been ruled out by OpenStack's legal review. That is correct. Hi

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] Take back the naming process

On Jan 27, 2015, at 3:50 PM, Monty Taylor mord...@inaugust.com wrote: I do not like how we are selecting names for our releases right now. The current process is autocratic and opaque and not fun - which is the exact opposite of what a community selected name should be. Autocratic? Could

Re: [openstack-dev] [PTL] Designating required use upstream code

On Feb 6, 2014, at 8:08 AM, Dolph Mathews dolph.math...@gmail.com wrote: I'm curious about the level of granularity that's envisioned in each definition. Designated sections could be as broad as keystone.* or as narrow as keystone.token.controllers.Auth.validate_token_head(). It could be

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-docs] Conventions on naming

On Feb 5, 2014, at 10:18 AM, Steve Gordon sgor...@redhat.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Andreas Jaeger a...@suse.com To: Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com, OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Cc: Jonathan Bryce jonat

Re: [openstack-dev] [PTL] Designating required use upstream code

On Feb 5, 2014, at 11:12 AM, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com wrote: I don't have a big issue with the way the Foundation currently enforces you must use the code - anyone who signs a trademark agreement with the Foundation agrees to include the entirety of Nova's code. That's very vague,

Re: [Openstack] [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee

To Mark’s earlier point, this is the relevant language in 4.1(b) (http://www.openstack.org/legal/bylaws-of-the-openstack-foundation/): The other modules which are part of the OpenStack Project, but not the Core OpenStack Project may not be identified using the OpenStack trademark except when

Re: [Openstack] [Foundation Board] Resolutions from the Technical Committee

agree that there is no difference until after the interop work is done and core becomes defined via a series of tests? On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Jonathan Bryce jbr...@jbryce.com mailto:jbr...@jbryce.com wrote: To Mark’s earlier point, this is the relevant language

Re: [openstack-dev] Program description for Oslo

Any reason for not just calling it OpenStack Commons? Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com wrote: Hey The mission statement is what we've been using for a while. The official title is new. Official Title: OpenStack Common Libraries PTL: Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com Mission Statement: