On Wed, 2016-02-17 at 13:25 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 02/17/2016 09:28 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > Are people confused about what OpenStack is because they're looking
> > for a single turn-key system from a vendor? Because they don't know
> > what features they want/need? Or are we just doing
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Doug Hellmann wrote:
Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2016-02-17 13:25:58 -0500:
I think we are doing a bad job of communicating the product vs. kit
nature of OpenStack.
Yeah, I tend to think that's it, too.
I'll concede to that and agree we can and should do
Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2016-02-17 13:25:58 -0500:
> On 02/17/2016 09:28 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-02-17 11:30:29 +:
> >> A reason _I_[1] think we need to limit things is because from the
> >> outside OpenStack doesn't really look like
On 02/17/2016 09:28 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-02-17 11:30:29 +:
A reason _I_[1] think we need to limit things is because from the
outside OpenStack doesn't really look like anything that you can put
a short description on. It's more murky than that
ellmann [d...@doughellmann.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 9:36 AM
To: openstack-dev
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] unconstrained growth, why?
Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-02-17 17:00:00 +:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > Excerpts from Chris Den
Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-02-17 17:00:00 +:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-02-17 11:30:29 +:
> >> A reason _I_[1] think we need to limit things is because from the
> >> outside OpenStack doesn't really look like
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Doug Hellmann wrote:
Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-02-17 11:30:29 +:
A reason _I_[1] think we need to limit things is because from the
outside OpenStack doesn't really look like anything that you can put
a short description on. It's more murky than that and
Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-02-17 11:30:29 +:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
> > If we want to do that, we should change the rules because we put
> > the current set of rules in place specifically to encourage more
> > project teams to join officially. We can do
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Doug Hellmann wrote:
If we want to do that, we should change the rules because we put
the current set of rules in place specifically to encourage more
project teams to join officially. We can do that, but that discussion
deserves its own thread.
(Yeah, that's why I
Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-02-16 19:47:11 +:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
> [lots of reassonable stuff snipped]
>
> > I think we should be looking for
> > ways to say "yes" to new projects, rather than "no."
>
> I think the opposite is worth thinking about.
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Doug Hellmann wrote:
[lots of reassonable stuff snipped]
I think we should be looking for
ways to say "yes" to new projects, rather than "no."
I think the opposite is worth thinking about. Maybe we should be
defaulting to "no". Not because candidates are bad, but because
11 matches
Mail list logo
