Dear colleagues,
Looks like we have consensus (lazy, but still consensus)
on this topic: we don't need this role CL exposed to Fuel
project. I have prepared a change [1] for our team structure
policy.
My suggestion is to make Fuel is an aggregator
of independent components. Component teams could
Hi fuelers,
only few hours left until period of self-nomination will be closed, but so
far we don't have neither consensus regarding how to proceed further nor
candidates.
I've increased period of self-nomination for another week (until April 7,
23:59 UTC) and expect to have decision about how
Hi,
I'm not sure if it's a right place to continue this discussion, but if
there are doubts that such role is needed, we should not wait for another
half a year to drop it.
Also I'm not sure if a single engineer (or two engineers) can handle
majority of upcoming patches + specs + meetings around
Dmitry,
"No need to rush" does not mean we should postpone
team structure changes until Ocata. IMO, CL role
(when it is exposed to Fuel) contradicts to our
modularization activities. Fuel should be an aggregator
of components. What if we decide to use Ironic or
Neutron as Fuel components? Should
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 03:19:27PM +0300, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:
> > I think this call is too late to change a structure for now. I suggest
> > that we always respect the policy we've accepted, and follow it.
> >
> > If Component Leads role is under a question, then I'd continue the
> >
Mike,
Inline comments.
Vladimir,
> I think this call is too late to change a structure for now. I suggest
> that we always respect the policy we've accepted, and follow it.
>
> If Component Leads role is under a question, then I'd continue the
> discussion, hear opinion of current component
Vladimir,
I think this call is too late to change a structure for now. I suggest that
we always respect the policy we've accepted, and follow it.
If Component Leads role is under a question, then I'd continue the
discussion, hear opinion of current component leads, and give this a time
to be
Dear all,
Let me raise my hand here. We introduced this role CL a while ago for two
major reasons:
1) improve review process (CL are responsible for review SLA)
2) introduce review of overall architecture and avoid cross-feature,
cross-component conflicts.
These two points, in fact, mean the
Serg,
Thanks for agreeing to officiate this cycle's component lead elections
for us!
--
Dmitry Borodaenko
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:55:57PM -0700, Serg Melikyan wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I'd like to announce that we're running the Component Leads elections.
> Detailed information is available
Hi folks,
I'd like to announce that we're running the Component Leads elections.
Detailed information is available on wiki [0].
Component Lead: defines architecture of a particular module or
component in Fuel, resolves technical disputes in their area of
responsibility. All design specs that
Fuelers,
Please remember that the open candidacy period for Fuel Component Leads
nominations is now open. It closes in two days, on October 15. [0]
[0] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Fuel/Elections_Fall_2015
We already have one nomination for fuel-python lead [1], thank you Igor
for
11 matches
Mail list logo
