Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][tc] Neutron stadium evolution from Austin

2016-05-05 Thread Fawad Khaliq
Armando has submitted the proposal on Gerrit [1]. Let's take the discussion there. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/312199/7 Fawad Khaliq On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Doug Wiegley wrote: > Were we looking at the same etherpad? I think the ‘inclusion

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][tc] Neutron stadium evolution from Austin

2016-05-02 Thread Doug Wiegley
Were we looking at the same etherpad? I think the ‘inclusion criteria’ and ‘benefits of the proposal’ sections cover those two points. Are you referring to something else? Thanks, doug > On May 2, 2016, at 12:18 PM, Gal Sagie wrote: > > Maybe it can help if instead of

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][tc] Neutron stadium evolution from Austin

2016-05-02 Thread Assaf Muller
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Gal Sagie wrote: > Maybe it can help if instead of trying to define criteria to which projects > dont fit into > the stadium, try to define in your spec what IT IS, and for what purpose its > there. Well said. This came up multiple times in

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][tc] Neutron stadium evolution from Austin

2016-05-02 Thread Gal Sagie
Maybe it can help if instead of trying to define criteria to which projects dont fit into the stadium, try to define in your spec what IT IS, and for what purpose its there. On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:53 PM, Kyle Mestery wrote: > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Armando M.

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][tc] Neutron stadium evolution from Austin

2016-05-02 Thread Kyle Mestery
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Armando M. wrote: > > > On 30 April 2016 at 14:24, Fawad Khaliq wrote: >> >> Hi folks, >> >> Hope everyone had a great summit in Austin and got back safe! :) >> >> At the design summit, we had a Neutron stadium evolution

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][tc] Neutron stadium evolution from Austin

2016-05-02 Thread Armando M.
On 30 April 2016 at 15:42, Doug Wiegley wrote: > > On Apr 30, 2016, at 1:24 PM, Fawad Khaliq wrote: > > Hi folks, > > Hope everyone had a great summit in Austin and got back safe! :) > > At the design summit, we had a Neutron stadium evolution

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][tc] Neutron stadium evolution from Austin

2016-05-02 Thread Armando M.
On 30 April 2016 at 14:24, Fawad Khaliq wrote: > Hi folks, > > Hope everyone had a great summit in Austin and got back safe! :) > > At the design summit, we had a Neutron stadium evolution session, which > needs your immediate attention as it will impact many stakeholders of

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][tc] Neutron stadium evolution from Austin

2016-04-30 Thread Brandon Logan
I have to agree with Doug. This proposal isn't saying you can't have a neutron plugin/driver, it's just that it won't be under governance of neutron. As long as the plugin and driver interfaces are there and relatively stable, you'll be able to use it. Also, if I understood correctly, you'll

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][tc] Neutron stadium evolution from Austin

2016-04-30 Thread Doug Wiegley
> On Apr 30, 2016, at 1:24 PM, Fawad Khaliq wrote: > > Hi folks, > > Hope everyone had a great summit in Austin and got back safe! :) > > At the design summit, we had a Neutron stadium evolution session, which needs > your immediate attention as it will impact many

[openstack-dev] [neutron][tc] Neutron stadium evolution from Austin

2016-04-30 Thread Fawad Khaliq
Hi folks, Hope everyone had a great summit in Austin and got back safe! :) At the design summit, we had a Neutron stadium evolution session, which needs your immediate attention as it will impact many stakeholders of Neutron. To summarize for everyone, our Neutron leadership made the following