On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 11:51:27AM -0400, Eoghan Glynn wrote:
You've touched on multiple trains-of-thought that could indeed
justify separate threads of their own.
I agree with your read on the diverging growth rates in the
strategic versus the tactical elements of the community.
On one hand, I agree a member of the TC should be a very active member
of the development community. Something I have not been, much to my shame.
However, there are obviously some fundamental issues in how the TC has been
governing OpenStack in the past few releases. Very serious issues in the
review response time matches up to accepted practices in infosec for
quantifying risk exposure in terms of incident response times.
so this is actually a suggest best practice in other areas.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/28/2013 12:18
far be it from me to ask. but isn't this something that should be
addressed in oslo common db, and made configurable as an class definition
or method argument?
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Monty Taylor mord...@inaugust.com wrote:
On 07/09/2013 11:21 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Wondering if heat should be performing this orchestration.
Would provide for a more pluggable front end to the action set.
On Feb 25, 2015 2:37 PM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Tim Bell tim.b...@cern.ch wrote:
A few inline comments and a
CFP work is hard as hell. Much respect to the review panel members. It's
a thankless difficult job.
So, in lieu of being thankless, THANK YOU
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Allison Price
> Hi everyone,
> One quick clarification. The speakers will be announced on* August 14
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Jonathan Proulx wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 08:32:38PM -0400, Paul Belanger wrote:
> :6. Spandau loses to Solar by 195–88, loses to Springer by 125–118
> Given this is at #6 and formal vetting is yet to come it's probably