On 10/14/14, 10:22 AM, "Everett Toews" <everett.to...@rackspace.com> wrote:
>On Oct 14, 2014, at 8:57 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I personally think proposing patches to an openstack-api repository is >>the most effective way to make those proposals. Etherpads and wiki pages >>are fine for dumping content, but IMO, we don't need to dump content -- >>we already have plenty of it. We need to propose guidelines for *new* >>APIs to follow. > >+1 > >I’m all for putting a stake in the ground (in the form of docs in a repo) >and having people debate that. I think it results in a much more focused >discussion as opposed to dumping content into an etherpad/wiki page and >trying to wade through it. If people want to dump content somewhere and >use that to help inform their contributions to the repo, that’s okay too. > >Another big benefit of putting things in a repo is provenance. Guidelines >like these can be...contentious...at times. Having a clear history of how >a guideline got into a repo is very valuable as you can link newcomers >who challenge a guideline to the history of how it got there, who >approved it, and the tradeoffs that were considered during the review >process. Of course, this is possible with etherpad/wiki too but it’s more >difficult to reconstruct the history. > >Everett Also, I don’t think the first version of the standards are going to get everything right so setting something as the starting point seems the most reasonable. Waiting entire cycles to include a new piece of the standard seems a bit impractical. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
