On Jun 4, 2018, at 7:05 AM, Jay S Bryant <jungleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Do we have that problem? I honestly don't know how much pressure other >> folks are feeling. My impression is that we've mostly become good at >> finding the necessary compromises, but my experience doesn't cover all >> of our teams. > In my experience this hasn't been a problem for quite some time. In the > past, at least for Cinder, there were some minor cases of this but as > projects have matured this has been less of an issue. Those rules were added because we wanted to avoid the appearance of one company implementing features that would only be beneficial to it. This arose from concerns in the early days when Rackspace was the dominant contributor: many of the other companies involved in OpenStack were worried that they would be investing their workers in a project that would only benefit Rackspace. As far as I know, there were never specific cases where Rackspace or any other company tried to push features in that no one else supported.. So even if now it doesn't seem that there is a problem, and we could remove these restrictions without ill effect, it just seems prudent to keep them. If a project is so small that the majority of its contributors/cores are from one company, maybe it should be an internal project for that company, and not a community project. -- Ed Leafe
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
