On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:02 PM, Emilien Macchi <emil...@redhat.com> wrote: > While I agree with Doug that we assume good faith and hope for the best, I > personally think we should help them (what we're doing now) but also make > sure we DO NOT set a precedent. We could probably learn from this situation > and document in our governance what the TC expects when companies have a > fork and need to contribute back at some point. We all know StarlingX isn't > alone and I'm pretty sure there are a lot of deployments out there who are > in the same situation.
/me pus on ex-TC hat for a minute Emilien, I totally agree with you here but would word it differently: we should absolutely set a precedent, but one that exhibits how we want to handle what ttx calls 'convergent' forks. These already exist, like it or not. What I hope can be established is some guidelines and boundaries on how to deal with these rather than just reject them out-of-hand. > I guess my point is, yes for helping StarlingX now but no for incubating > future forks if that happens. Like Graham, I think these methods shouldn't > be what we encourage in our position. Again, I agree, we have said that sort of thing all along: "don't fork". Many have had to learn that lesson the hard way. This is another opportunity to show _why_ it can be a bad idea. dt -- Dean Troyer dtro...@gmail.com __________________________________________________________________________ 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
