> > >> Would it make sense to capture these projects as simply 'affiliated', ie. >> with a loose relationship to Neutron, because they use/integrate with >> Neutron in some form or another (e.g. having 3rd-party, extending-api, >> integrating-via-plugin-model, etc)? Then we could simply consider extending >> the projects.yaml to capture this new concept (for Neutron or any other >> project) once we defined its ontology. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> > That seems interesting, but given the communities stated goals around Big > Tent, it seems to me like affiliation or not, adding these under the > Neutron tent, inside the larger OpenStack Bigger Tent, would be a good > thing. > > Thanks, > Kyle > >
Thanks for clearing some of the questions I raised. I should stress the fact that I welcome the idea of finding a more sensible home for these projects in light of the big tent developments, but it seems like we're still pouring down the foundations. I'd rather get us to a point where the landscape is clear, and the dust settled. That would help us make a more informed decision compared to the one we can make right now. Cheers, Armando
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
