On 04/22/2015 10:33 PM, Armando M. wrote: > > 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.
Can you be a bit more specific about what's not clear and would help make you feel more informed? -- Russell Bryant __________________________________________________________________________ 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