On 7/27/2015 5:20 PM, Anita Kuno wrote:
I think you need to acknowledge in both email topic and in content that
Sean tried to draw the fact that you are duplicating this work on July
16th. Collaboration is much more than "our meeting decided you shouldn't
do your work". Perhaps taking a step back and acknowledging the work of
others might set a nicer tone to your efforts.
Anita,
I think it might just be a matter of wording and limited bandwidth of
written communication. I believe Cathy was doing exactly what you seem
to be accusing her of not doing. Specifically, raising on the mailing
list a topic of discussion that was covered during an IRC meeting and
asking for input from anyone who may have an interest but who wasn't
part of the IRC meeting.
The SFC team isn't unilaterally vetoing [1], we simply seemed to reach a
consensus that the two APIs are confusingly similar. Cathy's email was
specifically to ask whether anyone else is opposed to the idea of using
the more comprehensive API to perform the function of the less
feature-full API.
If there's any reason we've overlooked why [1] shouldn't be considered a
use case within the broader SFC feature, then responses to Cathy's email
are very welcome. That's why she said "Please let us know if you have
different opinion."
[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/186663/
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
