Armando M. wrote: > On 2 December 2015 at 01:16, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org > <mailto:thie...@openstack.org>> wrote: >> Armando M. wrote: >> >> One solution is, like you mentioned, to make some (or all) of them >> >> full-fledged project teams. Be aware that this means the TC would >> judge >> >> those new project teams individually and might reject them if we feel >> >> the requirements are not met. We might want to clarify what happens >> >> then. >> > >> > That's a good point. Do we have existing examples of this or would we >> be >> > sailing in uncharted waters? >> >> It's been pretty common that we rejected/delayed applications for >> projects where we felt they needed more alignment. In such cases, the >> immediate result for those projects if they are out of the Neutron >> "stadium" is that they would fall from the list of official projects. >> Again, I'm fine with that outcome, but I want to set expectations >> clearly :) > > Understood. It sounds to me that the outcome would be that those > projects (that may end up being rejected) would show nowhere on [1], but > would still be hosted and can rely on the support and services of the > OpenStack community, right? > > [1] http://governance.openstack.org/reference/projects/
Yes they would still be hosted on OpenStack development infrastructure. Contributions would no longer count toward ATC status, so people who only contribute to those projects would no longer be able to vote in the Technical Committee election. They would not have "official" design summit space either -- they can still camp in the hallway though :) -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __________________________________________________________________________ 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
