Doug Hellmann wrote: > [...] >> Likewise, what if the Manila project team decides they aren't interested >> in supporting Python 3.5 or a particular greenlet library du jour that >> has been mandated upon them? Is the only filesystem-as-a-service project >> going to be booted from the tent? > > I hardly think "move off of the EOL-ed version of our language" and > "use a library du jour" are in the same class. All of the topics > discussed so far are either focused on eliminating technical debt > that project teams have not prioritized consistently or adding > features that, again for consistency, are deemed important by the > overall community (API microversioning falls in that category, > though that's an example and not in any way an approved goal right > now).
Right, the proposal is pretty clearly about setting a number of reasonable, small goals for a release cycle that would be awesome to collectively reach. Not really invasive top-down design mandates that we would expect teams to want to resist. IMHO if a team has a good reason for not wanting or not being able to fulfill a common goal that's fine -- it just needs to get documented and should not result in itself in getting kicked out from anything. If a team regularly skips on common goals (and/or misses releases, and/or doesn't fix security issues) that's a general sign that it's not really behaving like an OpenStack project and then a case could be opened for removal, but there is nothing new here. -- 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