On 08/02/2016 11:29 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
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.
Sure, I have no disagreement with any of the above. I just see TC
mandates as a slippery slope. I'm practicing my OpenStack civic "duty"
to guard against the encroachment of project technical independence.
Best,
-jay
__________________________________________________________________________
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
