Re: Ownership of the Cloud Base Image

2017-02-17 Thread Dusty Mabe
On 02/17/2017 02:42 AM, Thomas Mueller wrote: > > > Am 16.02.2017 um 14:51 schrieb Josh Boyer: >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote: >>> >>> On 02/08/2017 08:01 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote: After some discussions with mattdm and sgallagh about the cloud

Re: Ownership of the Cloud Base Image

2017-02-17 Thread Dusty Mabe
On 02/16/2017 08:51 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote: >> >> >> On 02/08/2017 08:01 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote: >>> >>> After some discussions with mattdm and sgallagh about the cloud base >>> image and the server WG we have decided for

Re: Ownership of the Cloud Base Image

2017-02-16 Thread Thomas Mueller
Am 16.02.2017 um 14:51 schrieb Josh Boyer: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote: >> >> On 02/08/2017 08:01 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote: >>> After some discussions with mattdm and sgallagh about the cloud base >>> image and the server WG we have decided for now to

Re: Ownership of the Cloud Base Image

2017-02-16 Thread Josh Boyer
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote: > > > On 02/08/2017 08:01 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote: >> >> After some discussions with mattdm and sgallagh about the cloud base >> image and the server WG we have decided for now to leave the cloud >> base image out of the server

Re: Ownership of the Cloud Base Image

2017-02-15 Thread Dusty Mabe
On 02/08/2017 08:01 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote: > > After some discussions with mattdm and sgallagh about the cloud base > image and the server WG we have decided for now to leave the cloud > base image out of the server WG. Obviously it doesn't make sense to > have it stay as owned by the Atomic WG

Re: Ownership of the Cloud Base Image

2017-02-13 Thread Josh Berkus
On 02/13/2017 12:50 PM, Adam Miller wrote: > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote: >> >> After some discussions with mattdm and sgallagh about the cloud base >> image and the server WG we have decided for now to leave the cloud >> base image out of the server WG.

Re: Ownership of the Cloud Base Image

2017-02-13 Thread Adam Miller
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote: > > After some discussions with mattdm and sgallagh about the cloud base > image and the server WG we have decided for now to leave the cloud > base image out of the server WG. Obviously it doesn't make sense to > have it stay

Re: Ownership of the Cloud Base Image

2017-02-09 Thread Trishna Guha
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > > I don't think we should put a huge amount of work into the wiki, at > least for public consumption. (It's okay for SIG/WG workspace.) I > *hope* that we will have our revitalized docs infrastructure online > RSN.

Re: Ownership of the Cloud Base Image

2017-02-09 Thread Matthew Miller
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 02:40:00PM +0530, Trishna Guha wrote: > Just another thought jumped in my mind: > We have lots of wikis with *Cloud* namespace. What about that? > Do we want to create wikis with *Atomic* namespace as well? I'm not > sure if this can be the best solution. > If yes we need

Re: Ownership of the Cloud Base Image

2017-02-09 Thread Trishna Guha
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 6:31 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote: > > After some discussions with mattdm and sgallagh about the cloud base > image and the server WG we have decided for now to leave the cloud > base image out of the server WG. Obviously it doesn't make sense to > have it stay

Re: Ownership of the Cloud Base Image

2017-02-09 Thread Kushal Das
On 08/02/17, Dusty Mabe wrote: > > After some discussions with mattdm and sgallagh about the cloud base > image and the server WG we have decided for now to leave the cloud > base image out of the server WG. Obviously it doesn't make sense to > have it stay as owned by the Atomic WG so here is

Ownership of the Cloud Base Image

2017-02-08 Thread Dusty Mabe
After some discussions with mattdm and sgallagh about the cloud base image and the server WG we have decided for now to leave the cloud base image out of the server WG. Obviously it doesn't make sense to have it stay as owned by the Atomic WG so here is what I would like to propose: - Have the