I'll do it too. I can probably do two tickets.
On April 21, 2017 11:36:57 AM Lauren Sell wrote:
Hi everyone,
The Foundation wants to help any Stackers affected by recent layoffs such
as OSIC get to the Boston Summit. There are companies hiring and we want to
retain our important communi
Hi Ben,
> On Mar 9, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Ben Swartzlander wrote:
>
> I might be the only one who has negative feelings about the PTG/Forum split,
> but I suspect the foundation is suppressing negative feedback from myself and
> other developers so I'll express my feelings here. If there's anyone
> On Feb 28, 2017, at 4:25 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>
> Clint Byrum wrote:
So, I'll ask more generally: do you believe that the single openstack-dev
mailing list is working fine and we should change nothing? If not, what
problems has it created for you?
>>>
>>> As a person who
his online:
https://www.openstack.org/blog/2017/01/supporting-our-global-community/
Jonathan Bryce
Mark Collier
Lauren Sell
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstac
> On Jan 16, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Jay S. Bryant
> wrote:
>
> On 01/13/2017 10:29 PM, Mike Perez wrote:
>> The way validation works is completely up to the project team. In my research
>> as shown in the Summit etherpad [5] there's a clear trend in projects doing
>> continuous integration for vali
Hi everyone,
You might have seen the FAQ we posted last week about the continuing work
on evolving the format and structure of the Summits:
http://www.openstack.org/blog/2016/05/faq-evolving-the-openstack-design-summit/
I wanted to send a reminder note out to highlight that Thierry and I will
> On Jul 9, 2015, at 9:35 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>
> On 07/09/2015 09:19 AM, Neil Jerram wrote:
>> In the hope of forestalling an unnecessary sub-thread...
>>
>> Mita was #1 in the vote, so has presumably already been ruled out by
>> OpenStack's legal review.
>
> That is correct.
Hi everyo
> On Jan 27, 2015, at 3:50 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
>
> I do not like how we are selecting names for our releases right now.
> The current process is autocratic and opaque and not fun - which is the
> exact opposite of what a community selected name should be.
Autocratic? Could you elaborate?
On Feb 6, 2014, at 2:56 AM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>
> Should other OpenStack projects adjust, e.g. Horizon shows
> "Orchestration". I guess this is fine - isn't it?
Yes, Horizon’s usage is fine, and in my opinion preferred for clarity.
Jonathan
__
On Feb 6, 2014, at 8:08 AM, Dolph Mathews wrote:
> I'm curious about the level of granularity that's envisioned in each
> definition. "Designated sections" could be as broad as keystone.* or as
> narrow as keystone.token.controllers.Auth.validate_token_head(). It could be
> defined in terms of
On Feb 5, 2014, at 11:12 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> I don't have a big issue with the way the Foundation currently enforces
> "you must use the code" - anyone who signs a trademark agreement with
> the Foundation agrees to "include the entirety of" Nova's code. That's
> very vague, but I assume
On Feb 5, 2014, at 10:18 AM, Steve Gordon wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Andreas Jaeger"
>> To: "Mark McLoughlin" , "OpenStack Development Mailing
>> List (not for usage questions)"
>>
>> Cc: "Jonathan Br
Any reason for not just calling it "OpenStack Commons"?
Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>Hey
>
>The mission statement is what we've been using for a while. The
>"official title" is new.
>
> Official Title: OpenStack Common Libraries
> PTL: Mark McLoughlin
> Mission Statement:
>To produce a set of
13 matches
Mail list logo
