[openstack-dev] Vancouver Summit CFP is open - what’s new

Hi everyone, Today, we opened the Call for Presentations for the Vancouver Summit , which will take place May 21-24. The deadline to submit your proposal is February 8th.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

Several folks on this thread have talked about the different constituencies and problems we’re trying to solve with naming. Most of the people following this thread understand all of the terminology and governance we’ve defined, but that's still a very small percentage of people who care about

[openstack-dev] Affected by OSIC, Layoffs? Or want to help?

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 community members! If you are a contributor who was recently laid off and need help getting to Boston,

Re: [openstack-dev] Project Navigator Updates - Feedback Request

Hi Matt, Thanks for the feedback. > On Mar 24, 2017, at 3:50 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > > Overall I like the groupings of the projects in the main page. When I drill > into Nova, a couple of things: > > 1. The link for the install guide goes to the home page for

Re: [openstack-dev] Project Navigator Updates - Feedback Request

able to update them. > On Mar 24, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Tim Bell <tim.b...@cern.ch> wrote: > > Lauren, > > Can we also update the sample configurations? We should certainly have > Neutron now in the HTC (since nova-network deprecation) > > Tim > > Fro

[openstack-dev] Project Navigator Updates - Feedback Request

Hi everyone, We’ve been talking for some time about updating the project navigator, and we have a draft ready to share for community feedback before we launch and publicize it. One of the big goals coming out of the joint TC/UC/Board meeting a few weeks ago[1] was to help better communicate

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] A proposal to separate the design summit

> On Feb 22, 2016, at 8:52 AM, Clayton O'Neill wrote: > > I think this is a great proposal, but like Matt I’m curious how it > might impact the operator sessions that have been part of the Design > Summit and the Operators Mid-Cycle. > > As an operator I got a lot out of

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack] Rescinding the M name decision

Good news. After finalizing the trademark checks and giving the community time to weigh in, Mitaka will be the name of the M release. Thanks again for the great discussion around this topic, and for the willingness to be responsive to the concerns of fellow community members. On Jul 9,

Re: [openstack-dev] Avoiding regression in project governance

On Mar 10, 2015, at 6:00 PM, Devananda van der Veen devananda@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:12 PM Lauren Sell lau...@openstack.org mailto:lau...@openstack.org wrote: - Operators don’t want the wild west. They are nervous about dissolving the integrated release

Re: [openstack-dev] Avoiding regression in project governance

Dissolving the integrated release without having a solid plan and replacement is difficult to communicate to people who depend on OpenStack. We’re struggling on that front. That said, I’m still optimistic about project structure reform and think it could be beneficial to the development

Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack Foundation] [tc] Take back the naming process

Hey Monty, I’d like to weigh in here, because I think there have been some misunderstandings around Lemming-gate. I’m glad you raised your concerns; it’s a good test of release naming for us all to discuss and learn from. To provide a little context for those new to the discussion,