[This is meant to be one of (I hope) several conversation-provoking
questions directed at prospective TC members to help the community
understand their positions before considering how to vote in the
ongoing election.]
We are discussing adding at least one new project this cycle, and
the specific
As the one who just lead a new project into governance last year, I think I
could take a first stab at it.
For me the current requirements in general works fine, as I emphasized in
my recent blog [0], the four opens are extremely important. Open Design is
one of the most important out the four I g
Thanks, Doug, for raising this campaign question
Here are my answers:
***How you would evaluate a project's application in general
First I would work through the requirements ([1]) to evaluate projects.
Since most of the requirements are specific enough. And here's more
important part, to leav
Doug Hellmann wrote:
> [This is meant to be one of (I hope) several conversation-provoking
> questions directed at prospective TC members to help the community
> understand their positions before considering how to vote in the
> ongoing election.]
>
> We are discussing adding at least one new proj
>
> We are discussing adding at least one new project this cycle, and
> the specific case of Adjutant has brought up questions about the
> criteria we use for evaluating new projects when they apply to
> become official. Although the current system does include some
> well-defined requirements [1
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Doug Hellmann wrote:
[This is meant to be one of (I hope) several conversation-provoking
questions directed at prospective TC members to help the community
understand their positions before considering how to vote in the
ongoing election.]
Thanks for getting the ball rolli
7On 20/04/18 22:26, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Without letting the conversation devolve too much into a discussion
> of Adjutant's case, please talk a little about how you would evaluate
> a project's application in general. What sorts of things do you
> consider when deciding whether a project "alig
Excerpts from Zhipeng Huang's message of 2018-04-21 07:06:30 +0800:
> As the one who just lead a new project into governance last year, I think I
> could take a first stab at it.
>
> For me the current requirements in general works fine, as I emphasized in
> my recent blog [0], the four opens are
Excerpts from Rico Lin's message of 2018-04-22 16:50:51 +0800:
> Thanks, Doug, for raising this campaign question
>
>
> Here are my answers:
>
>
> ***How you would evaluate a project's application in general
>
> First I would work through the requirements ([1]) to evaluate projects.
> Since mo
I think it actually relies upon the new team to actively reaching out to
the existing team. The new team cannot be lazy and wait for something
happen for them, they have to keep reaching out and believe me the core
developers from the existing official project will lend a hand in the end :)
For Cy
Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2018-04-22 15:10:40 +0200:
> Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > [This is meant to be one of (I hope) several conversation-provoking
> > questions directed at prospective TC members to help the community
> > understand their positions before considering how to vote in
Excerpts from Sean McGinnis's message of 2018-04-22 21:01:46 -0500:
> >
> > We are discussing adding at least one new project this cycle, and
> > the specific case of Adjutant has brought up questions about the
> > criteria we use for evaluating new projects when they apply to
> > become official.
Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2018-04-23 12:09:42 +0100:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
> > [This is meant to be one of (I hope) several conversation-provoking
> > questions directed at prospective TC members to help the community
> > understand their positions before consid
Excerpts from Graham Hayes's message of 2018-04-23 12:15:24 +0100:
> 7On 20/04/18 22:26, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
> > Without letting the conversation devolve too much into a discussion
> > of Adjutant's case, please talk a little about how you would evaluate
> > a project's application in general.
On 23/04/18 16:04, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Graham Hayes's message of 2018-04-23 12:15:24 +0100:
>> 7On 20/04/18 22:26, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>
>>> Without letting the conversation devolve too much into a discussion
>>> of Adjutant's case, please talk a little about how you would evalu
> >
> > I think one of the important things is if it fits in to furthering what is
> > "OpenStack", as far as whether it is a service or functionality that is
> > needed
> > and useful for those running an OpenStack cloud. This is one of the parts
> > that
> > may be more on the subjective side.
On 20/04/18 17:26, Doug Hellmann wrote:
[This is meant to be one of (I hope) several conversation-provoking
questions directed at prospective TC members to help the community
understand their positions before considering how to vote in the
ongoing election.]
Thanks Doug, I think this is a reall
Excerpts from Graham Hayes's message of 2018-04-23 16:27:04 +0100:
> On 23/04/18 16:04, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > Excerpts from Graham Hayes's message of 2018-04-23 12:15:24 +0100:
> >> 7On 20/04/18 22:26, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> >>
> >>> Without letting the conversation devolve too much into a disc
Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2018-04-22 15:10:40 +0200:
>> For the product fit, there is also a lot of room for interpretation. For
>> me it boils down to whether "OpenStack" (the product) is better with
>> that project "in" rather than with that project "out". S
On 23/04/18 17:14, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Graham Hayes's message of 2018-04-23 16:27:04 +0100:
>> On 23/04/18 16:04, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>> Excerpts from Graham Hayes's message of 2018-04-23 12:15:24 +0100:
7On 20/04/18 22:26, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Without letting th
On 2018-04-23 12:02:14 -0400 (-0400), Zane Bitter wrote:
[...]
> The main thing I will be looking out for in those cases is that
> the project followed the Four Opens *from the beginning*. Projects
> that start from a code dump are much less likely to attract other
> contributors in my view. Open S
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, Doug Hellmann wrote:
Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2018-04-23 12:09:42 +0100:
I'd like to see us work harder to refine the long term goals we are
trying to satisfy with the projects that make up OpenStack. This
will require us to continue the never-ending discussion
Excerpts from Graham Hayes's message of 2018-04-23 17:23:20 +0100:
> On 23/04/18 17:14, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > Excerpts from Graham Hayes's message of 2018-04-23 16:27:04 +0100:
> >> On 23/04/18 16:04, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> >>> Excerpts from Graham Hayes's message of 2018-04-23 12:15:24 +0100:
>
Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2018-04-23 17:02:07 +:
> On 2018-04-23 12:02:14 -0400 (-0400), Zane Bitter wrote:
> [...]
> > The main thing I will be looking out for in those cases is that
> > the project followed the Four Opens *from the beginning*. Projects
> > that start from a co
On 2018-04-23 13:14:59 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
[...]
> I hope that no one considers any of this "noise," so thank you for
> highlighting that point.
Oh, yes I didn't mean to imply that any of the responses so far have
been noise, but I was walking a thin line on it being a hollow sort
On 23/04/18 18:14, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Graham Hayes's message of 2018-04-23 17:23:20 +0100:
>> On 23/04/18 17:14, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>> Excerpts from Graham Hayes's message of 2018-04-23 16:27:04 +0100:
On 23/04/18 16:04, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Graham Ha
2018-04-23 22:43 GMT+08:00 Doug Hellmann :
>
> Excerpts from Rico Lin's message of 2018-04-22 16:50:51 +0800:
> > Thanks, Doug, for raising this campaign question
> >
> >
> > Here are my answers:
> >
> >
> > ***How you would evaluate a project's application in general
> >
> > First I would work thr
Zane Bitter wrote:
> [...]
> I would love to see us have a conversation as a community to figure out
> what we all, collectively, think that list should look like and document
> it. Ideally new projects shouldn't have to wait until they've applied to
> join OpenStack to get a sense of whether we be
On 24/04/18 05:55, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Zane Bitter wrote:
[...]
I would love to see us have a conversation as a community to figure out
what we all, collectively, think that list should look like and document
it. Ideally new projects shouldn't have to wait until they've applied to
join OpenSta
On 2018-04-24 09:59:57 -0400 (-0400), Zane Bitter wrote:
[...]
> the PTG has limited attendance from operators
[...]
I have high hopes that will not be the case for the next PTG.
--
Jeremy Stanley
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_
30 matches
Mail list logo
