atom feed48 messages in net.launchpad.lists.openstackRe: [Openstack] best practices for me...
FromSent OnAttachments
Andrew BogottJul 2, 2012 12:16 pm 
Russell BryantJul 2, 2012 12:26 pm 
Joshua HarlowJul 2, 2012 2:41 pm 
Joshua HarlowJul 2, 2012 2:54 pm 
Gabriel HurleyJul 2, 2012 3:18 pm 
John PostlethwaitJul 2, 2012 4:42 pm 
Christopher B FerrisJul 2, 2012 5:41 pm 
Thierry CarrezJul 3, 2012 2:31 am 
Thierry CarrezJul 3, 2012 2:34 am 
Doug HellmannJul 3, 2012 5:37 am 
James E. BlairJul 3, 2012 6:55 am 
Joshua HarlowJul 3, 2012 10:46 am 
Dan PrinceJul 3, 2012 10:59 am 
Gabriel HurleyJul 3, 2012 11:59 am 
Andrew BogottJul 3, 2012 12:47 pm 
Joshua HarlowJul 3, 2012 2:09 pm 
James E. BlairJul 3, 2012 2:54 pm 
Eric WindischJul 3, 2012 3:47 pm 
Andrew BogottJul 3, 2012 3:54 pm 
Gabriel HurleyJul 3, 2012 4:53 pm 
Timothy DalyJul 3, 2012 5:27 pm 
Monty TaylorJul 3, 2012 6:17 pm 
Thierry CarrezJul 4, 2012 2:56 am 
Gabriel HurleyJul 4, 2012 3:17 pm 
Eric WindischJul 4, 2012 4:11 pm 
Christopher B FerrisJul 5, 2012 4:29 am 
Sean DagueJul 5, 2012 6:55 am 
Doug HellmannJul 5, 2012 7:16 am 
Joshua HarlowJul 5, 2012 10:21 am 
Mark McLoughlinJul 18, 2012 2:01 am 
Mark McLoughlinJul 18, 2012 2:13 am 
Mark McLoughlinJul 18, 2012 2:16 am 
Mark McLoughlinJul 18, 2012 2:23 am 
Thierry CarrezJul 18, 2012 4:00 pm 
Doug HellmannJul 23, 2012 8:50 am 
Thierry CarrezJul 23, 2012 8:59 am 
Doug HellmannJul 23, 2012 9:04 am 
Eric WindischAug 2, 2012 1:05 pm 
Christopher B FerrisAug 2, 2012 2:08 pm 
Vishvananda IshayaAug 2, 2012 3:47 pm 
Jay PipesAug 2, 2012 5:18 pm 
Zhongyue LuoAug 2, 2012 5:24 pm 
Eric WindischAug 2, 2012 5:51 pm 
Mark McLoughlinAug 2, 2012 10:26 pm 
Thierry CarrezAug 3, 2012 2:49 am 
Thierry CarrezAug 3, 2012 4:02 am 
Jay PipesAug 3, 2012 9:25 am 
Eric WindischAug 3, 2012 9:34 am 
Subject:Re: [Openstack] best practices for merging common into specific projects
From:Jay Pipes (jayp@gmail.com)
Date:Aug 2, 2012 5:18:36 pm
List:net.launchpad.lists.openstack

On 08/02/2012 04:05 PM, Eric Windisch wrote:

On Monday, July 23, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:

Sorry if this rekindles old arguments, but could someone summarize the reasons for an openstack-common "PTL" without voting rights? I would have defaulted to giving them a vote *especially* because the code in common is, well, common to all of the projects.

So far, the PPB considered openstack-common to be driven by "all PTLs", so it didn't have a specific PTL.

As far as future governance is concerned (technical committee of the Foundation), openstack-common would technically be considered a supporting library (rather than a core project) -- those can have leads, but those do not get granted an automatic TC seat.

OK, I can see the distinction there. I think the project needs an official
leader, even if we don't call them a PTL in the sense meant for other projects.
And I would expect anyone willing to take on the PTL role for common to be
qualified to run for one of the open positions on the new TC, if they wanted to
participate there.

The scope of common is expanding. I believe it is time to seriously consider a
proper PTL. Preferably, before the PTL elections.

No disagreement from me.

The RPC code is there now. We're talking about putting the membership services
there too, for the sake of RPC, and even the low-level SQLAlchemy/MySQL access
code for the sake of membership services. A wrapper around pyopenssl is likely
to land there too, for the sake of RPC. These are just some of the changes that
have already landed, or are expected to land within Folsom.

What do you mean by "membership services"?

Common contains essential pieces to the success of OpenStack which are currently
lacking (official) leadership. Everyone's problem is nobody's problem.

Consider this my +1 on assigning a PTL for common.

Sure, me too.

-jay