On 08/24/2015 10:52 AM, Brian (bex) Exelbierd wrote: > I'm well past the 72 hours, so this is probably able to be ignored, but ... > > On 08/21/2015 06:15 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: >> But I'd also disagree we need to spin up a new SIG around this when the >> mapping of the Cloud SIG and Atomic interest is close to (if not >> exactly) 1:1. > > It sounds like we are talking about creating sub-working groups of > fedora-cloud for base, atomic, and docker image. That does start to > smell a bit like SIGs to me ... To me, this feels like spinning up unnecessary committees. Folks who are interested in working on Atomic host specifically will work on that, folks who want to work on docker images will work on that, etc. All of that fits the same umbrella and eventual story (we don't have a complete story without Atomic host, we don't have a complete story without a good Fedora Docker image, and we don't have a complete story unless the host works well in public/private cloud) so I don't know that spinning up SIGs for each piece gets us anywhere. Also - those are implementation details *if* the working group decides it wants to pursue Atomic as the main "story" for Cloud. Can we take a vote today during the Cloud meeting? Best, jzb -- Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS jzb@xxxxxxxxxx | http://community.redhat.com/ Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
