Folks, As TSC members will recall, I set a date of 05/13/2013 to have proposals for the single controller project on the table, and Rob asked a few questions about this on today's TSC call. Now,

All, As you know today (05.14.2013) was the day on which I wanted to have the single controller code base issue resolved. What I had said is that if we couldn't get the projects to agree on a

BTW, it has been pointed out that I mis-attributed the IOCTL idea to Chris. That was my mistake. That said, the point I was making still holds, namely, that there exist some ideas (and there will be

Hello Everyone: To provide a clean change to the TSC meeting invitation as we move from 1 hour to 2 hour meetings, I will be canceling the original meeting, and then sending a new invitation for the

This event has been canceled and removed from your calendar. OpenDaylight TSC Meeting OpenDaylight Technical Steering Committee meeting. Please hold this time for the weekly OpenDaylight TSC

more details » OpenDaylight TSC Meeting Meeting URL: https://meetings.webex.com/collabs/meetings/join?uuid=MA3SRND964PIX06V2LS3SXX3RE-9VIB Access Information Meeting number: 194 548 370 Meeting

Dave (and other members of the community) - The folks that work here at BSN are here to make Daylight as successful as we can, but i) we owe transparency about our over-arching concern (that we

I'm going to put the new repository question (as outlined by Kyle Forester in an email of Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:04 AM) to a voice vote on the TSC call on Thursday. The options are: []

Kyle/all, <kyle.forster@...> wrote: In further considering the below, please find my comments in line. Please provide evidence to support these very serious accusations. IMO to begin with

David / all - I'd be happy to provide some stats on what a "tyranny of the majority committers" looks like from outside -- the asymmetric effort required to add interfaces to one project versus the

Hi David & All, Maybe I missed something but I had understood the idea to begin with a new repository was proposed by David when the DE proposal was drafted, Colin was of the opinion to start with

* Kyle Forster (kyle.forster@...) wrote: This is a community effort. The whole premise of Opendaylight is founded on that tenant. We have project lifecycle and charter language to protect

* David Meyer (dmm@...) wrote: I absolutely agree here. It is fundamental to the functioning of our community. That's right. The path forward for "DE plan in new repo" is a project proposal

* David Meyer (dmm@...) wrote: What would we do with the outcome of this? I think it's only informational.

Yes. This is why I sent the email outlining what the TSC charter allowed (there's a bit of a ordering problem here; see my next email). Briefly as I mentioned creation of a new project and/or

* Kyle Forster (kyle.forster@...) wrote: Indeed, that's the idea! ;) <snip "we've got a repo for that"> Just a formality, but it actually doesn't. This would require: - project

* David Meyer (dmm@...) wrote: Ah, got it...busy morning catching up w/ email ;)

I just want to publicly say that I am not in favor of the creation of a third repository to house the merged code. For those of you who have been reading this list, that won't be news, but I wanted to

I posted a question on the discuss list. However, I have a variant of the question for the TSC and would appreciate some clarification: What in our current/approved project lifecycle describes the

All, During the board call this afternoon I outlined the issues that we have been facing around repositories, projects and committer lists. After an hour of thoughtful and spirited discussion the