From: David Meyer <dmm@...> Date: Thursday, May 2, 2013 2:51 PM To: "tsc@..." <tsc@...> Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] OpenDaylight TSC] project names Agree. The names should perhaps indicate their

That is the TSC with a proposed name from the project proposer, if you ask me. In principle, the TSC would keep the naming consistent. --Tom

* Benson Schliesser (bensons@...) wrote: The initial project proposal comes with a name of their choosing that must comply w/ our TBD guidelines (for example, not calling

Chris, >> I've been meaning to bring this up for some time now... >> >> I believe we should establish some guidelines on project names. >> The current bootstrap projects have named themselves in

Chris - This makes sense to me. One question about implementation: who/what is the naming authority for projects? Would the project proposal suggest their own name, or would the name be assigned to a

I've been meaning to bring this up for some time now... I believe we should establish some guidelines on project names. The current bootstrap projects have named themselves in ways that are not

I would be in favor of instituting wording to this effect. Thanks Chris for bringing this up.

I like the way this is handled in the OpenStack Technical Committee: Motions Before being put to a vote, motions presented before the TC should be discussed publicly on the development

See https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/TSC:Main for call information, agenda, and the like. Thnx, --dmm

Maybe make a "Core Architectural Principles" or similar after Hackfests (so it would be # 5). Then link your's off that? That way we have a place we can perhaps have discussions around this or other

Hi, Phil Robb is inviting you to this WebEx meeting:

Rob, we haven't closed on this yet but I have put it on the agenda for Thursday (which should be posted today (RSN)). --dmm

Did we settle on something here? If so, I didn't see it. My pref would be to extend our existing meeting rather than have another one, because we always loose time trying to make sure everyone is on

* Rob Sherwood (rob.sherwood@...) wrote: The problem we have right now is no clear path forward to a single core code base. As a consequence, we can't really even point would-be users or

It time frames are the problem, those can be adjusted. As I mentioned it is more important that we make progress in a timely fashion than the actual date of this or that (at least until we get to

Hi Dave, I definitely recognize that there is a lot of pressure (from press, developers, even from ourselves) to show that the daylight community can make progress and produce useful code, but I'm not

Happy to move to a more reasonable place… suggestions? Would it make sense to hang them off of: https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Main_Page before the 'OpenDaylight Project Documentation' section?

Thanks for pointing this out. For those who haven't taken a look at this page, it has some reasonable principles. Also agree with Colin that these are general principles, not project specific. --dmm

The list of desirable features which you're asking for are at least partially documented here: https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/OpenDaylight_Controller:Architectural_Principles Presumably we should

Yes, again an issue of degrees. Makes sense. BTW, it might not have come across in (b). but of course making progress is more important than any exact dates. That said I would like to resolve this