)]}'
{"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":8556,"name":"Ghanshyam Maan","display_name":"Ghanshyam Maan","email":"gmaan.os14@gmail.com","username":"ghanshyam"},"change_message_id":"7bf96f3926f7b7d3c7cdf61cb597c3bb84ef2089","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"bf73172c_5abfe30d","updated":"2025-07-09 15:46:09.000000000","message":"I am -1 on this proposal until I hear the plan to maintain it in sdk for long term or my proposal to add sdk team or set of members in core list is ok.","commit_id":"050b84dd815895cf5dc2694b808fed5ee70a11f1"},{"author":{"_account_id":13252,"name":"Dr. Jens Harbott","display_name":"Jens Harbott (frickler)","email":"frickler@offenerstapel.de","username":"jrosenboom"},"change_message_id":"bf708774d413e12d45efc6e35ea6dfb7425359b1","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"0cdf6463_6f83c47d","updated":"2025-06-27 10:43:37.000000000","message":"I\u0027m not convinced that the SDK team is in a better position to handle this repo in terms of available reviewer resources. I also think that it is important to not only apply an SDK-centric view on this, but also involve developer and deployer perspectives.\n\nThat said, if there is a majority in favor of this proposal, I won\u0027t block it, but in that case the repo should be deleted from reference/technical-committee-repos.yaml at the same time.","commit_id":"050b84dd815895cf5dc2694b808fed5ee70a11f1"},{"author":{"_account_id":15334,"name":"Stephen Finucane","display_name":"stephenfin","email":"stephenfin@redhat.com","username":"sfinucan"},"change_message_id":"70f9d861ea2f9d68580e9fa94e8347239479230c","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"629503b0_c88baf2f","updated":"2025-07-09 17:06:01.000000000","message":"Seems we have a better path forward. My main concern was being able to keep things up to date. Adding SDK to this project achieves that.","commit_id":"050b84dd815895cf5dc2694b808fed5ee70a11f1"},{"author":{"_account_id":8556,"name":"Ghanshyam Maan","display_name":"Ghanshyam Maan","email":"gmaan.os14@gmail.com","username":"ghanshyam"},"change_message_id":"84ed08b0a83bab2b13fd13516d824ff2b5bbf5ce","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"e54e1e8e_ef35fdf4","in_reply_to":"0cdf6463_6f83c47d","updated":"2025-07-09 15:45:28.000000000","message":"I agree with frickler concern on long term sustability and if we add it in sdk there are more chances that it can come back to TC due to bandwidht constraints. \n\n@Dmitriy, True, I do not see TC as \u0027project addition and retirement\u0027 things, which was one of the key concerns raised by the community in the past[1], and we tried to be more *technical* and help the community wherever needed/can. I would say the best long-term goal should be for TC to gain knowledge about their repository and maintain it. If not, then what was the reason TC took those as one of the repo/deliverables they want to own?\n\nWhat we should do:\n-----------------\n\nWe should welcome more core reviewers in such TC repos even they are not TC. For this case, I will be happy to add sdk team (or set of members who are interested) in the core list along with TC. That way we can share the responsibily. Otherwise I share same concern as frickler until sdk team has a good plan to maintain it.\n\n[1] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-ptl-interaction","commit_id":"050b84dd815895cf5dc2694b808fed5ee70a11f1"},{"author":{"_account_id":28619,"name":"Dmitriy Rabotyagov","email":"noonedeadpunk@gmail.com","username":"noonedeadpunk"},"change_message_id":"13efcd31d347f60ba5806238ef045ce7b604b270","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"cf85f76d_1d55b307","in_reply_to":"0cdf6463_6f83c47d","updated":"2025-07-08 17:26:09.000000000","message":"I kinda agree here. I\u0027d say that TC should be having required knowledge and time to look after such repo, as it\u0027s indeed not SDK-specific, but more the way of ecosystem definition.\n\nGiven that TC is on top of project addition and retirement, it should be in line with already existing responsibilities and not add much extra burden.","commit_id":"050b84dd815895cf5dc2694b808fed5ee70a11f1"},{"author":{"_account_id":8556,"name":"Ghanshyam Maan","display_name":"Ghanshyam Maan","email":"gmaan.os14@gmail.com","username":"ghanshyam"},"change_message_id":"db426a4fba76a956118e1ae9666a656f7dffc461","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"912052de_53951764","in_reply_to":"629503b0_c88baf2f","updated":"2025-07-09 17:22:04.000000000","message":"As enxt step, I added it in the TC next meeting[1], basically to get agreement on adding sdk group or only interested members - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Agenda\n\nIMO, adding interested members is better, as not all sdk group members might be interested.\n\n[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Agenda","commit_id":"050b84dd815895cf5dc2694b808fed5ee70a11f1"},{"author":{"_account_id":15334,"name":"Stephen Finucane","display_name":"stephenfin","email":"stephenfin@redhat.com","username":"sfinucan"},"change_message_id":"70f9d861ea2f9d68580e9fa94e8347239479230c","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"d01364e2_b43dc30e","in_reply_to":"e54e1e8e_ef35fdf4","updated":"2025-07-09 17:06:01.000000000","message":"\u003e What we should do:\n\u003e -----------------\n\u003e \n\u003e We should welcome more core reviewers in such TC repos even they are not TC. For this case, I will be happy to add sdk team (or set of members who are interested) in the core list along with TC. That way we can share the responsibily. Otherwise I share same concern as frickler until sdk team has a good plan to maintain it.\n\nThis works for me.","commit_id":"050b84dd815895cf5dc2694b808fed5ee70a11f1"}]}