OEP-37 Dev Data: Evaluate whether to carry this forward or not.

[sarina]

Several OEPs were authored aspirationally, and then never implemented. Other were partially implemented, but have stalled or diverged from reality.

In order to establish OEPs as a trustworthy source of documentation, we should mark OEPs that never came to be as "Replaced" or "Obsolete" (whichever or is more appropriate). We should amend OEPs that are still relevant but mismatched with reality.

OEP-37 is one of these, as called out in #573

[sarina]

@feanil or @kdmccormick do you have any opinions on this? I notice the OEP is specific to Devstack -- perhaps this should simply be obsoleted, and let TEPs cover dev data for Tutor?

[kdmccormick]

The OEP mentions devstack a few times, but the implementation is not devstack-specific. Those references could be removed or replaced with Tutor without significantly altering the OEP's content.

I think its current status ("Deferred") is appropriate, but I think it would be good if it that status was more obvious. For example, rather than being listed alongside the Provisional and Accepted Best Practice OEPs, maybe "Deferred" OEPs should get kicked down to the bottom section on the sidebar along with Obsolete and Replaced?

[sarina]

I see two options - it's not really Obsolete or Replaced so if we put in that section I don't think it'll ever get implemented. But, I see the point that "Deferred" could basically be read as "Obsolete".

Another could be to put Deferred in the title of the OEP itself so it would look like

I feel that's a bit clearer that we like the OEP, it's not specifically Obsolete, but its implementation hasn't been done yet.

[kdmccormick]

LGTM