Open Stack

On 22 Sep 2014, at 20:53, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com> wrote:

> 
> On Sep 19, 2014, at 6:29 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
> 
>> Monty Taylor wrote:
>>> I've recently been thinking a lot about Sean's Layers stuff. So I wrote
>>> a blog post which Jim Blair and Devananda were kind enough to help me edit.
>>> 
>>> http://inaugust.com/post/108
>> 
>> Hey Monty,
>> 
>> As you can imagine, I read that post with great attention. I generally
>> like the concept of a tightly integrated, limited-by-design layer #1
>> (I'd personally call it "Ring 0") and a large collection of "OpenStack"
>> things gravitating around it. That would at least solve the attraction
>> of the integrated release, suppress the need for incubation, foster
> 
> I’m not sure I see this change reducing the number of incubated projects unless we no longer incubate and graduate projects at all. Would everything just live on stackforge and have a quality designation instead of an “officialness” designation? Or would we have both? ATC status seems to imply we need some sort of officialness designation, as you mention below.
> 

The quality designation is really important for the operator community who are trying to work out what we can give to our end users.

Offering early helps to establish the real-life experience and give good feedback on the designs.  However, the operator then risks leaving their users orphaned if the project does not get a sustainable following or significant disruption if the APIs change.

The packaging teams are key here as well. When do Ubuntu and Red Hat work out the chain of pre-reqs etc. to produce installable packages, packstack/juju tool support ?

We do need to have some way to show that an layer #2 package is ready for prime time production and associated criteria (packages available, docs available, >1 company communities, models for HA and scale, …)

Tim