[openstack-dev] stackforge projects are not second class citizens

Flavio Percoco flavio at redhat.com
Tue Jun 16 10:09:26 UTC 2015

On 16/06/15 04:39 -0400, gordon chung wrote:
>i won't speak to whether this confirms/refutes the usefulness of the big tent.
>that said, probably as a by-product of being in non-stop meetings with sales/
>marketing/managers for last few days, i think there needs to be better
>definitions (or better publicised definitions) of what the goals of the big
>tent are. from my experience, they've heard of the big tent and they are, to
>varying degrees, critical of it. one common point is that they see it as
>greater fragmentation to a process that is already too slow.

Not saying this is the final answer to all the questions but at least
it's a good place to start from:


That said, this is great feedback and we may indeed need to do a
better job to explain the big tent. That presentation, I believe, was
an attempt to do so.


>just giving my fly-on-the-wall view from the other side.
>On 15/06/2015 6:20 AM, Joe Gordon wrote:
>    One of the stated problems the 'big tent' is supposed to solve is:
>    'The binary nature of the integrated release results in projects outside
>    the integrated release failing to get the recognition they deserve.
>    "Non-official" projects are second- or third-class citizens which can't get
>    development resources. Alternative solutions can't emerge in the shadow of
>    the blessed approach. Becoming part of the integrated release, which was
>    originally designed to be a technical decision, quickly became a
>    life-or-death question for new projects, and a political/community
>    minefield.' [0]
>    Meaning projects should see an uptick in development once they drop their
>    second-class citizenship and join OpenStack. Now that we have been living
>    in the world of the big tent for several months now, we can see if this
>    claim is true.
>    Below is a list of the first few few projects to join OpenStack after the
>    big tent, All of which have now been part of OpenStack for at least two
>    months.[1]
>    * Mangum -  Tue Mar 24 20:17:36 2015
>    * Murano - Tue Mar 24 20:48:25 2015
>    * Congress - Tue Mar 31 20:24:04 2015
>    * Rally - Tue Apr 7 21:25:53 2015 
>    When looking at stackalytics [2] for each project, we don't see any
>    noticeably change in number of reviews, contributors, or number of commits
>    from before and after each project joined OpenStack.
>    So what does this mean? At least in the short term moving from Stackforge
>    to OpenStack does not result in an increase in development resources (too
>    early to know about the long term).  One of the three reasons for the big
>    tent appears to be unfounded, but the other two reasons hold.  The only
>    thing I think this information changes is what peoples expectations should
>    be when applying to join OpenStack.
>    [0] https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/resolutions/
>    20141202-project-structure-reform-spec.rst
>    [1] Ignoring OpenStackClent since the repos were always in OpenStack it
>    just didn't have a formal home in the governance repo.
>    [2] h http://stackalytics.com/?module=magnum-group&metric=commits
>    __________________________________________________________________________
>    OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>    Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>    http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150616/a5e34942/attachment.pgp>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list