Open Stack

On 06/16/2015 08:16 PM, Georgy Okrokvertskhov wrote:
> In Murano project we do see a positive impact of BigTent model. Since
> Murano was accepted as a part of BigTent community we had a lot of
> conversations with potential users. They were driven exactly by the fact
> that Murano is now "officially" recognized in OpenStack community. It
> might be a wrong perception, but this is a perception they have.

+1, the same experience as we had with ironic-inspector (former 
ironic-discoverd)

> Most of the guys we met  are enterprises for whom catalog functionality
> is interesting. The problem with enterprises is that their thinking
> periods are often more than 6-9 months. They are not individuals who can
> start contributing over a night. They need some time to create proper
> org structure changes to organize development process. The benefits of
> that is more stable and predictable development over time as soon as
> they start contributing.
>
> Thanks
> Gosha
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com
> <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     You may also find my explanation about the Big Tent helpful in this
>     interview with Niki Acosta and Jeff Dickey:
>
>     http://blogs.cisco.com/cloud/ospod-29-jay-pipes
>
>     Best,
>     -jay
>
>
>     On 06/16/2015 06:09 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
>
>         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:
>
>         https://www.openstack.org/summit/vancouver-2015/summit-videos/presentation/the-big-tent-a-look-at-the-new-openstack-projects-governance
>
>
>
>         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.
>
>         Flavio
>
>
>             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://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>             http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>             --
>             gord
>
>
>             __________________________________________________________________________
>
>             OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>             Unsubscribe:
>             OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe <http://OpenStack-dev-request@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
>         <http://OpenStack-dev-request@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
>     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
>
> --
> Georgy Okrokvertskhov
> Architect,
> OpenStack Platform Products,
> Mirantis
> http://www.mirantis.com <http://www.mirantis.com/>
> Tel. +1 650 963 9828
> Mob. +1 650 996 3284
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>