Open Stack

Excerpts from Michael Krotscheck's message of 2016-06-20 15:26:20 +0000:
> I like the idea in principle, but am bullish on the implementation.
> 

As you should be, and we all must be. It's not going to happen if we
just dream it. That's kind of the point. Let's write down a design _for
the group that writes down designs_.

> For example: we have the API-WG which fulfills part of an Architectural
> mission, as well as the Cross-Project WG which fulfills a different part.
> Yet there's no incentive, carrot or stick, that drives adoption of the
> approved specs, other than "Well if you want to do the work, have fun". In
> several cases, I've run into the excuses of "That's Hard/That breaks
> backwards compatibility/That's not profitable/I'm not paid to do that".
> 

If we write a bunch of specs which are too much of a burden to implement,
we're doing it wrong. The idea isn't to rip everything out.  It's to
acknowledge where there is a complete lack of design, write one that
is practical, and organize work to get it done.

> What's going to prevent [Insert Project Here] from coming along and saying
> "Oh, well, we don't like those decisions, so are going to ignore them."
> What provides the incentive for a project to adopt these recommendations?
> 

Absolutely nothing will prevent that, and I don't think putting any kind
of hard requirements for following this group's designs would be
productive until it has proven that it can actually improve OpenStack.
Perhaps if we do succeed in designing parts of the system, and some
teams find that useful, we can look at adding some of the parts of the
design to our more stringent requirements (like "use python or C"). But
that's not something I'd seek from day 1. That's just a recipe for
revolt.