Open Stack

Excerpts from Jesse Cook's message of 2016-06-20 16:58:48 +0000:
> +1
> 
> The points about the PWG and TC are worth some consideration.
> 
> From my perspective, I think it would make sense for the PWG to define the
> expected behaviors of the system, which would be an input to the
> architecture group. The architecture group would define both prescriptive
> (where we'd like to be) and descriptive (where we actually are...roughly)
> architectures. This would provide both the vision for the future state and
> understanding of current state that is necessary for us to all swim in the
> same general direction instead of constantly running into each other. I
> don't see the architecture as something you push down, but rather something
> that helps each contributor ask, "Does that get us closer to where we are
> trying to go?" I absolutely think this is something that would provide a
> huge benefit to the organization.
> 

That sounds about right Jesse. Thanks for bringing up the PWG. I
definitely don't think an Architecture WG would want to answer "what
is OpenStack" alone. More like "What should the OpenStack we described
actually look like?".