<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 08/21/2014 02:39 PM, gordon chung
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:BAY168-W77CA1B61A25C5475CB112EDED30@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>> The point I've been making is <br>
> that by the TC continuing to bless only the Ceilometer
project as the <br>
> OpenStack Way of Metering, I think we do a disservice
to our users by <br>
> picking a winner in a space that is clearly still
unsettled.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
can we avoid using the word 'blessed' -- it's extremely vague
and seems controversial. <span style="font-size: 12pt;">from
what i know, </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">no one is
being told project x's services are the be all end all and
based on experience, companies (should) know this. i've
worked with other alternatives even though i contribute to
ceilometer.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<pre style="line-height: 21.299999237060547px; white-space: normal; color: rgb(68, 68, 68); font-size: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">> Totally agree with Jay here, I know people who gave up on trying to
> get any official project around deployment because they were told they
> had to do it under the TripleO umbrella</pre>
<div>from the pov of a project that seems to be brought up
constantly and maybe it's my naivety,<span style="font-size:
12pt;"> i don't really understand the fascination with
branding and the stigma people have placed on
non-'openstack'/stackforge projects. it can't be a legal
thing because i've gone through that potential mess. also,
it's just as easy to contribute to 'non-openstack'
projects as 'openstack' projects (even easier if we're
honest). <br>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, we should be honest. The "even easier" part is what Sandy cited
as the primary motivation for pursuing stacktach instead of
ceilometer.<br>
<br>
I think we need to consider the difference between why OpenStack
wants to bless a project, and why a project might want to be blessed
by OpenStack. Many folks believe that for OpenStack to be successful
it needs to present itself as a stack that can be tested and
deployed, not a sack of parts that only the most extremely clever
people can manage to assemble into an actual cloud. In order to have
such a stack, some code (or, alternatively, dare I say API...) needs
to be blessed. Reasonable debates will continue about which pieces
are essential to this stack, and which should be left to deployers,
but metering was seen as such a component and therefore something
needed to be blessed. The hope was that every one would jump on that
and make it great but it seems that didn't quite happen (at least
yet). <br>
<br>
Though Open Source has many advantages over proprietary development,
the ability to choose a direction and marshal resources for
efficient delivery is the biggest advantage of proprietary
development like what AWS does. The TC process of blessing is, IMO,
an attempt to compensate for that in an OpenSource project. Of
course if the wrong code is blessed, the negative impact can be
significant. Blessing APIs would be more forgiving, though with its
own perils. I am reminded of this session, in which Jay was
involved, at my first OpenStack summit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://essexdesignsummit.sched.org/event/66f38d3bb4a1b8b169b81179e7f03215#.U_ZLI3Wx02Q">http://essexdesignsummit.sched.org/event/66f38d3bb4a1b8b169b81179e7f03215#.U_ZLI3Wx02Q</a><br>
<br>
As for why projects have a desire to be blessed, I suspect in many
cases it is because the OpenStack brand will attract contributors to
their project.<br>
<br>
-David<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:BAY168-W77CA1B61A25C5475CB112EDED30@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt;">in my mind,</span><span
style="font-size: 12pt;"> the goal of the programs is to
encourage collaboration from projects with the same focus
(whether they overlap or not). that way, even if there's
differences in goal/implementation, there's a common space
between them so users can easily decide. also, hopefully
with the collaboration, it'll help teams realise that
certain problems have already been solved and certain
parts of code can be shared rather than having project x,
y, and z all working in segregated streams, racing as fast
as they can to claim supremacy (how you'd decide is
another mess) and then n number of months/years later we
decide to throw away (tens/hundreds) of thousands of
person hours of work because we just created massive
projects that overlap.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt;">suggestion: maybe it's
better to drop the branding codenames and just refer to
everything as their generic feature? ie. identity,
telemetry, orchestration, etc...</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><font face="Calibri">cheers,<br>
<i>gord</i></font></div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>