<html>
<head>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'><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<br>> get any official project around deployment because they were told they<br>> 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). </span></div><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></body>
</html>