Open Stack

Well hello again!

As always, inline below:

On 21/02/2019 11:13, Chris Dent wrote:
>
> This is another set of questions for TC candidates, to look at a
> different side of things from my first one [1] and somewhat related
> to the one Doug has asked [2].
>
> As Doug mentions, a continuing role of the TC is to evaluate
> applicants to be official projects. These questions are about that.
>
> There are 63 teams in the official list of projects. How do you feel
> about this size? Too big, too small, just right? Why?

I think it's safe for me to say that isn't a single person in our entire 
community
that could honestly say they know what all those 63 projects are and how
they function. We are all specialists in our own right and that's how 
our community
works together.

I do not believe it is my place to determine via a standalone number
if our project list is too big, too small, or just right. I could very 
easily say
that we only require "the main 5 projects" for OpenStack to work, but part
of the beauty of OpenStack as an open source product is we allow freedom of
development (within technical guidelines, as discussed) and that is one 
of the things
that draws developments and their projects to integrate and grow with 
OpenStack.

That also being said, there has been duplication of efforts in certain 
areas. Projects
that are eerily similar, yet not working together. I think these are 
areas that we could
potentially be reviewing, in the sense of encouraging teams to 
collaborate more.

> If you had to make a single declaration about growth in the number
> of projects would you prefer to see (and why, of course):
>
> * More projects as required by demand.
> * Slower or no growth to focus on what we've got.
> * Trim the number of projects to "get back to our roots".
> * Something else.
My answer is: Something else (ha, what a surprise).

I think all those options are applicable. If there is room and movement for
growth, we should be encouraging of that. If there is a slow down, we should
not be pushing the community to grow when it clearly is stablising. I 
believe
we should always be looking at ways to trim - if you do not cut back, 
there is
no room for improvement. If a stable, yet unattended project is left to 
expire on
its own does not open up for new change and new ownership. We've seen this
happen before.


> How has the relatively recent emergence of the open infrastructure
> projects that are at the same "level" in the Foundation as OpenStack
> changed your thoughts on the above questions?

The OIP has mostly changed the way I think about your questions in
the sense that it isn't just "us" anymore. And we need to be looking more
towards future development. We needn't have such a focus on OpenStack
projects alone but where the revised community is going and how we're
going to get there. As I said in my email to Doug: Don't fix what's 
broken, let's
move forward and focus on that.
>
> Do you think the number of projects has any impact (positive or
> negative) on our overall ability to get things done?

I'd be lying if I didn't say: Sometimes. I think ensuring you are 
considering the needs
and wants of 63 projects is an enormous task. And often that means what 
could be
a cut and dry is not because you need to ensure you're considering every 
angle.

But, this isn't necessarily a bad thing.
>
> Recognizing that there are many types of contributors, not just
> developers, this question is about developers: Throughout history
> different members of the community have sometimes identified as an
> "OpenStack developer", sometimes as a project developer (e.g., "Nova
> developer"). Should we encourage contributors to think of themselves
> as primarily OpenStack developers? If so, how do we do that? If not,
> why not?

To reiterate my first answer to your question: There is not one person 
who understands
the intimidate details of every OpenStack project. While I encourage 
anyone to
identify as an OpenStack developer, I can see why someone would
prefer to refer to themselves as a Nova developer on the OpenStack 
product. Being
an OpenStack developer can often imply that you know everything about 
the entire
ecosystem - which I believe many to have very in-depth knowledge on 
several projects,
but not the entire product.

That being said, there are those that are core contributors on several 
projects and
identifying as an OpenStack developer is an easier course than saying 
they are core
developers on Keystone, Glance, Cinder and the Potato project (so be it).

While you address this question to developers and recognise that there 
are many different
types of contributors, I think documentation sits in a weird loop hole 
here. We are often
considered developers because we follow developmental workflows, and 
integrate with the
projects directly. Some of us are more technical than others and 
contribute to both the
code base and to the physical documentation. Risking a straw man here: 
How would you
define the technical writers that work for OpenStack? We too are often 
considered "OpenStack"
writers and experts, yet as I say, we are not experts on every project.

> Thanks.
>
> [1] 
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-February/002914.html
> [2] 
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-February/002923.html


Looking forward to your response to my question :)