Open Stack

On 4/6/20 9:45 AM, Mohammed Naser wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> Thank you for raising this.  I think what you're looking for makes
> sense, I don't think splitting outside OpenStack is the right solution
> for this.  There are many logistical issues in doing this.
>
> First of all, it promotes even more bureaucracy within our community
> which is something that we're trying to split.   "Ironic" and
> "OpenStack" becoming two separate pieces means that we've failed as a
> community to be able to deliver what OpenStack is.  If we do this, we
> further promote the separation of our communities and that is not
> sustainable.  With a dwindling contributor base, we'll find power in
> standing together in big groups, not by isolating ourselves to small
> islands.
>
> Arguably, you would say that "well, Ironic is picking up outside
> OpenStack and we want to capitalize on that".  I agree with you on
> that, I think we should absolutely do that.  However, I think simply
> just becoming a top-level project is not the way to go about this.  It
> will introduce a lot more work to our (already overwhelmed) OSF staff,
> it means maintaining a new identity, it means applying to be a pilot
> project and going through the whole process.  It means that all
> existing developer may need to have to revise the way they do work
> because they have signed the CCLA for OpenStack and not "Ironic".
> We're adding a whole lot of bureaucray when the problem is messaging.
>
> I've gone over your points below about what you think this will do and
> strongly suggest those alternatives.
>
> Regards,
> Mohammed

Cinder has been useful stand alone for several years now, but I have
also seen the reaction of "why would I use that, I don't need all of
that OpenStack stuff".

I wonder if we need to do something better to highlight and message that
there are certain components of OpenStack that are useful as independent
components that can exist on their own.

Sean