<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 10/14/2011 04:52 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAAE6tVaH6kK1pdjxiLSSTy=nD_EaAXooLvj8YS52mnTERhe0Zg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Bryan Taylor <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:btaylor@rackspace.com"><btaylor@rackspace.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I don't know, but there are several obvious next steps:
- Document publicly the criteria for a project to fit
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Not really sure there needs to be criteria, really...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<small>If it uses the trademarked word "OpenStack" it should has to
have some criteria. We should obviously pitch a wide tent, but if
that tent doesn't have an inside and and outside, there's no
reason to pitch it. I'd see the criteria as something like: works
with openstack or actively working towards it, open source,
unencumbered by patents or other nonsense.</small><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAAE6tVaH6kK1pdjxiLSSTy=nD_EaAXooLvj8YS52mnTERhe0Zg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> - Identify resources available to participating projects
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
What do you mean here? Are you referring to resources in the sense of
online source control and bug tracking, etc?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<small>Those are reasonable examples. The SourceForge stuff comes to
mind. Maybe a mailing list or wiki. Maybe somebody would donate a
slice of a cloud environment to test against, etc... . </small><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAAE6tVaH6kK1pdjxiLSSTy=nD_EaAXooLvj8YS52mnTERhe0Zg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> - Formalize it with the PPB and unleash it
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
There is no reason to have the PPB involved in this, IMHO...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<small>Well, use of the trademark should be blessed. I do think some
structure will arise naturally as these projects come together.
It's should be more than just a random collection of stuff. I
think the analogy to a linux distro is a good one: the core
represents the packages that always get installed, the satellite
represents stuff that builds on the core and on each other.
Somebody is going to be finding the paths in the grass and paving
them and putting the OpenStack word on them. <br>
</small>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAAE6tVaH6kK1pdjxiLSSTy=nD_EaAXooLvj8YS52mnTERhe0Zg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> - Build the Satellite community
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
The community will grow as projects are added to the Satellite
directory and the contributors to those projects make a big deal about
directing people to the Satellite site. I think trying to force the
growth of a community specifically around Satellite is a mistake. The
OpenStack ecosystem IS the community, and attempting to create a
separate community just around Satellite projects would unnecessarily
divide the overall community...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<small>Yes, of course. The way to grow the community is to
contribute useful stuff and start talking. That's all.</small><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAAE6tVaH6kK1pdjxiLSSTy=nD_EaAXooLvj8YS52mnTERhe0Zg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">A big question we didn't discuss is what the governance model for Satellite
should be. I don't necessarily think that a contributor to Satellite should
be treated the same as a core contributor (eg: vote on the PTLs etc). But
there may be building blocks within Satellite that need to be governed on
their own.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I would advise NOT having any particular governance model for
Satellite projects. The projects themselves should self-govern by the
cultural norms of the programming language communities that are
relevant to the project; since Satellite projects can be anything
related to OpenStack -- just not the core reference implementations of
the OpenStack APIs -- there really shouldn't be a governance model
that attempts to control or limit this ecosystem. At least, that's
just my opinion! :)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<small>I think there will be some power in having satellite projects
build on each other and have some minimal coherence across
projects. This should probably arise out of the community that
shows up rather than be designed up front. I just think it's
important to recognize that people who contribute to openstack via
satellite may want a way to distill some order out of the chaos
when the community thinks it beneficial. <br>
</small>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAAE6tVaH6kK1pdjxiLSSTy=nD_EaAXooLvj8YS52mnTERhe0Zg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I think some of the standards around APIs that cut across services are
things that Satellite contributors should have a say in. I definitely think
things like QA and CI matter a lot (perhaps more) to Satellite.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Sure, absolutely QA and CI matter a lot to anyone that is developing
alternate implementations of OpenStack APIs (i.e. non-core
implementations) or is developing an application that consumes the
APIs. I would expect that developers of Satellite projects that depend
on stable OpenStack APIs definitely voice their needs and concerns on
the main openstack mailing list. (hint, hint!)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<small>Agreed.</small><br>
<br>
</body>
</html>