On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 09:45:38PM -0300, Rafael Weingärtner wrote:
Having said that, what puzzled me, and worried us, is the fact that features that work are being removed from a project just because some contributors/committers left the community. There wasn't (at least I did not see) a good technical reason to remove this feature (e.g. it does not
If I remember correctly, it was the other way around. The idea was to make things cleaner: ceilometer to just gather data and to send it along, gnocchi for storage, panko for events, etc.
deliver what is promised, or an alternative solution has been created somewhere and effort is being concentrated there, nobody uses it, and so on). If the features were broken, and there were no people to fix it, I would understand, but that is not the case. The feature works, and it delivers what is promised. Moreover, reading the blog you referenced does not provide a good feeling about how the community has managed the event (the project losing part of its contributors) in question. OpenSource has cycles, and it is understandable that sometimes we do not have many people working on something. OpenSource projects have cycles, and that is normal. As you can see, now there would be us starting/trying to engage with the Telemetry project/community. What is hard for us to understand is that the contributors while leaving are also "killing" the project by removing part of its features (that are very interesting and valuable for us).
So, let's take your understanding what/how OpenSource works aside, please. I am sure, nobody is trying to kill their baby when leaving a project.
Why is that important for us? When we work with OpenSource we now that we might need to put effort to customize/adapt things to our business workflow, and we expect that the community will be there to receive and discuss these changes. Therefore, we have predictability that the software/system we base our business will be there, and we can contribute back to improve it. An open source community could and should live even if the project has no community for a while, then if people regroup and start to work on it again, the community is able to flourish.
Right. We're at the point "after no community", and it is up to the community to start something new, taking over the corresponding code (if they choose to do so). Matthias -- Matthias Runge <mrunge@matthias-runge.de>