Mohammed Naser wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 10:53 AM Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis@gmx.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> 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.
>
> I think that Sean here hit on the most critical point we need to
> drive. There's no amount of splitting that would resolve this.
I think a large part of the problem lies in the way we communicate about
OpenStack. In particular, it is difficult to find a webpage that talks
about ironic as a software component you might want to use.
Practical exercise: find ironic on openstack.org. The best path involves
two clicks and you only land on a component page[1] without much
explanations. Or you reach https://www.openstack.org/bare-metal/ which
is great, but more about the use case than the software. We are
collectively to blame for this. The data on that component page is
maintained by a repo[2] that I issued multiple calls for help for, and
yet there aren't many changes proposed to expand the information
presented there. And having a mix of a Foundation and a product website
coexist at openstack.org means the information is buried so deeply
someone born in this century would likely never find it.
I didn't even know about osf/openstack-map.. Either I'm living under a rock (possible) or there may be some improvements in the internal communication as well (not blaming anyone, we're all in it together).
I think we need to improve on that, but it takes time due to how search
engines work. I may sound like a broken record, but the solution in my
opinion is to have basic, component-specific websites for components
that can be run standalone. Think ironic.io (except .io domains are
horrible and it's already taken). A website that would solely be
dedicated to presenting Ironic, and would only mention OpenStack in the
fineprint, or as a possible integration. It would list Ironic releases
outside of openstack cycle context, and display Ironic docs without the
openstack branding.
That would go further to solve the issue than any governance change
IMHO. Thoughts?
I think I've said it already, but it's a great idea and should be done no matter how this discussion ends up.
Dmitry
[1] https://www.openstack.org/software/releases/train/components/ironic
[2] https://opendev.org/osf/openstack-map/
--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)