Open Stack

My draft response...

TC,

I understand the challenge of finding a consensus view!  I would ask that we take some time to document some of the alternate approaches that are being considered as a first step.  If one of those includes "DefCore approach is not workable" then let's get that on the table and then include options with a path forward using the DefCore approach.


1)      We distinctly left "designated sections" open at TC member's request.  We heard clearly that "plug-ins", "modules" and "API extensions" were too specific and choose to leave it open.  My understanding was that that 80% of the use-cases were pretty easy since much of the code is already modular.  I did not expect that the 20% become obvious without effort.


2)      Our target here is Havana, not Icehouse.  The idea is to get community feedback on releases where there is wider community deployment history.  That will allow us to adjust for Icehouse (+90) and then Juno (ideally at release!).



3)      I think it's reasonable to start with a more restrictive definition and then relax it.  That _could_ mean that 0% of the code is designated as replaceable; however, I think there is some low hanging fruit that has consensus support.


As you've said clearly, this is an ongoing iterative process that's focused on moving forward not boiling the ocean.  Let's write down the consensus items, declare a small victory and then move to the next issue.

Reminder: there's a DefCore meeting today at 3pm PDT.  I apologize for the late time, we had scheduling struggles and did not want to delay further.

Rob
______________________________
Rob Hirschfeld
Sr. Distinguished Cloud Solution Architect
Dell | Cloud Edge, Data Center Solutions
cell +1 512 909-7219 blog robhirschfeld.com, twitter @zehicle
Please note, I am based in the CENTRAL (-6) time zone

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/defcore-committee/attachments/20140304/28c675f6/attachment.html>