Open Stack

Let me throw out a different possible definition of Core:


    OpenStack Core is a set of recommended components which work together to comprise a "batteries-included" OpenStack Cloud.


That definition does not imply that any component in Core is irreplaceable or that they all must be deployed, and it leaves room for the technical judgment of the TC and the Board to determine what projects benefit the entire community and project by being "recommended" at the expense of hindering ecosystem competition.

In case you couldn't tell, I'm not in favor of an IaaS-only Core... I don't want to see the voices of arguably *critical* non-IaaS projects (Horizon, Ceilometer, Heat, and even Keystone) be sidelined.

Speaking of Keystone, it's not infrastructure either. It doesn't compute, store or move data (not in the way John meant), but your stack is gonna suffer without it. It's *recommended*. You can run OpenStack with only Nova and Glance if you want to. Quantum, Swift and Cinder may be infrastructure but they're nice-to-haves. Swift isn't even enabled by default in DevStack. Defining what is *necessary* infrastructure (e.g. Core) is a complicated issue. The bar can't just be "IaaS".

    - Gabriel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Dickinson [mailto:me at not.mn]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 3:12 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] The future of Incubation and Core
> 
> 
> On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Gabriel Hurley <Gabriel.Hurley at nebula.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > We need to step back for a minute and question the supposition that a
> "non-core but blessed by OpenStack" category is benefical. I don't believe it
> is.
> >  <snip>
> > There should be Core, and then there should be a thriving community
> which is supported equally by the foundation. Nothing in between. We can't
> play favorites there.
> >
> > I also think we're placing too much weight on the value of CI infrastructure
> and release management. Projects have been doing that for themselves
> forever and there's lots of free (or nearly free) services for Open Source
> projects readily available.
> >
> > Ultimately making another category is just a way to dodge the hard issue of
> what is truly core. Whether core is Iaas or a viable cloud at all levels of the
> stack... that's the real debate here.
> >  <snip>
> > Long story short, I don't see value in creating another category; I think we
> need to fundamentally define Core, let things be in or out, and then devote
> the foundation's resources to supporting the *entire* ecosystem, not just a
> handful of projects.
> 
> 
> This is very well put, and I agree completely.
> 
> Is core for infrastructure projects only or should it include more of the full
> platform projects? I believe OpenStack Core should be defined by basic
> infrastructure projects. You can compute, store, and move data. Those are
> the things that should be represented as core projects.
> 
> --John
> 
>