Open Stack

I find it interesting that I agree with all of notmyname's arguments for #4 (and generally he with my arguments for #2), and yet we came to opposite conclusions. I guess I just see the solution to the fuzziness of "necessary" as being the arbitrary-yet-decisive "recommended" rather than the alternative solution of everything else being simply excluded (not implying any malice, only that they're simply *not* part of OpenStack officially).

I do wholeheartedly endorse mtaylor's assertion that taking the IaaS-only route hurts users by leaving such a huge amount up to individual deployments. On the flip side, demanding that every core project be deployed in every case is a longshot and would probably hurt adoption. I certainly appreciate the sentiment either way. ;-)

Lastly, I still feel that option #1 provides too little guidance and only worsens the problems mtaylor and I have laid out, so I stand by option #2 (shocking, right?).

The proliferation of ideas here is awesome, though! Can't wait to see what other people have to say.

    - Gabriel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thierry at openstack.org]
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 1:43 AM
> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] The future of Incubation and Core
> 
> OK, let's try to summarize the different views so far:
> 
> 1. core+supported (russellb)
> Let Core be anything you want (required set, necessary set...), but have a
> Supported category for everything that is a positive addition to OpenStack.
> 
> 2. Product core (gabrielhurley)
> Do not have an intermediary category which could carry more duties than
> rights, but have an inclusive definition of Core that would include
> necessary/recommended projects.
> 
> 3. Required core (mtaylor)
> Same as "product core", + make all the core stuff a required use if you are to
> call yourself an "OpenStack cloud"
> 
> 4. IaaS core (notmyname)
> Do not have an intermediary category, and have Core only include pure IaaS
> projects.
> 
> I hope I summarized each correctly...
> 
> Personally I lean towards (1) or (2). I think (3) is an (important) trademark
> question (what do you need to use in order to call yourself "OpenStack
> cloud", "based on OpenStack", etc.) which would be better solved by the
> Board of Directors. So in my mind it's equivalent to (2).
> 
> I think (4) is too restrictive. Basically I consider Keystone a key OpenStack
> project. If it's not in your definition of "Core" then we need another category
> ("Supported", personally I prefer the word "Key" which doesn't sound as
> much 2nd-class) that is as important to cover for it, which means solution (1).
> 
> About solution (1), would the "Key" projects be under the same coordinated
> release system ? I personally think keystone and horizon need to be released
> at the same time as the others.
> 
> So in the end, I think solution (1) and (2) are essentially the same thing, and
> just a play on the words. You both want more projects under the openstack
> umbrella. Whether that umbrella is divided, for trademark reasons, between
> "Core" and "Key", or everything is considered "Core", is more a word
> definition than a technical issue. We would care the same.
> 
> The devil is in the details, of course: the wording around (1) encourages a lot
> of projects to join while (2) has a "recommended" feel to it that will make it a
> bit more exclusive.
> 
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> Chair, OpenStack Technical Committee
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev