Open Stack

> A project gets accepted into Incubation partly based on the
> fact that the TC has a reasonable level of trust in the
> judgement of the project leaders. I'd hate to see the TC get
> into mandating the detailed technical direction of an
> incubating project.

That's fair.

> The way I'd personally like to see Ceilometer approach
> incubation is to focus completely on metering, "knock the ball
> out of the park" and be a kick-ass metering solution when
> Grizzly is released.

Point taken, but we're cognizant of more pressing requirements
for a user-oriented monitoring solution (e.g. from the Heat
project).

> I worry that if the scope expands, you might get to Grizzly
> release time and still have a bunch of loose ends. I mention it
> in this Nova integration thread because it looks like a good
> example. IMHO, if Ceilometer was focused (for now) purely on
> metering then this thread would have been shorter and the
> solution might already be in place.

A counterpoint would be that focusing our ceilo/nova interaction
model on the needs of metering alone for this release cycle may
leave us in the position of having to tear it all up again in the
H* cycle to accommodate more stringent timeliness requirements.
So at the very least, we'll have to weigh future requirements in
the balance.

> So, it's not about TC mandates. It's about TC folks giving their best
> advice on the trade-offs you guys are facing. It's for you to make
> the decision on those trade-offs.

That's fair.

> That's not to say monitoring isn't important, or that there
> isn't a whole lot of benefit to monitoring an metering folks
> working together, or that no-one should be working on
> monitoring right now, or that Nova doesn't need to support
> monitoring requirements, or ... just let's not allow monitoring
> slow down progress on metering.

Point taken, we'll discuss further at the metering weekly IRC
meeting.

Cheers,
Eoghan