Open Stack

On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 20:21 +1200, Robert Collins wrote:
> On 9 July 2013 20:12, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
> 
> > Robert Collins wrote:
> > > I thought I would get some input on a draft statement before submitting
> > > one for the TC to vote on.
> > >
> > > We're very focused on using OpenStack components in the delivery as much
> > > as possible - growing the capabilities of OpenStack rather than working
> > > around things; so I've captured that in the mission statement. While
> > > we're focused on trunk deploys today, I think that is more tactical than
> > > mission-level : we'd be totally happy to work with releases (as well)
> > > should interested people want to step up and help maintain stable
> > > branches of the tripleo heat templates etc.
> > >
> > > So - here is the draft:
> > >
> > > Official Title: OpenStack Deployment
> > > PTL: Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net
> > > <mailto:robertc at robertcollins.net>>
> > > Mission Statement:
> > >   Develop and maintain the tooling and infrastructure needed to
> > >   deploy OpenStack in production, using OpenStack itself wherever
> > >   possible.
> >
> > Looks good. Personally I'd probably not say "needed to deploy OpenStack
> > in production", which sounds a bit exclusive: I'm not sure we want to
> > bless one deployment method and exclude others... Maybe something like
> > "...tooling and infrastructure able to deploy OpenStack in production at
> > scale, reusing OpenStack itself..."
> 
> 
> 
> So tripleo scales down too, the same potential issue you raise with
> excluding other deployment methodologies applies if we say 'at scale', in
> reverse ;).
> 
> How about
> >   Develop and maintain tooling and infrastructure able to
> >   deploy OpenStack in production, using OpenStack itself wherever
> >   possible.
> 
> That is s/the// - removing the implication of a singleton, and
> s/needed/able/

Nice, I like it.

Cheers,
Mark.