[openstack-dev] [cinder] Proposal for Ollie Leahy to join cinder-core

Avishay Traeger AVISHAY at il.ibm.com
Wed Jul 17 19:44:54 UTC 2013

Dan Smith <dms at danplanet.com> wrote on 07/17/2013 09:40:02 PM:
> > The affiliation of core team members should not come into a decision
> > like this.
> >
> > It is assumed that all core team members are wearing their "upstream
> > hat" and aren't there merely to represent their employers interests.
> Mark beat me to it, but.. Yeah, what he said. Core members aren't
> investments the likes of which get you voting shares and they
> shouldn't enforced as such, IMHO.

I agree, and didn't mean to imply that there would be a conscientious
effort to move the project in a certain way, or that people would be
purposefully voting for the good of their employers.  Of course, voting
should be based on what the individual believes would be best for the
project as a whole, for all its users.  However, a person's view of the
project's direction is certainly influenced by the customers they meet, the
use cases they encounter, and so on.  Those employed by the same company
generally will have similar views.  It's not because of "voting shares", or
because of people representing their employers' interests rather than the
project's.  It's because those who come from similar backgrounds will tend
to have similar views of what is good for the project, and a diverse
population will tend to have a broader picture of the users' needs.  I
think the current Cinder core members provide a nice balance of views and
backgrounds - people who understand the needs of public clouds as well as
private clouds, those who interact with customers who are coming from
certain deployment models such as Fibre Channel, those who deal with
customers that are iSCSI-only operations, those that want NAS appliances,
and those who want to go with server-based storage.

I believe that diversity of ideas and backgrounds yields the best results,
and that's why I voted with -1.  If I were representing my employer's
interests, I would go with +1, because HP has been pushing for more FC
support, which is good for IBM.  But I personally have invested many many
hours in Cinder, and I want it to succeed everywhere.  That's why I review
5,000 LOC patches from IBM's competitors with as much care as I do when
reviewing my own code, and even fix bugs in their drivers.  That's why I
listen to every feature request and vote as objectively as I can, even if
I've never encountered the use case for it myself.  I want Cinder to
succeed for every user and for every vendor, and I think that leadership
with as wide a view as possible is important to that success.


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list