Open Stack

On 11/16/2013 02:52 AM, Monty Taylor wrote:
>
> On 11/15/2013 05:06 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Wow, lots of different opinions! let's try to summarize:
>>
>> Arguments in favor of splitting openstack-dev / stackforge-dev
>> * People can easily filter out all non-openstack discussions
>> * Traffic would drop by about 25%
>> * Removes confusion as to which projects are actually "in openstack"
>>
>> Arguments in favor of keeping it the same
>> * Provides a cross-pollination forum where external projects can learn
>> * More chaos creates more innovation
>>
>> Personally I was fine with having everyone in the same "burgeoning city"
>> (to quote the lyrical Clint) until we recently crossed the bar of making
>> that city painful for a lot of people. Especially the people who work on
>> serving the needs of all OpenStack projects (think release management,
>> doc, QA, infra) and who have to pay some level of attention to every thread.
>>
>> Yes, those people can filter out all stackforge discussions into a
>> separate folder: identify all the corresponding prefixes and setting
>> filters for them (and praying that they would all just use the right
>> suffixes). But rather than forcing everyone to go through that setup,
>> why not set up a list and make it more convenient for everyone to apply
>> different (or similar !) reading rules to the two different groups.
>>
>> Because they ARE two different groups. One is "OpenStack" and must get
>> the extra attention of all the people working on horizontal functions
>> (that is what incubation is about, carefully controlling access to extra
>> common resources). The other is "not yet OpenStack", free-for-all. The
>> latter group clearly benefits from being on the same list: they get
>> extra attention from all those smart OpenStack people, and their
>> marketing can benefit from the very blurry line between openstack and
>> not-yet-openstack we maintain on the list.
> I don't think this applies at the mailing list level. If someone wants
> attention from the infra team, for instance, I certainly hope they don't
> think they're going to get it by mentioning the need inside of a mailing
> list thread and hoping we'll see it.
>
> Mailing lists are for conversation and discussion. I see absolutely no
> reason to segregate some of those conversations as "real" and others as
> not. In fact, our original hard insistence that projects started off in
> the corner until they magically one day became openstack is what got us
> into the mess we've gone through originally with keystone (which needed
> a complete from-scratch rewrite) and now with neutron.
I wouldn't have believed it until I witnessed it myself but yes, Monty 
is absolutely correct in this regard. I will be changing my vote on 
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/56432/

Needing to see things for myself is why I am where I am, and while I am 
not comfortable where I am, it sure gives me a whole lot of information 
I didn't have before.
>   Both of those
> came about before we had more inclusive ways of projects growing themselves.
>
> tl;dr Separation has been tried before, and it simple does not work.
>
>> In summary, I certainly see the benefits of a single list for stackforge
>> developers (and why people working on a limited number of vertical
>> projects don't really mind either way...). But I fear that we maintain
>> those benefits at the expense of the sanity of the horizontal programs
>> in openstack, and therefore lower the quality of OpenStack as a result.
>>
>> PS: I don't think we can reach consensus on that one -- we might need to
>> push it to the TC to make a final call.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev