Open Stack

Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2013-09-10 00:56:29 -0700:
> Robert Collins wrote:
> > Thierry, is it possible to change this to 'Deployment' rather than
> > TripleO in the summit tool? I think it would avoid folk interested in
> > Tuskar failing to find a place to submit their proposals, and as a
> > program we are multi-project - Tomas and I have just discussed this in
> > the tripleo meeting slot and think it would be a good idea.
> 
> Note that only official programs get time to the Design Summit,
> unofficial projects have to go to the unconference. That said, nothing
> prevents you from having one session from the TripleO track explore the
> possibilities of (and relationship with) Tuskar. You decide the content :)
> 
> We could even rename the track "Deployment" (which is your program name)
> but I fear that such a generic name would trigger dozens of off-topic
> suggestions: non-design discussions or having nothing to do with your
> program. Those would generate a lot of disappointment when you end up
> having to refuse them all...

I have to agree that the current TripleO set of work won't get discussed
as much if we open it up to all deployment. But to exclude all of the
other ideas about deployment from our discussions seems the wrong way
to go about growing this part of OpenStack.

One of the principles we've held most high in TripleO since I joined
the project has been to decouple everything that can be decoupled. So
while we are driving at a particular realistic deployment, we are not
excluding alternate courses. Diskimage-builder originally only worked on
Ubuntu, but we decoupled that, and now it has Fedora and RHEL. We are
currently working on accepting changes to allow qpid instead of rabbit
as well.  While we are working at an image update based solution using
the os-*-config tools, we would gladly welcome changes to enable a more
traditional approach to deployment using the other tools.

My point is this: The summit isn't just about us sitting around pushing
our vision.  We need to be open to the OpenStack Deployment tool chain
supporting other deployment models. So while I'm not sure calling it
"Deployment" will have a positive effect, I am also not sure that calling
it "TripleO" is the right answer either. Thoughts?