Open Stack

On 08/08/2014 12:12 AM, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
> On 08/07/2014 01:41 PM, Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>> My point was simply that we don't have direct control over the
>> contributors' activities
> 
> This is not correct and I've seen it repeated too often to let it go
> uncorrected: we (the OpenStack project as a whole) have a lot of control
> over contributors to OpenStack. There is a Technical Committee and a
> Board of Directors, corporate members and sponsors... all of these can
> do a lot to make things happen. For example, the Platinum members of the
> Foundation are required at the moment to have at least 'two full time
> equivalents' and I don't see why the board couldn't change that
> requirement, make it more specific.
> 

Even if this were true (I don't know if it is or not), I have a hard
time imagining that any such attempt would be effective enough to solve
the current problems.

I think that OSS software wins in places it does mostly because it *does
not* get managed like a corporate software project. Trying to fit any
classical PM methodology on top of a (very active mind you) OSS project
will likely fail IMHO, due to not only lack of control over contributors
time, but widely different incentives of participating parties.

N.

> OpenStack is not an amateurish project done by volunteers in their free
> time.  We have lots of leverage we can apply to get things done.
> 
> /stef
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>