[openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

Jay Pipes jaypipes at gmail.com
Wed Aug 20 19:37:47 UTC 2014

On 08/20/2014 11:41 AM, Zane Bitter wrote:
> On 19/08/14 10:37, Jay Pipes wrote:
>> By graduating an incubated project into the integrated release, the
>> Technical Committee is blessing the project as "the OpenStack way" to do
>> some thing. If there are projects that are developed *in the OpenStack
>> ecosystem* that are actively being developed to serve the purpose that
>> an integrated project serves, then I think it is the responsibility of
>> the Technical Committee to take another look at the integrated project
>> and answer the following questions definitively:
>>   a) Is the Thing that the project addresses something that the
>> Technical Committee believes the OpenStack ecosystem benefits from by
>> the TC making a judgement on what is "the "OpenStack way" of addressing
>> that Thing.
>> and IFF the decision of the TC on a) is YES, then:
>>   b) Is the Vision and Implementation of the currently integrated
>> project the one that the Technical Committee wishes to continue to
>> "bless" as the "the OpenStack way" of addressing the Thing the project
>> does.
> I disagree with part (b); projects are not code - projects, like Soylent
> Green, are people.

Hey! Don't steal my slide content! :P

http://bit.ly/navigating-openstack-community (slide 3)

 > So it's not critical that the implementation is the
> one the TC wants to bless, what's critical is that the right people are
> involved to get to an implementation that the TC would be comfortable
> blessing over time. For example, everyone agrees that Ceilometer has
> room for improvement, but any implication that the Ceilometer is not
> interested in or driving towards those improvements (because of NIH or
> whatever) is, as has been pointed out, grossly unfair to the Ceilometer
> team.

I certainly have not made such an implication about Ceilometer. What I 
see in the Ceilometer space, though, is that there are clearly a number 
of *active* communities of OpenStack engineers developing code that 
crosses similar problem spaces. I think the TC blessing one of those 
communities before the "market" has had a chance to do a bit more 
natural filtering of quality is a barrier to innovation. I think having 
all of those separate teams able to contribute code to an openstack/ 
code namespace and naturally work to resolve differences and merge 
innovation is a better fit for a meritocracy.

> I think the rest of your plan is a way of recognising this
> appropriately, that the current implementation is actually not the
> be-all and end-all of how the TC should view a project.

Yes, quite well said.


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list