Open Stack

On 08/21/2014 07:58 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2014, Sean Dague wrote:
>
>> By blessing one team what we're saying is all the good ideas pool for
>> tackling this hard problem can only come from that one team.
>
> This is a big part of this conversation that really confuses me. Who is
> that "one team"?
>
> I don't think it is that team that is being blessed, it is that
> project space. That project space ought, if possible, have a team
> made up of anyone who is interested. Within that umbrella both
> the competition and cooperation that everyone wants can happen.
>
> You're quite right Sean, there is a lot of gravity that comes from
> needing to support and slowly migrate the existing APIs. That takes
> up quite a lot of resources. It doesn't mean, however, that other
> resources can't work on substantial improvements in cooperation with
> the rest of the project. Gnocchi and the entire "V3" concept in
> ceilometer are a good example of this. Some folk are working on that
> and some folk are working on maintaining and improving the old
> stuff.
>
> Some participants in this thread seem to be saying "give some else a
> chance". Surely nobody needs to be given the chance, they just need
> to join the project and make some contributions? That is how this is
> supposed to work isn't it?

Specifically for Ceilometer, many of the folks working on alternate 
implementations have contributed or are actively contributing to 
Ceilometer. Some have stopped contributing because of fundamental 
disagreements about the appropriateness of the Ceilometer architecture. 
Others have begun working on Gnocchi to address design issues, and 
others have joined efforts on Monasca, and others have continued work on 
Stacktach. Eoghan has done an admirable job of informing the TC about 
goings on in the Ceilometer community and being forthright about the 
efforts around Gnocchi. And there isn't any perceived animosity between 
the aforementioned contributor subteams. The point I've been making is 
that by the TC continuing to bless only the Ceilometer project as the 
OpenStack Way of Metering, I think we do a disservice to our users by 
picking a winner in a space that is clearly still unsettled.

Specifically for Triple-O, by making the Deployment program == Triple-O, 
the TC has picked the disk-image-based deployment of an undercloud 
design as The OpenStack Way of Deployment. And as I've said previously 
in this thread, I believe that the deployment space is similarly 
unsettled, and that it would be more appropriate to let the Chef 
cookbooks and Puppet modules currently sitting in the stackforge/ code 
namespace live in the openstack/ code namespace.

I recommended getting rid of the formal Program concept because I didn't 
think it was serving any purpose other than solidifying existing power 
centers and was inhibiting innovation by sending the signal of "blessed 
teams/projects", instead of sending a signal of inclusion.

Best,
-jay