Open Stack

On 08/25/2014 03:50 PM, Adam Lawson wrote:
> I recognize I'm joining the discussion late but I've been following the
> dialog fairly closely and want to offer my perspective FWIW. I have a
> lot going through my head, not sure how to get it all out there so I'll
> do a brain dump, get some feedback and apologize in advance.
>
> One the things I like most about Openstack is its incredible flexibility
> - a modular architecture where certain programs/capabilities can be
> leveraged for a specific install - or not, and ideally the rest of the
> feature suite remains functional irrespective of a program status. When
> it comes to a program being approved as part of Openstack Proper (pardon
> my stepping over that discussion), I think a LOT of what is being
> discussed here touches on what Openstack will ultimately be about and
> what it won't.
>
> With products like Cloudstack floating around consuming market share,
> all I see is Citrix. A product billed as open source but so closely
> aligned with one vendor that it almost doesn't matter. They have matured
> decision structure, UI polish and organized support but they don't have
> community. Not like us anyway. With Openstack the moral authority to
> call ourselves the champions of open cloud and with that, we have
> competing interests that make our products better. We don't have a
> single vendor (yet) that dictates whether something will happen or not.
> The maturity of the Openstack products themselves are driven by a
> community of consumers where the needs are accommodated rather than sold.
>
> A positive than comes with such a transparent design pipeline is the
> increased capability for design agility and accommodating changes when a
> change is needed. But I'm becoming increasingly disappointed at the
> mount of attention being given to whether one product is blessed by
> Openstack or not. In a modular design, these programs should be
> interchangeable with only a couple exceptions. Does being blessed really
> matter? The consensus I've garnered in this thread is the desperate need
> for the consuming community's continued involvement. What I
> /haven't/ heard much about is how Openstack can standardize how these
> programs - blessed or not - can interact with the rest of the suite to
> the extent they adhere to the correct inputs/outputs which makes them
> functional. Program status is irrelevant.
>
> I guess when it comes right down to it, I love what Openstack is and
> where we're going and I especially appreciate these discussions. But I'm
> disappointed at the number of concerns I've been reading about things
> that ultimately don't matter (like being blessed, about who has the
> power, etc) and I have concerns we lose sight what this is all about to
> the point that the vision for Openstack gets clouded.
>
> We have a good thing and no project can accommodate every request so a
> decision must be made as to what is 'included' and what is 'supported'.
> But with modularity, it really doesn't matter one iota if a program is
> blessed in the Openstack integrated release cycle or not.

Couldn't agree with you more, Adam. I believe if OpenStack is to succeed 
in the future, our community and our governance structure needs to 
embrace the tremendous growth in scope that OpenStack's success to-date 
has generated. The last thing we should do, IMO, is reverse course and 
act like a single-vendor product in order to "tame the wildlings".

Best,
-jay