Open Stack

On 09/04/2014 04:59 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Sean Dague wrote:
>> [...]
>> So, honestly, I'll probably remain -1 on the final integration vote, not
>> because Zaqar is bad, but because I'm feeling more firmly that for
>> OpenStack to not leave the small deployers behind we need to redefine
>> the tightly integrated piece of OpenStack to basically the Layer 1 & 2
>> parts of my diagram, and consider the rest of the layers exciting parts
>> of our ecosystem that more advanced users may choose to deploy to meet
>> their needs. Smaller tent, big ecosystem, easier on ramp.
>>
>> I realize that largely means Zaqar would be caught up in a definition
>> discussion outside of it's control, and that's kind of unfortunate, as
>> Flavio and team have been doing a bang up job of late. But we need to
>> stop considering "integration" as the end game of all interesting
>> software in the OpenStack ecosystem, and I think it's better to have
>> that conversation sooner rather than later.
> 
> I think it's pretty clear at this point that:
> 
> (1) we need to have a discussion about layers (base nucleus, optional
> extra services at the very least) and the level of support we grant to
> each -- the current binary approach is not working very well
> 
> (2) If we accept Zaqar next week, it's pretty clear it would not fall in
> the base nucleus layer but more in an optional extra services layer,
> together with at the very least Trove and Sahara
> 
> There are two ways of doing this: follow Sean's approach and -1
> integration (and have zaqar apply to that "optional layer" when we
> create it), or +1 integration now (and have zaqar follow whichever other
> integrated projects we place in that layer when we create it).

As I mentioned in my reply to Sean's email, I believe +1 integration is
the correct thing to do. I know it's hard to believe that I'm saying
this with my OpenStack hat on and not Zaqar's but that's the truth.

I truly believe we can't stop OpenStack's growth on this. We'll manage
these growth details later on as we've done so far. Growing is as
important as managing the growth. Though, in this case we're not growing
without any clue of what will happen. We've a well known path that all
integrated projects have followed and, in this specific case, Zaqar is
following.

Re-evaluating projects is something that has happened - and should
happen - every once in a while. Once we have a place for this "optional"
services, we will have to re-evaluate all the integrated projects and
move those that fit into that category.

> 
> I'm still hesitating on the best approach. I think they yield the same
> end result, but the -1 approach seems to be a bit more unfair, since it
> would be purely for reasons we don't (yet) apply to currently-integrated
> projects...

+1

Cheers,
Flavio


-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco