Open Stack

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefano Maffulli [mailto:stefano at openstack.org]
> Sent: 10 September 2014 19:29
> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Zaqar] Comments on the concerns arose during
> the TC meeting
> 
> On 09/05/2014 12:36 PM, Tim Bell wrote:
> > How can the average deployer know whether a stackforge is
> >
> > a.      An early prototype which has completed (such as some of the
> > early LBaaS packages)
> >
> > b.      A project which has lost its initial steam and further
> > investment is not foreseen
> >
> > c.      A reliable project where there has not been a significant need
> > to change recently but is a good long term bet
> 
> This pops up often and to me it looks like a software procurement issue,
> something that the 'buyer' needs to be able to sort out either with the help of
> their vendors (distributions or system integrators), or if they go DIY, with other
> instruments to check code quality, level of support by the community,
> professional support etc (there are a few EU funded researches and tools, like
> http://qualipso.icmc.usp.br/OMM/).
> 
> Why do you think any open source project should be in the business of providing
> such assurances? Isn't that a role more suitable for the commercial ecosystem?
>

There is an impression that open source software does not have procurement issues. Where we choose to invest manpower in testing, documentation,
bug reporting, scaling is as much as commitment as those who choose to buy software. CERN does not have resources on its own to keep a project alive. Combined with others, 
I'm OK to assist. 

If there is significant doubt, I will not invest at all, no additional function for my users and the overall community loses.

Tim

> /stef
> 
> --
> Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev