Open Stack

On 09/23/2014 10:29 PM, Steven Dake wrote:
> There is a deployment program - tripleo is just one implementation.

Nope, that is not correct. Like it or not (I personally don't), Triple-O 
is *the* Deployment Program for OpenStack:

http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/programs.yaml#n284

Saying Triple-O is just one implementation of a deployment program is 
like saying Heat is just one implementation of an orchestration program. 
It isn't. It's *the* implemenation of an orchestration program that has 
been blessed by the TC:

http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/programs.yaml#n112

 > We
> went through this with Heat and various projects that want to extend
> heat (eg Murano) and one big mistake I think Murano folks made was not
> figuring out where there code would go prior to writing it.  I'm only
> making a statement as to where I think it should belong.

Sorry, I have to call you to task on this.

You think it was a mistake for the Murano folks to "not figure out where 
the code would go prior to writing it"? For the record, Murano existed 
nearly 2 years ago, as a response to various customer requests. Having 
the ability to properly deploy Windows applications like SQL Server and 
Active Directory into an OpenStack cloud was more important to the 
Murano developers than trying to predict what the whims of the OpenStack 
developer and governance model would be months or years down the road.

Tell me, did any of Heat's code exist prior to deciding to propose it 
for incubation? Saying that Murano developers should have thought about 
where their code would live is holding them to a higher standard than 
any of the other developer communities. Did folks working on 
disk-image-builder pre-validate with the TC or the mailing list that the 
dib code would "live in the triple-o program"? No, of course not. It was 
developed naturally and then placed into the program that fit it best.

Murano was developed naturally in exactly the same way, and the Murano 
developers have been nothing but accommodating to every request made of 
them by the TC (and those requests have been entirely different over the 
last 18 months, ranging from "split it out" to "just propose another 
program") and by the PTLs for projects that requested they split various 
parts of Murano out into existing programs.

The Murano developers have done no power grab, have deliberately tried 
to be as community-focused and amenable to all requests as possible, and 
yet they are treated with disdain by a number of folks in the core Heat 
developer community, including yourself, Clint and Zane. And honestly, I 
don't get it... all Murano is doing is generating Heat templates and 
trying to fill in some pieces that Heat isn't interested in doing. I 
don't see why there is so much animosity towards a project that has, to 
my knowledge, acted in precisely the ways that we've asked projects to 
act in the OpenStack community: with openness, transparency, and 
community good will.

Sorry to be so blunt, but this has been weighing on me.
-jay