Open Stack

Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2014-09-23 21:38:37 -0700:
> 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
> 

That was written before we learned everything we've learned in the last
12 months. I think it is unfair to simply point to this and imply that
bending or even changing it is not open for discussion.

>  > 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.

Disdain is hardly the right word. Disdain implies we don't have any
respect at all for Murano. I cannot speak for others, but I do have
respect. I'm just not interested in Murano.

FWIW, I think what Steven Dake is saying is that he does not want to
end up in the same position Murano is in. I think that is unlikely,
as we're seeing many projects hitting the same wall, which is the cause
for discussing changing how we include or exclude projects.