Open Stack

On 09/24/2014 09:41 AM, James Slagle wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:
>> There are zero programs in the OpenStack governance repository that have
>> competing implementations for the same thing.
>>
>> Like it or not, the TC process of blessing these "teams" has effectively
>> blessed a single implementation of something.
>
> And it looks to me like what's being proposed here is that there is a
> group of folks who intend to work on Knoll, and they are indicating
> that they plan to participate and would like to be a part of that
> "team". Personally, as a TripleO "team" member, I welcome that
> approach and their willingness to participate and share experience
> with the Deployment program.

Nobody is saying what the Kolla folks are doing is not laudable. I'm 
certainly not saying that. I think it's great to participate and be open 
from the start. What I took umbrage with was the statement that it was 
the Murano developers who made the mistake years ago of basically not 
being in the right place at the right time.

> Meaning: exactly what you seem to claim is not possible due to some
> perceived blessing, is indeed in fact happening, or trying to come
> about.

:) Talking about something on the ML is not the same thing as having 
that thing happen in real life. Kolla folks can and should discuss their 
end goal of being in the openstack/ code namespace and offering an 
alternate implementation for deploying OpenStack. That doesn't mean that 
the Technical Committee will allow this, though. Which is what I'm 
saying... the real world right now does not match this perception that a 
group can just state where they want to end up in the openstack/ code 
namespace and by just "being up front about it", that magically happens.

> It would be great if Heat was already perfect and great at doing
> container orchestration *really* well. I'm not saying Kubernetes is
> either, but I'm not going to dismiss it just b/c it might "compete"
> with Heat. I see lots of other integration points with OpenStack
> services  (using heat/nova/ironic to deploy kubernetes host, still
> using ironic to deploy baremetal storage nodes due to the iscsi issue,
> etc).

Again, I'm not dismissing Kolla whatsoever. I think it's a great 
initiative. I'd point out that Fuel has been doing deployment with 
Docker containers for a while now, also out in the open, but on 
stackforge. Would the deployment program welcome Fuel into the 
openstack/ code namespace as well? Something to think about.

-jay