Open Stack

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 09/24/2014 09:41 AM, James Slagle wrote:
>> 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.

Hence the "trying to come about". And the only thing proposed for real
life right now is a project under stackforge whose long term goal is
to merge into the Deployment program. I don't get the opposition to a
long term goal.

> 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.

Certainly true. Perhaps the mission statement for the Deployment
program needs some tweaking. Perhaps it will be covered by whatever
plays out within the larger OpenStack changes that are being discussed
about the future of programs/projects/etc.

Personally, I think there is some room for interpretation in the
existing mission statement around the "wherever possible" phrase.
Where it's not possible, OpenStack does not have to be used. So again,
we probably need to update for clarity. I think the Deployment program
should work with the TC to help define what it wants to be.

> 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.

I'm not sure who you are arguing against that has that perception :).

I've reread the thread, and I see desires being voiced  to join an
existing program, and some initial support offered in favor of that,
minus your responses ;-). Obviously patches would have to be proposed
to the governance repo to add projects under the program, those would
have to be approved by people with +2 in governance, etc. No one
claims it will be magically done.

>> 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.

Based on what you're saying about the Deployment program, you seem to
indicate the TC would say No.

I don't speak for the program. In the past, I've personally expressed
support for alternative implementations where they make sense for
OpenStack as a whole, and I still feel that way.

-- 
-- James Slagle
--