Open Stack

On 02/10/2015 08:01 AM, Everett Toews wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com
> <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>> On 02/02/2015 02:51 PM, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 23:05 +0000, Everett Toews wrote:
>>>> To converge the OpenStack APIs to a consistent and pragmatic RESTful
>>>> design by creating guidelines that the projects should follow. The
>>>> intent is not to create backwards incompatible changes in existing
>>>> APIs, but to have new APIs and future versions of existing APIs
>>>> converge.
>>>
>>> It's looking good already. I think it would be good also to mention the
>>> end-recipients of the consistent and pragmatic RESTful design so that
>>> whoever reads the mission is reminded why that's important. Something
>>> like:
>>>
>>>         To improve developer experience converging the OpenStack API to
>>>         a consistent and pragmatic RESTful design. The working group
>>>         creates guidelines that all OpenStack projects should follow,
>>>         avoids introducing backwards incompatible changes in existing
>>>         APIs and promotes convergence of new APIs and future versions of
>>>         existing APIs.
>>
>> After reading all the mails in this thread, I've decided that Stef's
>> suggested mission statement above is the one I think best represents
>> what we're trying to do.
>>
>> That said, I think it should begin "To improve developer experience
>> *by* converging" ... :)
> 
> +1 
> 
> I think we could be even more explicit about the audience. 
> 
> To improve developer experience *of API consumers by* converging the
> OpenStack API to a consistent and pragmatic RESTful design. The working
> group creates guidelines that all OpenStack projects should
> follow, avoids introducing backwards incompatible changes in
> existing APIs, and promotes convergence of new APIs and future versions
> of existing APIs.
> 
> I’m not crazy about the term "API consumer" and could bike shed a bit on
> it. The problem being that alternative terms for "API consumer" have
> been taken in OpenStack land. “developer” is used for contributor
> developers building OpenStack itself, “user” is used for operators
> deploying OpenStack, and “end user” has too many meanings. “API
> consumer” makes it clear what side of the API the working group audience
> falls on.

I wouldn't mind "API user", I think it conveys intent but doesn't sound
as stilted as "API consumer".

> I also like dtroyer’s idea of a Tweetable mantra but I think we need to
> distill that mantra _from_ a longer mission statement. If we constrained
> the mission statement to <= 140 chars at the outset, we’d be losing
> valuable information that’s vital in communicating our intent. And if we
> can’t fully communicate our intent in a mission statement then it
> doesn’t have as much value.
> 
> Thanks,
> Everett
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 

-- 
Ryan Brown / Software Engineer, Openstack / Red Hat, Inc.