Open Stack

Thanks that helps! (and I hope it helps others to),

A few questions inline...

Stefano Maffulli wrote:
> On 07/15/2015 11:25 AM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
>> So I've been following the TC work on tags, and have been slightly
>> confused by the whole work, so I am wondering if I can get a
>> 'explainlikeimfive' (borrowing from reddit terminology) edition of it.
>
> I'll try :)
>
> You need to think of "tags" as the labels on the boxes containing your
> toys: you'll have a box with legos, one box with dolls, one box with
> bicycle parts, one with star wars figurines etc. Each box with a label
> outside so you can read (at 5 you may be able to read) what is in the
> box before you open it.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> You may think that the tags are to identify the toys you like the most
> but that's not the purpose. You may like Skywalker figurine but dislike
> Yoda, but they're both going to be in the starwars box. Starwars is an
> objective way for dad and your friends to understand which toys go in
> which bucket. Since you may like something today and not tomorrow, and
> since dad can't read your mind we don't use labels such as "things I
> like a lot" or "things I hate" because those are subjective valuations.
>
> Are you still there? :)

(eating paste)

>
>> I always thought tags were going to be something like:
>>
>> http://i.imgur.com/rcAnMkX.png
>
> The graphic you used obviously carries subjective meaning, which tags
> are never meant to be and hopefully never will.

Does it? Replace the tags with some other more objective words, and 
still let people upvote/downvote it (imho the main intention there was 
to make the tags be vote-able; making the usefulness of the tag a 
democratic 'entity' that can prove its own usefulness via up/down 
votes); but maybe your looking for 100% objective words as tags (that 
will never be vote-able, an honorable goal I suppose).

>
> The 'tags' are defined on the spec:
>
> http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20141202-project-structure-reform-spec.html
>
> On that spec there is spelled out the problem that the tags are
> introduced to solve.  Tags are to represent a precise *taxonomy* to
> navigate the OpenStack ecosystem, to help readers understand how a
> project is managed (does it have a vulnerability team assigned? does it
> keep a stable branch? what's the release model? Is it overseen by the
> TC? etc). As the spec says:
>
>      the landscape [used to be]is very simple: you’re in the integrated
>      release, or you’re not. But since there was only one category (or
>      badge of honor), it ended up meaning different things to different
>      people.
>
>
> In Thierry's words to "[Openstack-operators] [tags] Ops-Data vs.
> Ops-Tags", June 16 2015:
>
>      They come with a definition, a set of requirements that a project
>      must fulfill to be granted the label. Ideally the requirements are
>      objective, based on available documentation and metrics. But the
>      tag definition itself remains subjective.
>
>
> The tags are called to describe objectively each project. So, for
> example, if you want to know which project maintain a stable branch, you
> see the list on:

Ok, so I guess this is more then like classifiers in python (in a way),

Where the list is pretty objective and statically defined like @ 
https://pypi.python.org/pypi?%3Aaction=list_classifiers (or something 
like that).

>
> http://governance.openstack.org/reference/tags/release_has-stable-branches.html
>
> You want to see if projects are libraries, middleware or client:
>
> http://governance.openstack.org/reference/tags/type_library.html
>
> Are you curious to see which projects constitute the release approved by
> the TC?
>
> http://governance.openstack.org/reference/tags/tc-approved-release.html
>
> Tags can be proposed by anyone, not only by the TC and they get
> discussed and voted on gerrit. The proposed tags need to be as objective
> as possible. And there is a working group
> (https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ops-tags-June-2015) among operators
> trying to define tags that may help operators to judge if a project is
> good for them to use or not.

So my only thought about this is that ^ sounds like a lot of red-tape, 
and I really wonder if there is anyway to make this more 'relaxed' (and 
also 'fun') and/or less strict but still achieve the same result 
("objectiveness"...).

>
> HTH
> stef
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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