Open Stack

Joshua Harlow wrote:
>> 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"...).

Elevator pitch version:

Tags are a specific type of project metadata that we publish to
facilitate navigation in the "big tent" of OpenStack projects. Tags are
binary, opinionated definitions that objectively apply (or not apply) to
projects.

I don't really like the idea of a popularity contest to define "HA" or
"scales" -- anyone with a stake in the game and their cat will upvote or
downvote for no reason. I prefer to define HA in clear terms and have
some group maintain the tag across the set of projects.

I could imagine *some* project metadata to be based on popular votes,
where there is no real alternative -- for example the ops-defined data
on deployment is based on the user survey, which is certainly not exact
science, but our best guess. I just fail to see how *generally* relying
on popularity contests to define anything would result in better
information for our users...

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)