Open Stack

On 15/06/15 19:20 +0900, Joe Gordon wrote:
>One of the stated problems the 'big tent' is supposed to solve is:
>
>'The binary nature of the integrated release results in projects outside the
>integrated release failing to get the recognition they deserve. "Non-official"
>projects are second- or third-class citizens which can't get development
>resources. Alternative solutions can't emerge in the shadow of the blessed
>approach. Becoming part of the integrated release, which was originally
>designed to be a technical decision, quickly became a life-or-death question
>for new projects, and a political/community minefield.' [0]
>
>Meaning projects should see an uptick in development once they drop their
>second-class citizenship and join OpenStack. Now that we have been living in
>the world of the big tent for several months now, we can see if this claim is
>true.
>
>Below is a list of the first few few projects to join OpenStack after the big
>tent, All of which have now been part of OpenStack for at least two months.[1]
>
>* Mangum -  Tue Mar 24 20:17:36 2015
>* Murano - Tue Mar 24 20:48:25 2015
>* Congress - Tue Mar 31 20:24:04 2015
>* Rally - Tue Apr 7 21:25:53 2015 

We should also add Zaqar to this list. It was *incubated* when the Big
Tent came in and that's the only (?) reason why the project was not
requested to go through the Big Tent request process.

Zaqar has gotten more contributors - most of them at the end of Kilo -
from the OpenStack community. Some of them without affiliation.

I don't believe it's completely related to the Big Tent change but I
do think not having that "integrated" tag helped the project to gain
more attention from the rest of the community.

Cheers,
Flavio

>
>When looking at stackalytics [2] for each project, we don't see any noticeably
>change in number of reviews, contributors, or number of commits from before and
>after each project joined OpenStack.
>
>So what does this mean? At least in the short term moving from Stackforge to
>OpenStack does not result in an increase in development resources (too early to
>know about the long term).  One of the three reasons for the big tent appears
>to be unfounded, but the other two reasons hold.  The only thing I think this
>information changes is what peoples expectations should be when applying to
>join OpenStack.
>
>[0] https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/resolutions/
>20141202-project-structure-reform-spec.rst
>[1] Ignoring OpenStackClent since the repos were always in OpenStack it just
>didn't have a formal home in the governance repo.
>[2] hhttp://stackalytics.com/?module=magnum-group&metric=commits

>__________________________________________________________________________
>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


-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150615/f9f49b7a/attachment.pgp>