[openstack-dev] Avoiding regression in project governance

Ed Leafe ed at leafe.com
Wed Mar 11 22:59:14 UTC 2015

Hash: SHA1

On 03/11/2015 02:40 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>> I think we can make this work. Assuming more than N (to my mind >
>> > 5 or so) deployments report they are using project X, we can say
>> > that this is used in production/POC/... and the number of
>> > nodes/hypervisors/etc.
>> > 
>> > This makes it concrete and anonymous to avoid the fishing queries.
>> > It also allows our community to enter what they are doing in one
>> > place rather than answering multiple surveys. I am keen to avoid
>> > generic queries such as "How many hypervisors are installed for
>> > public clouds using Xen" but if we have an agreement that >5
>> > avoids company identification, I feel this is feasible.
> [...]
> I'm mildly concerned that this adds a strong incentive to start
> gaming responses to/participation in the user survey going forward,
> once it gets around that you just need N people to take the survey
> and claim to be using this project in production so that it can get
> the coveted "production-ready" tag. I'm probably a little paranoid
> and certainly would prefer to assume good faith on the part of
> everyone in our community, but as the community continues to grow
> that faith gets spread thinner and thinner.

Allow me to re-propose the idea that we are dealing with two separate
entities here, and need two separate entities to make these calls.

There is the the development side of things, where people work hard to
get their ideas for OpenStack incorporated into the codebase. There is
also the distribution side, where people work hard to get a single
deployable package that others can take and make clouds with.

So what is "production-ready"? And how would you trust any such
designation? I think that it should be the responsibility of groups
outside of OpenStack development to make that call. What would that look
like? Well, let me give you an example.

I have Company A that wants to be known as the simplest OpenStack
distribution. I invest time and money in packaging the co-gated core
along with a few helpful other projects, and make that available to my
customers. There is also Company B, who wants to create the most
powerful, flexible packaging of OpenStack, and takes the time to not
only include the basics, but develops tools to handle the more complex
situations, such as cells or HA designs. This package is not for the
faint of heart, and for most businesses it would require contracting for
the services of Company B in order to get their installation up and
running, as well as fine-tuning it and upgrading it. There are also
Company C and Company D who target other end-user needs. They all draw
from the codebase that the OpenStack developers create, and, of course,
give their feedback as to what changes are needed to make their
particular customers happy. If they're smart, they'll supply developer
cycles to help make them happen.

The longer we try to be both sides of this process, the longer we will
continue to have these back-and-forths about stability vs. innovation.

- -- Ed Leafe
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list