Open Stack

Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 08/01/2016 09:39 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> But if a project is persistently single-vendor after some time and
>> nobody seems interested to join it, the technical value of that project
>> being "in" OpenStack rather than a separate project in the OpenStack
>> ecosystem of projects is limited. It's limited for OpenStack (why
>> provide resources to support a project that is obviously only beneficial
>> to one organization ?), and it's limited to the organization itself (why
>> go through the OpenStack-specific open processes when you could shortcut
>> it with internal tools and meetings ? why accept the oversight of the
>> Technical Committee ?).
> 
> A project can still be useful for everyone with a single vendor
> contributing to it, even after a long period of existence. IMO that's
> not the issue we're trying to solve.

I agree with that -- open source projects can be useful for everyone
even if only a single vendor contributes to it.

But you seem to imply that the only way an open source project can be
useful is if it's developed as an OpenStack project under the OpenStack
Technical Committee governance. I'm not advocating that these projects
should stop or disappear. I'm just saying that if they are very unlikely
to grow a more diverse affiliation in the future, they derive little
value in being developed under the OpenStack Technical Committee
oversight, and would probably be equally useful if developed outside of
OpenStack official projects governance. There are plenty of projects
that are useful to OpenStack that are not developed under the TC
governance (libvirt, Ceph, OpenvSwitch...)

What is the point for a project to submit themselves to the oversight of
a multi-organization Technical Committee if they always will be the
result of the efforts of a single organization ?

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)