Open Stack

Let me toss out my perspective (FWIW) from a cloud planning perspective as
relates to single-vendor projects:

As an established OpenStack and cloud SDN architect and by extension a
working owner, I do design work for lots of the companies who read this
list. Let me just say that from where I sit, there is rarely a time where I
or any of my colleagues have been able to recommend using an open source
project developed by single vendor driving development for obvious reasons.
Companies usually consider OpenStack because of the open standard, modular
framework and vendor avoidance (not tied to one that is). If part of your
cloud strategy uses a tool developed by one vendor, your entire cloud is
tied to that tool and unfortunately, organizations end up doing this as a
result of politics, partner commitments and/or perceived safety of projects
developed by a familiar entity. Software developed by a single company is a
risk which affects adoption[1]. Who is driving an open source project is a
key consideration by cloud consumers. The biggest exception to this that
I've seen is Ceph given the staying power of RHEL (and/or the perceived
safety in using a product developed by a recognized Linux distro).

I'm glad we're discussing this and I want to re-iterate that project
diversity within the big tent is more important than how each project
integrates into OpenStack's development process. There's a perception that
comes with the association with membership. Projects in the big tent and
the evangelized reasons for they're there are being closely watched by more
than just our community. And cloud planners such as myself and many others
are watching for our own reasons as well.

Just adding that there's a perception that drives adoption by how we
structure and evangelize the Big Tent idea.

Anyway, ; )

[1]
http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-intel-and-mirantis-rewrite-openstacks-life-cycle-management-tool/

//adam


*Adam Lawson*

AQORN, Inc.
427 North Tatnall Street
Ste. 58461
Wilmington, Delaware 19801-2230
Toll-free: (844) 4-AQORN-NOW ext. 101
International: +1 302-387-4660
Direct: +1 916-246-2072

On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Zane Bitter <zbitter at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 04/08/16 23:00, joehuang wrote:
>
>> I think all the problem is caused by the definition "official OpenStack
>> project" for one big-tent project.
>>
>> I understand that each OpenStack vendor wants some differentiation in
>> their solution, while also would
>> like to collaborate with common core projects.
>>
>
> Nobody wants this. We want to build a fully-featured cloud that can run
> the same kinds of apps that users might develop for AWS/Azure/GCE, and we
> want those apps to be portable substantially everywhere. It's all right
> there in the Mission Statement.
>
> If we replace the title "official OpenStack project" to "OpenStack
>> ecosystem player", and make "big-tent"
>> as "ecosystem play yard" ( no close roof ), TCs can put more focus on
>> governance of core projects
>> (current non-big-tent projects), and provide a more open place to grow
>> abundant ecosystem.
>>
>
> You're describing the exact situation we had before the 'big-tent' reform.
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160822/d9a2a6df/attachment.html>