[openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016
doug at doughellmann.com
Tue Feb 16 20:33:26 UTC 2016
Excerpts from Edward Leafe's message of 2016-02-16 13:46:50 -0600:
> On Feb 16, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com> wrote:
> > So I think the project team is doing everything we've asked. We
> > changed our policies around new projects to emphasize the social
> > aspects of projects, and community interactions. Telling a bunch
> > of folks that they "are not OpenStack" even though they follow those
> > policies is rather distressing. I think we should be looking for
> > ways to say "yes" to new projects, rather than "no."
> So if some group creates a 100% open project, and follows all of the Opens, at what point do we consider relevance to OpenStack itself? How about a 100% open text editor? Can we add that, since after all OpenStack code is written with text editors.
We do have a relevance clause. Whether or not Poppy is relevant wasn't
part of the discussion, up to this point.
> CDNs are not part of OpenStack, even if some parts of some projects may use one from time to time. A common interface to CDNs seems to address a problem that is not really part of what OpenStack does.
Can you explain why? Because I see cloud deployments with CDN APIs,
and I think that makes it relevant to clouds. I also see it as
relevant to deployers of OpenStack who want to support interoperable
APIs while still retaining a choice about what backend they implement,
which is exactly what the other OpenStack services do with their
> It's great to want to include people, but I think that there is more to it than just whether their practices mirror ours.
OK. Are we changing what the argument related to Poppy is about, though,
to find a different reason to exclude them?
More information about the OpenStack-dev