Open Stack

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Doug Hellmann wrote:

> If we want to do that, we should change the rules because we put
> the current set of rules in place specifically to encourage more
> project teams to join officially. We can do that, but that discussion
> deserves its own thread.

(Yeah, that's why I changed the subject header: Indicate change of
subject, but maintain references.)

I'm not sure what the right thing to do is, but I do think there's a
good opportunity to review what various initiatives (big tent, death
to stackforge, tags, governance changes, cross-project work) are trying
to accomplish, whether they are succeeding, what the unintended
consequences have been.

>> For the example of Poppy, there is nothing that requires it be a part
>> of OpenStack for it to be useful to OpenStack nor for it to exist as
>> a valuable part of the open source world.
>
> Nor is there for lots of our existing official projects. Which ones
> should we remove?

The heartless rationalist in me says "most of them". The nicer guy
says "this set is grandfathered, henceforth we're more strict".

A reason _I_[1] think we need to limit things is because from the
outside OpenStack doesn't really look like anything that you can put
a short description on. It's more murky than that and it is hard to
experience positive progress in a fog. Many people react to this fog
by focusing on their specific project rather than OpenStack at
large: At least there they can see their impact.

This results in increasing the fog because cross-project concerns (which
help unify the vision and actuality that is OpenStack) get less
attention and the cycle deepens.

[1] Other people, some reasonable, some not, will have different
opinions. Yay!
-- 
Chris Dent               (¨s¡ã¡õ¡ã)¨s¦à©ß©¥©ß            http://anticdent.org/
freenode: cdent                                         tw: @anticdent