[openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016
doug at doughellmann.com
Wed Feb 17 18:37:50 UTC 2016
Excerpts from Anne Gentle's message of 2016-02-17 12:28:42 -0600:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 02/17/2016 09:30 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> >> Excerpts from Mike Perez's message of 2016-02-17 03:21:51 -0800:
> >>> On 02/16/2016 11:30 AM, Doug Hellmann 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."
> >>> My disagreements with accepting Poppy has been around testing, so let me
> >>> reiterate what I've already said in this thread.
> >>> The governance currently states that under Open Development "The project
> >>> has core reviewers and adopts a test-driven gate in the OpenStack
> >>> infrastructure for changes" .
> >>> If we don't have a solution like OpenCDN, Poppy has to adopt a reference
> >>> implementation that is a commercial entity, and infra has to also be
> >>> dependent on it. I get Infra is already dependent on public cloud
> >>> donations, but if we start opening the door to allow projects to bring
> >>> in those commercial dependencies, that's not good.
> >> Only Poppy's test suite would rely on that, though, right? And other
> >> projects can choose whether to co-gate with Poppy or not. So I don't see
> >> how this limitation has an effect on anyone other than the Poppy team.
> > But what would really be tested in Poppy without any commercial CDN
> > vendor? Nothing functional, right? I believe the fact that Poppy cannot be
> > functionally tested in the OpenStack CI gate basically disqualifies it from
> > being "in OpenStack".
> I do want end-users to have CDN, I do. And I'm a pragmatist as well so the
> "open core" arguments aren't as important to me.
> That said, for me, since poppy itself doesn't offer/run/maintain the
> service but instead simply offers an API on top of CDN provider's APIs, I
> don't think it's necessary to govern it in OpenStack.
Most of our successful services do the same thing. They abstract
another service, but don't replicate it's features in their code
base. Nova isn't a hypervisor. Cinder isn't a block device. Trove
isn't a database. Neutron isn't an SDN.
The *only* difference is that because of the nature of a CDN, running
one yourself isn't practical and so there's no significant (or
viable) open source implementation.
> > Best,
> > -jay
> > __________________________________________________________________________
> > 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
More information about the OpenStack-dev