Open Stack

On 01/20/2016 01:30 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2016-01-20 13:23:02 -0430:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> At the Tokyo summit, we discussed OpenStack's development themes in a
>> cross-project session. In this session a group of folks started discussing what
>> topics the overall community could focus on as a shared effort. One of the
>> things that was raised during this session is the need of having cycles to
>> stabilize projects. This was brought up by Robert Collins again in a meeting[0]
>> the TC had right after the summit and no much has been done ever since.
>>
>> Now, "stabilization Cycles" are easy to dream about but really hard to do and
>> enforce. Nonetheless, they are still worth a try or, at the very least, a
>> thought. I'll try to go through some of the issues and benefits a stabilization
>> cycle could bring but bear in mind that the lists below are not exhaustive. In
>> fact, I'd love for other folks to chime in and help building a case in favor or
>> against this.
>>
>> Negative(?) effects
>> ===================
>>
>> - Project won't get new features for a period of time Economic impact on
>>    developers(?)
>> - It was mentioned that some folks receive bonuses for landed features
>
> As uncomfortable as it may be to tell another contributor "no" and
> realize that it will have a direct financial impact on them, we
> can't encourage a contribution model in which everyone is vying for
> their own special patches to land in order to get paid. That destroys
> our ability to look at the overall health of the project, and
> objectively examine the wisdom of adding (or removing) any given
> feature. It moves the issues we have with some vendor-specific
> drivers out of the driver space and into all of OpenStack, turning
> our open collaboration into competition.

Amen, brother. My thoughts exactly.

-jay