[openstack-dev] [all][tc] Stabilization cycles: Elaborating on the idea to move it forward

Ryan Brown rybrown at redhat.com
Thu Jan 21 15:39:37 UTC 2016

On 01/21/2016 06:23 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Flavio Percoco wrote:
>> - It was mentioned that some folks receive bonuses for landed features
> In this thread we've had people recoil in shock at this ^ one...
>> - Economic impact on companies/market because no new features were
>> added (?)
> ...but I have to say it was this ^ one that gave me the most concern.
> At the opensource project level I really don't think this should be
> something we're actively worrying about. What we should be worrying
> about is if OpenStack is any good. Often "good" will include features,
> but not all the time.
> Let the people doing the selling worry about the market, if they
> want. That stuff is, or at least should be, on the other side of a
> boundary.

I'm certain that they will worry about the market.

But look at where contributions come from. A glance at stackalytics says 
that only 11% of contributors are independent, meaning companies are 89% 
of the contributions. Whether we acknowledge it at the project level or 
not, features and "the OpenStack market" are going to be a priority for 
a some portion of those 89% of contributions.

Those contributors also want openstack to be "good" but they also have 
deadlines to meet internally. Having a freeze upstream for stabilization 
is going to put downstream development into overdrive, no doubt. That 
would be a poor precedent to have set given where the bulk of 
contributions come from.

Ryan Brown / Senior Software Engineer, Openstack / Red Hat, Inc.

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list