Open Stack

Excerpts from Ed Leafe's message of 2016-07-27 10:59:06 -0500:
> On Jul 27, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Joshua Harlow <harlowja at fastmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >> Whether to have competing projects in the big tent was debated by the TC
> >> at the time and my recollection is that we decided that was a good thing
> >> -- if someone wanted to develop a Nova replacement, then let them do it
> >> in public with the community. It would either win or lose based on its
> >> merits. Why is this not something which can happen here as well?
> > 
> > For real, I (or someone) can start a nova replacement without getting rejected (or yelled at or ...) by the TC saying it's a competing project??? Wow, this is news to me...
> 
> No, you can’t start a Nova replacement and still call yourself OpenStack.
> 

Is that true? I thought the thing would be that you'd have to be
running Nova to still use the mark. As long as you're running Nova and
the users can use Nova (the real one), if you also had a competitor to
Nova available, it would just need to pass the relatively low bar of
big tent membership to still be a part of "OpenStack".

> The sense I have gotten over the years from the TC is that gratuitous competition is strongly discouraged. When the Monasca project was being considered for the big tent, there was a *lot* of concern expressed over the partial overlap with Ceilometer. It was only after much reassurance that the overlap was not fundamental that these objections were dropped.
> 
> I have no stake in either Fuel or Kolla, so my only concern is duplication of effort. You can always achieve more working together, though it will never happen as fast as when you go it alone. It’s a trade-off: the needs of the vendor vs. the health of the community.
> 
> 
> -- Ed Leafe
>