Open Stack

On 7/27/16, 2:12 PM, "Jay Pipes" <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:

>On 07/27/2016 04:42 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:
>> On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Fox, Kevin M <Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> Its not an "end user" facing thing, but it is an "operator" facing
>>>thing.
>>
>> Well, the end user for Kolla is an operator, no?
>>
>>> I deploy kolla containers today on non kolla managed systems in
>>>production, and rely on that api being consistent.
>>>
>>> I'm positive I'm not the only operator doing this either. This sounds
>>>like a consumable api to me.
>>
>> I don¹t think that an API has to be RESTful to be considered an
>>interface for we should avoid duplication.
>
>Application *Programming* Interface. There's nothing that is being
>*programmed* or *called* in Kolla's image definitions.
>
>What Kolla is/has is not an API. As Stephen said, it's more of an
>Application Binary Interface (ABI). It's not really an ABI, though, in
>the traditional sense of the term that I'm used to.
>
>It's an agreed set of package bases, installation procedures/directories
>and configuration recipes for OpenStack and infrastructure components.

Jay,

>From my perspective, this isn't about ABI proliferation or competition.
This is about open public discourse.

It is the responsibility of all community members to protect the four
opens.

Given the intent of fuel-ccp to fully adopt K8S into Fuel described here:
https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/25/openstack-will-soon-be-able-to-run-on-top
-of-kubernetes/


It is hard to understand the arguments in the reviews related to "this is
an experimental project, so its not targeted towards big tent" yet Boris
wrote in that press release its Fuel's next big thing.

I raised the objection early on that a mission statement change was needed
by Fuel if they wanted to proceed down this path, to which I was told K8S
support is not going into big tent.

As a result of Mirantis's change in mind about fuel-ccp being NOT
experimental and being targeted for big tent, I'd like the record set
straight in the governance repository since the intentions are being
published in the press and the current intentions of this project are
public.

I could see how people could perceive many violations of the four opens in
all of the activities related to the fuel-ccp project.  We as a community
value open discourse because we are all intelligent human beings.  We
value honesty and integrity because trust is the foundation of how our
community operates.  I feel the best way for Fuel to repair the perceived
violations of the four opens going forward is to:

1. Alter the mission statement of fuel to match the reality being
published by the press and Mirantis's executive team
2. Include these non-experimental repos in the projects.yaml governance
repository

That would satisfy my four opens concerns.

If the Fuel PTL doesn't want to do these two things, I'd like a public
explanation as to why from Vladimir who thus far has remained quiet on
this thread.

Thanks
-steve




>
>I see no reason for the OpenStack community to standardize on those
>things, frankly. It's like asking RedHat and Canonical to agree to "just
>use RPM" as their package specification format. I wonder how that
>conversation would go.
>
>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