Open Stack

On 28/07/16 04:45 +0000, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>
>
>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.

If I can be honest, I think this whole thread is not going anywhere because it
just started based on the wrong assumption, the wrong tone and with poor
wording. I'd have asked for clarifications before demanding changes from anyone.
To me, the way this thread started violates one of principles of our community,
which is assuming good faith. I'll assume good faith now and interpret this
thread as a hope to clarify the goals and intentions of this projects and not as
a way to bluntly point fingers, which is how some people might have perceived
it.

>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:

I honestly don't see the violation. The fuel team added these repos and
explicitly said they are not planning to join the tent right now. Adding new
repos called `fuel-blah` won't make those deliverables official. Whenever the
team decides to make these deliverables part of Fuel, they'll have to send a
patch to the governance repo.

So, again, where's the lack of openess? Is it just based on the content of the
press release? I'm mostly asking because I don't personally read press releases
when reviewing patches for the governance repo. I do see the inconsistency
between the press release and what's in the repos/reviews but I in those cases,
the governance repository is the source of truth not the press release.

>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

What would have happened if the project names would've been
"my-super-openstack-container-project"?

Flavio

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 847 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160728/937bfba8/attachment.pgp>