Open Stack

On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Doug Wiegley wrote:

> So, it sounds like you’ve just described the job of the TC. And they
> have so far refused to define OpenStack, leading to a series of
> derivative decisions that seem … inconsistent over time.

Thanks for writing down what I was thinking. I agree that OpenStack
needs some architectural vision, direction, leadership, call it what
you will. Every time I've voted for the _Technical_ Committee that
leadership is what I've wanted my vote to be creating.

It may be that an architecture working group can provide some
guidance that people will find useful. Against the odds I think
those of us in the API-WG have actually managed to have a positive
influence. We've not shaken things down to the foundations from
which a great a glorious future may be born -- a lot of compromises
have been made and not everybody wants to play along -- but things
are going in the right direction, for some people, in some projects.
Maybe a similar thing can happen with architecture.

However, I worry deeply that it could become astronauts with finger
paints. In the API working group at least we have the HTTP RFCs as
foundational sources of authority to guide us. In something so
fraught with opinion what are the sources of authority?

I was pointed at this a while ago

     https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/BasicDesignTenets

It's full of lots of great rules that are frequently broken.

-- 
Chris Dent               (╯°□°)╯︵┻━┻            http://anticdent.org/
freenode: cdent                                         tw: @anticdent