Open Stack

Mike Perez wrote:
> On 11:31 Jun 20, Clint Byrum wrote:
>> Excerpts from Joshua Harlow's message of 2016-06-17 15:33:25 -0700:
>>> Thanks for getting this started Clint,
>>>
>>> I'm happy and excited to be involved in helping try to guide the whole
>>> ecosystem together (it's also why I like being in oslo) to a
>>> architecture that is more cohesive (and is more of something that we can
>>> say to our current or future children that we were all involved and
>>> proud to be involved in creating/maturing...).
>>>
>>> At a start, for said first meeting, any kind of agenda come to mind, or
>>> will it be more a informal gathering to start (either is fine with me)?
>>>
>> I've been hesitant to fill this in too much as I'm still forming the
>> idea, but here are the items I think are most compelling to begin with:
>>
>> * DLM's across OpenStack -- This is already under way[1], but it seems to
>>    have fizzled out. IMO that is because there's no working group who
>>    owns it. We need to actually write some plans.
>
> Not meaning to nitpick, but I don't think this is a compelling reason for the
> architecture working group. We need a group that wants to spend time on
> reviewing the drivers being proposed. This is like saying we need the
> architecture working group because no working group is actively reshaping quotas
> cross-project.
>
> With that said, I can see the architecture working group providing information
> on to a group actually reviewing/writing drivers for DLM and saying "Doing
> mutexes with the mysql driver is crazy, I brought it in a environment and have
> such information to support that it is not reliable". THAT is useful and I
> don't feel like people do enough of.
>
> My point is call your working group whatever you want (The Purple Parrots), and
> just go spearhead DLM, but don't make it about one of the most compelling
> reasons for the existence of this group.

Sadly I feel if such a group formed it wouldn't be addressing the larger 
issue that this type of group is trying to address; the purple parrots 
would be a tactical team that could go do what u said, but that doesn't 
address the larger strategic goal of trying to improve the full 
situation (technical and architectural inconsistencies and 'fizzling 
out' solutions) that IMHO needs to be worked through.

So yes, the tactical group needs to exist, and overall it likely will, 
but there also needs to be a strategic group that is being proactive 
about the issues and not just tactically reacting to things (which isn't 
imho healthy).

-Josh