Open Stack

Excerpts from Geoff O'Callaghan's message of 2016-05-24 15:31:28 +1000:
> 
> > On 24 May 2016, at 3:13 PM, Clint Byrum <clint at fewbar.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> [snip]
> 
> > those other needs. Grab a python developer, land some code, and your
> > feature is there.
> 
> s/python/whateverlanguage/
> 

But that's just the point. If you have lots of languages, you have to
find developers who know whichever one your feature or bug fix needs to
be written in.

> > 
> >> I also never said, ship the source code and say ‘good luck’.   What I did imply  was, due to a relaxing of coding platform requirements we might be able to deliver a function at this performance point that  we may not have been able to do otherwise.   We should always provide support and the code,  but as to what language it’s written it i’m personally not fussed and I have to deal with a variety of languages already so maybe that’s why I don’t see it as a big problem.
> > 
> > This again assumes that one only buys software and does not ever
> > participate in its development in an ongoing basis. There's nothing
> > wrong with that, but this particular community is highly focused on
> > people who do want to participate and think that the ability to
> > adapt this cloud they've invested in to their changing business needs is
> > more important than any one feature.
> 
> No I didn’t say that at all and I don’t believe it’s assumed.    I just said I wasn’t fussed about what language it’s written in and just wanted developers to be able to contribute if they had something to contribute.   
> 

Not being fussed about the language means not being fussed about who can
develop on it, so I took that to mean not being interested in developing
on it. I'm not sure either of us was "wrong" here, but I apologize for
assuming that's what you meant, if that's indeed not what you meant.

> > 
> >> 
> >> I understand there will be integration challenges and I agree with cohesiveness being a good thing, but I also believe we must deliver value more than cohesiveness.   The value is what operators want,  the cohesiveness is what the developers may or may not want.
> >> 
> > 
> > We agree that delivering value to end users and operators is the #1
> > priority. I think we just disagree on the value of an open development
> > model and cohesion in the _community_.
> 
> It’s not open if you restrict developers based on programming language.    Trust me I get cohesion and it’s value, we’ve reached the stage now where cohesion is being questioned.  The questioning is a good thing and it is a measure of the health of the community.

So, there's a funny principle here, where the word open is _so open_
that one can use it to classify any number of aspects, while ignoring
others, and still be correct.

I qualified the development model with the word open, because the way
we govern it, the way code and change move through the system, are 100%
transparent and available to anyone who wants to participate. But I agree,
it is less available to those who want to participate using languages
we've chosen to avoid. They have to begin at the governance level,
which they have, in fact, done by approaching the TC. But they may be
shout out, and that would make developing on OpenStack closed to them.

However, I don't think the TC takes this lightly, and they understand
that having it open to _more_ contribution is the goal. What I think may
not make sense to all parties, is that closing it to some, will keep it
open to many others. And what I think Thierry did by opening this thread
was try to figure out how many stand on either side of that decision.