Open Stack

On 08/11/2016 10:30, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Ash wrote:
>> [...]
>> Here's another take on the situation. If there are people who genuinely
>> wish to see a CI pipeline that can support something like Go, perhaps
>> you can establish a prerequisite of working with the Infra team on
>> establishing the new pipeline. In my opinion, this seems to be the major
>> gate. So, if there's a clear path identified, resources provided, and
>> the Infra team is ultimately benefitted, then I'm not sure why there
>> should be another rejection. Just a thought. I know this proposal
>> continues to come up and I'm a big fan of seeing other languages
>> supported, especially Go. But I also understand that it can break
>> things. Personally, I would even volunteer to work on such an Infra effort.
>>
>> BTW, it is quite possible that another group might feel the same
>> constraints. It's perfectly reasonable. But if we can overcome such
>> obstacles, would the TC still have a concern?
>
> The TC isn't just one person. In complex situations like this where you
> have to weigh the trade-off between opening up more choices and our
> community's ability to digest/survive the change, there will always be a
> wide variety of opinions. I won't claim to be able to predict how the
> current membership would vote.

Yup - and the TC could possibly change half, (or even all) its members
during time it takes to get this work done.

> That said, I think that if we can have more confidence that our
> structure can handle it (from infra to release/stable/dep management)
> and that the OpenStack community will share expertise and best practices
> on Go and avoid reinventing the wheel in every project, I expect a
> majority of TC members to take that leap of faith.

There was a bit of work done for the previous proposal, but the main
objections were not to do with any of points raised in this email /
blog. The objections were mainly cultural - about how it would impact
the community (which *is* very important), and the exactly why it was
needed for the projects who were asking.

> To me, the important part is that introducing Go should not be another
> way for some of our community to be different, but another way for our
> community to be one. It should do more to bind our community together
> than to split it into more factions and silos.
>

I would agree - but I would ask that we find a way forward that does not
require huge amounts of up front work, for a gamble at the end of the
process, where the work could be written off for any number of other
reasons.