Open Stack

On Nov 9, 2016, at 5:14 AM, Chris Dent <cdent+os at anticdent.org> wrote:

> Something that feels like it gets under-emphasised in this conversation
> is that change is coming whatever we do. As a community we can either
> move quickly and stay ahead of the change and see it as a productive
> development that we can surf or we can dilly dally and get drowned by a
> wave that collapses over us.
> 
> Ecosystems must evolve and change because the world evolves and changes.
> If we try to control this stuff too much what we will be doing is taking
> the oxygen out of the system and snuffing the flame of excitement and
> innovation.

That is, of course, a series of obvious statements. We need to change or die.

What I think is missing from this conversation is that there are a lot of people who are used to the way things happen in the startup world, where you get an idea, work like crazy to get an MVP out the door, and then iterate from there. The problem is that OpenStack is the exact opposite of a startup; it’s a giant legacy application.

Don’t like the word “legacy”? Well, what would you call something that has to support users who haven’t upgraded in several years? What would you call something that can never have a greatly-improved but backwards-incompatible change? Sure, that might be possible in some of the add-ons for the OpenStack ecosystem, but for any of the core projects (yes, I said that word), that is simply not an option.

So yes, of course we’re going to drive off those who want to work with the coolest and latest stuff. This isn’t “exciting” work in that sense of the word. 

-- Ed Leafe