Open Stack

Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> Your right, it is not what the big tent was about, but the big tent had some unintended side affects. The list, as you stated:
>
> * No longer having a formal incubation and graduation period/review for
> applying projects
> * Having a single, objective list of requirements and responsibilities
> for inclusion into the OpenStack development community
> * Specifically allowing competition of different source projects in the
> same "space" (e.g. deployment or metrics)
>
> Turned into (my opinion):
>
> #1, projects, having a formal incubation/graduation period had the opportunity to get feedback on what they could do to better integrate with other projects and were strongly encouraged to do so to make progress towards graduation. Without the formality, no one tended to bother.
>
> #2, Not having a single, objective list of requirements/responsibility: I believe not having a list made folks take a hard look at what other projects were doing and try harder to play nice in order to get graduated or risk the unknown of folks coming back over and over and telling them more integration was required.
>
> #3, the benefits/drawbacks of specifically allowing competition is rather hard to predict. It can encourage alternate solutions to be created and create a place where better ideas can overcome less good ideas. But it also removes pressure to cooperate on one project rather then just take the sometimes much easier route of just doing it yourself in your own project.
>
> I'm not blaming the big tent for all the ills of the OpenStack world. It has had some real benefits. This problem is something bigger then the big tent. It preexisted the tent. The direction the pressure to share was very unidirectional pre big tent, applied to new projects much more then old projects.
>
> But, I'm just saying the Big Tent had an (unintended) net negative affect making this particular problem worse.
>
> Looking at the why of a problem is one of the important steps to formulating a solution. OpenStack no longer has the amount of tooling to help elevate the issue it had under the time before the Big Tent. Nothing has come up since to replace it.
>
> I'm not stating that the big tent should be abolished and we go back to the way things were. But I also know the status quo is not working either. How do we fix this? Anyone have any thoughts?

Embrace the larger world instead of trying to recreate parts of it, 
create alliances with the CNCF and/or other companies that are getting 
actively involved there and make bets that solutions there are things 
that people want to use directly (instead of turning openstack into some 
kind of 'integration aka, middleware engine').

How many folks have been watching 
https://github.com/cncf/toc/tree/master/proposals or 
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pulls?

Start accepting that what we call OpenStack may be better off as 
extracting the *current* good parts of OpenStack and cutting off some of 
the parts that aren't really worth it/nobody really uses/deploys anyway 
(and say starting to modernize the parts that are left by say moving 
them under the CNCF umbrella and adopting some of the technology there 
instead).

Rinse and repeat this same shift after say another ~6 years when the 
CNCF accumulates enough projects that nobody really uses/deploys.

-Josh