Open Stack

On 15/06/17 07:03 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
>
> Part of the issue is that the meaning and value of being  an
> "OpenStack project" (an "official" one) is increasingly diffuse.
> I suspect that if we could make that more concrete then things like
> names would be easier to decide. Some things we might ask ourselves
> to help clarify the situation include (as usual, some of these
> questions may have obvious answers, but enumerating them can help
> make things explicit):
>
> * What motivates a project to seek status as an OpenStack project?
>   * What do they get?
>   * What do they lose?
>
> * What motivates OpenStack to seek more projects?
>   * What does OpenStack get?
>   * What does OpenStack lose?
>   * What gets more complicated when there are more projects?
>
> * Why would a project choose to be "hosted on OpenStack
>   infrastructure" instead of be an "OpenStack project"?
>
> * Why should OpenStack be willing to host projects that are not
>   "OpenStack projects"?
>
> * When a project goes from the status of "OpenStack project" to
>   "hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" (as currently being discussed
>   with regard to Fuel) what is the project losing, what does the
>   change signify and why should anyone care?
>
> (I'm sure other people can come up with a few more questions.)
>
> I think that if we're going to focus on this issue then we need to
> make sure that we focus on marshalling the value and resources that
> are required to support a project. That is: it has to be worth
> everyone's time and enery to be and have (official) projects. It's
> likely that this could mean that some projects are unable to be
> (official) projects anymore.

do this ^ first. if we cant qualify what we're trying to do with this 
labeling then it doesn't matter what name you slap on it. is it for 
marketing purposes? is it to define an OpenStack Community Edition? is 
it to create a repo of known projects that are solely funded/developed 
by OpenStack sponsors? is it to help developers somehow?

currently, if i read the new projects requirements[1], the 'big tent' is 
something along the lines of "here's a bunch of 'cloud' stuff the 
proprietary companies provide but from companies that fund openstack 
brand that is 'open'. we make no guarantees that they actually work 
(they probably don't), this is solely to say these projects: exists, are 
'open', and probably work with nova/keystone."

there is nothing wrong with this (except it being a terrible sales 
pitch) but since the 'big tent' message was ambiguous and we labeled it, 
it reached a marketer and became: 'look at us, we have a big tent 
project. what's the big tent? it's <insert self-important marketing 
jargon here>'.

labeling is inherently a branding exercise, so my question is what are 
we trying to market and should we be doing it or is it something that 
companies[2] should be doing.

[1] 
https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/new-projects-requirements.html
[2] https://www.openstack.org/marketplace/

-- 
gord