Open Stack

Full disclosure: I primarily work on TripleO so I do have a horse in 
this race.

On 06/15/2017 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 06/15/2017 10:35 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>> On 2017-06-15 10:48:21 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I think that, despite the efforts of the Fuel team, Fuel did not become
>>> what we hoped when we made it official: a universal installer that would
>>> be used across the board. It was worth a try, I'm happy that we tried,
>>> but I think it's time to stop considering it a part of "OpenStack"
>>> proper and make it a hosted project. It can of course continue its
>>> existence as an unofficial project hosted on OpenStack infrastructure.
>>>
>>> Thoughts ?
>>
>> I agree, it makes sense to be more clear as to the lack of
>> community-wide support for that effort. Perhaps if its popularity
>> increases outside one vendor's customer base to the point where
>> contributions from a broader set of stakeholders emerge, we can once
>> again evaluate its governance state.
>
> While I personally agree that Fuel should be moved out of the official
> projects list, I'd like to point out that Triple-O is virtually entirely
> a Red Hat project:
>
> http://stackalytics.com/?module=tripleo-group
> http://stackalytics.com/?module=tripleo-group&metric=commits
>
> so the fact that a project is entirely run by a single vendor or "has
> popularity outside one vendor's customer base" has not been and
> continues not to be a deciding factor on whether something is an
> official OpenStack project or not.

I don't believe the single vendor-ness of the project is the reason it's 
being proposed for removal.  It's the fact that the single vendor has 
all but dropped their support for it.  If Red Hat suddenly decided they 
were pulling out of TripleO I'd expect the same response, but that is 
not the case.

>
> I'd fully support the removal of all deployment projects from the
> "official OpenStack projects list".

I would not.  Deployment of OpenStack remains one of the most difficult 
to solve problems and I would be highly disappointed in the community if 
they essentially washed their hands of it.  There are considerably more 
deployment projects than just TripleO and Fuel, and there is more 
collaboration going on there than a simple commits metric would show. 
For example, see 
http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/oslo-specs/specs/pike/machine-readable-sample-config.html 
which came out of a cross-deployment project session at the PTG as a way 
to solve a problem that all deployment tools have.

We should be encouraging more community involvement in deployment tools, 
not sending the message that deployment tools are not important enough 
to be official projects.

-Ben