Open Stack

On 06/15/2017 11:56 AM, Ben Nemec wrote:
> 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.

Please see Jeremy's paragraph directly above my response. He 
specifically mentions single-vendor-ness as a reason for removal.

>> 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.

This right here is the perfect example of what Thierry is getting at 
with the *perceived value* of the term "Big Tent" or "Official OpenStack 
project". :(

What about having deployment projects be "non-official" or "ecosystem" 
or "community" projects means that "the community ... essentially washed 
their hands of it"? :( You are putting words in my mouth and making a 
false equivalence between "community project" and "of lesser value". And 
that's precisely the problem these terms: people read way too much into 
them.

> 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.

Ben, I don't doubt this and as I've said publicly, I 100% support the 
joint deployment efforts and collaboration.

> 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.

What better way to encourage *community involvement* by saying all 
deployment tools are *community projects*?

Best,
-jay