[openstack-dev] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project
emilien at redhat.com
Thu Jun 15 20:02:08 UTC 2017
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>> 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
>>>>> 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:
>>> 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
> 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
>> 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*?
I think I understand what you're pointing out here and in the same
time I understand Ben's opinion.
We have been working hard on collaborating with other OpenStack
projects in many ways (I don't think we need to give examples here)
that folks would be scared of the fact to stop being an official
I see two eventual impacts (open for discussion) that I would see if
we (deployment projects) would become unofficial:
* some Deployment projects are working harder than some others not
part of the Big Tent to collaborate with other OpenStack projects.
This collaboration gave some notoriety and we're now able to tell
which Deployment projects are mature and the ones who aren't yet (I
know it's opinionated but some Deployment tools not part of the Big
Tent haven't demonstrated yet a wide collaboration in OpenStack
community). So if we become unofficial and are all put in the same
bucket, it would be hard for newcomers in the community to understand
which projects are really collaborating and mature and the one who
* we would need to make sure these projects would still have rooms at
PTG to continue the design discussions as it was done before.
Anyway. Back on the Fuel topic: I find the situation extremely sad
when we know what Fuel engineers did over the last years to create
this amazing project. We also acknowledge their collaboration
improvements over the last years (you'll notice I haven't complained
about Fuel since June 2015). Their involvement in Packaging efforts
but also in Puppet OpenStack (and probably more projects that I
missed, sorry) will be remembered and I'm personally happy with what
we've done together. Indeed the project is in maintenance mode now, as
far I know. I would like to hear from them and get their feedback on
the idea of pulling them out from the Big Tent. To be honest,
regarding the situation of the project I don't think they care about
this change, really. Most of our friends from Mirantis who worked on
Fuel are not out of the project or even out of the company (and some
of them now out of OpenStack :-( ).
So +1 to remove them but also get their feedback.
Thanks to the Fuel team for their awesome work and collaboration over the years.
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
More information about the OpenStack-dev