Open Stack

On 06/15/2017 11:05 AM, Jay Pipes 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 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.

The problem is that no matter what you call it, as long as you have two 
groups, one that includes Nova, Neutron, etc. and one that doesn't, the 
one that does is always going to be seen as more "important".  Even if 
it's purely a perception thing (which I won't dispute), it's a 
meaningful perception thing and I think moving the deployment projects 
would send the wrong message.  Deployment tools are a critical part of 
the OpenStack ecosystem and their categorization (whatever it ends up 
being called) should reflect that.

Maybe part of the problem is the context of this discussion.  We moved 
from talking about a largely abandoned project to all the deployment 
projects, which (intentionally or not) draws some uncomfortable 
parallels.  It also appears this is a discussion we should probably 
table until the big tent terminology one is completed because until then 
we're mostly debating our individual interpretation of the governance 
model.  Once we're done redrawing the lines of demarcation in the 
OpenStack community maybe the correct place for deployment projects will 
be more obvious.  I doubt it, but one can hope :-).

>
>> 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
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev