Open Stack

On 6/17/2017 10:55 AM, Jay Bryant wrote:
> 
> I am responding under Tim's note because I think it gets at what we 
> really want to communicate and takes me to what we have presented in 
> OUI.  We have Core OpenStack Projects and then a whole community of 
> additional projects that support cloud functionality.
> 
> So, without it being named, or cutesy, though I liked "Friends of 
> Openstack", can we go with "OpenStack Core Projects" and "Peripheral 
> OpenStack Projects"?

Because then you have to define what "core" means, and how you get to be 
"core", which is like the old system of integrated and incubated 
projects. I agree that a "core" set of projects is more understandable 
at first, probably most for an outsider. But it gets confusing from a 
governance perspective within the community.

And if you want to run just containers with Kubernetes and you want to 
use Keystone and Cinder with it, you don't need Nova, so is Nova "core" 
or not?

This is probably where the constellations idea comes in [1].

At the end of the day it's all OpenStack to me if it's hosted on 
OpenStack infra, but I'm not the guy making budget decisions at a 
company determining what to invest in. I think Doug has tried to explain 
that perspective a bit elsewhere in this thread, and it sounds like 
that's the key issue, the outside perspective from people making budget 
decisions.

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/453262/

-- 

Thanks,

Matt