[openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

Jay Pipes jaypipes at gmail.com
Mon Jun 19 15:11:50 UTC 2017

On 06/16/2017 05:18 AM, Graham Hayes wrote:
> On 15/06/17 22:35, Ed Leafe wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2017, at 3:35 PM, Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:
>>> For me it's one of the most annoying yet challenging/interesting
>>> aspects: free software development is as much about community and
>>> politics as it is actual software development (perhaps more so).
>> Another way to look at it is how we see ourselves (as a community) and how people on the outside see OpenStack. I would imagine that someone looking at OpenStack for the first time would not care a whit about governance, repo locations, etc. They would certainly care about "what do I need to do to use this thing?"
>> What we call things isn't confusing to those of us in the community - well, at least to those of us who take the time to read big long email threads like this. We need to be clearer in how we represent OpenStack to outsiders. To that end, I think that limiting the term "OpenStack" to a handful of the core projects would make things a whole lot clearer. We can continue to present everything else as a marketplace, or an ecosystem, or however the more marketing-minded want to label it, but we should *not* call those projects "OpenStack".
>> Now I know, I work on Nova, so I'm expecting responses that "of course you don't care", or "OpenStack is people, and you're hurting our feelings!". So flame away!
> Where to start.
> Most of the small projects are not complaining about "hurt feelings".
> If the community want to follow advice from a certain tweet, and limit
> OpenStack to Nova + its spinouts, we should do that. Just let the rest
> of us know, so we can either start shutting down the projects, or look
> at moving the projects to another foundation.
> Of course we should probably change the OpenStack mission statement,
> and give the board a heads up that all these project teams they talk
> about publicly will be going away.
> And, yes, coming from different project teams does mean that we will
> have differing views on what should be in OpenStack, and its level of
> priority - but (in my personal, biased opinion) we should not throw the
> baby out with the bath water because we cannot find two names to
> describe things.

How about Designate become a standalone DNSaaS project that more than 
OpenStack can use? Kubernetes could use Designate as a DNS provider, 
then, in the same way that it can currently use Cinder as a 
PersistenVolume provider.

Then there'd be no need to fret about a particular tweet.


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list