[openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology
joehuang at huawei.com
Tue Jun 20 03:57:45 UTC 2017
The idea of openstack project governance looks like the picture attached, that's my rough idea. All flat, choose your own flavors, decide how many balls by your own.
If the picture is not attached, please visit it here: https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1U4clumHXPZn029f8p76XE4aMzMei_Z6BCEUA0MF7114/edit?usp=sharing
Chaoyi Huang (joehuang)
Sent: 20 June 2017 8:33
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: RE: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology
I think openstack community provides a flat project market place for infrastructure is good enough:
all projects are just some "goods" in the market place, let the cloud operators to select projects
from the project market place for his own infrastructure.
We don't have to mark a project a core project or not, only need to tag attribute of a project, for
example how mature it is, how many "like" they have, what the cloud operator said for the project. etc.
All flat, just let people make decision by themselves, they are not idiot, they have wisdom
on building infrastructure.
Not all people need a package: you bought a package of ice-cream, but not all you will like it,
If they want package, distribution provider can help them to define and customize a package, if
you want customization, you will decide which ball of cream you want, isn't it?
openstack is "OPEN" stack.
Chaoyi Huang (joehuang)
From: Matt Riedemann [mriedemos at gmail.com]
Sent: 19 June 2017 22:56
To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology
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"
This is probably where the constellations idea comes in .
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
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenStack project market place.png
Size: 968692 bytes
Desc: OpenStack project market place.png
More information about the OpenStack-dev