Open Stack

On 21/06/17 06:18 +0000, joehuang wrote:
>hello, Flavio,

Hi :D

>This thread is to discuss moving away from the "big tent" term, not removing some project.
>Removing a project will make this flavor disappear from the ice-cream counter, but this thread,
>it's to use another concept to describe projects under openstack project governance.
>If we don't want to use "big tent" for those projects staying in the counter,
>I hope all projects could be treated in flat, just like different flavor ice-creams are flat in the
>same counter, kid can make choice by themselves.
>
>Even Nova may be only "core"  to some cloud operators, but not always for all cloud operators,
>for example, those who only run object storage service, hyper.sh also not use Nova,  some day may
>some cloud operators only use Zun or K8S instead for computing, it should not be an issue
>to OpenStack community.

I think you misunderstood my message. I'm not talking about removing projects,
I'm talking about the staging of these projects to join the "Big tent" -
regardless of how we call it. The distinction *is* important and we ought to
find a way to preserve it and communicate it so that there's the least amount of
confusion possible.


>OpenStack should be "OPEN" stack for infrastructure, just like kid can choose how many
>balls of ice-cream, cloud operators can make decision to choose which project to use or
>not to manage his infrastructure.

You keep mentioning "OPEN stack" as if we weren't being open (enough?) and I
think I'm failing to see why you think that. Could you please elaborate more?
What you're describing seems to be the current status.

Flavio

>Best Regards
>Chaoyi Huang (joehuang)
>
>________________________________________
>From: Flavio Percoco [flavio at redhat.com]
>Sent: 20 June 2017 17:44
>To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big    tent"   terminology
>
>On 20/06/17 00:33 +0000, joehuang wrote:
>>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?
>
>The flavors you see in a ice-creem shop counter are not there by accident. Those
>flavors have gone through a creation process, they have been tested and they
>have also survived over the years. Some flavors are removed with time and some
>others stay there forever.
>
>Unfortunately, tagging those flavors won't cut it, which is why you don't see
>tags in their labels when you go to an ice-cream shop. Some tags are implied,
>other tags are inferred and other tags are subjective.
>
>Experimenting with new flavors doesn't happen overnight in some person's
>bedroom. The new flavors are tested using the *same* infrastructure as the other
>flavors and once they reach a level of maturity, they are exposed in the counter
>so that customers will able to consume them.
>
>Ultimately, experimentation is part of the ice-cream shop's mission and it
>requires time, effort and resources but not all experiments end well. At the
>end, though, what really matters is that all these flavors serve the same
>mission and that's why they are sold at the ice-cream shop, that's why they are
>exposed in the counter. Customer's of the ice-cream shop know they can trust
>what's in the counter. They know the exposed flavors serve their needs at a high
>level and they can now focus on their specific needs.
>
>So, do you really think it's just a set of flavors and it doesn't really matter
>how those flavors got there?
>
>Flavio
>
>--
>@flaper87
>Flavio Percoco
>
>__________________________________________________________________________
>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

--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 862 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20170621/a3ffa621/attachment.sig>