Open Stack

> On Jun 21, 2017, at 9:20 AM, Clark Boylan <cboylan at sapwetik.org> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017, at 08:48 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
>> On 06/19/2017 05:42 PM, Chris Hoge wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Jun 15, 2017, at 5:57 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Sean Dague wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> I think those are all fine. The other term that popped into my head was
>>>>> "Friends of OpenStack" as a way to describe the openstack-hosted efforts
>>>>> that aren't official projects. It may be too informal, but I do think
>>>>> the OpenStack-Hosted vs. OpenStack might still mix up in people's head.
>>>> 
>>>> My original thinking was to call them "hosted projects" or "host
>>>> projects", but then it felt a bit incomplete. I kinda like the "Friends
>>>> of OpenStack" name, although it seems to imply some kind of vetting that
>>>> we don't actually do.
>>> 
>>> Why not bring back the name Stackforge and apply that
>>> to unofficial projects? It’s short, descriptive, and unambiguous.
>> 
>> Just keep in mind that people always looked at stackforge projects as
>> "immature 
>> experimental projects". I remember getting questions "when is
>> ironic-inspector 
>> going to become a real project" because of our stackforge prefix back
>> then, even 
>> though it was already used in production.
> 
> A few days ago I suggested a variant of Thierry's suggestion below. Get
> rid of the 'openstack' prefix entirely for hosting and use stackforge
> for everything. Then officially governed OpenStack projects are hosted
> just like any other project within infra under the stackforge (or Opium)
> name. The problem with the current "flat" namespace is that OpenStack
> means something specific and we have overloaded it for hosting. But we
> could flip that upside down and host OpenStack within a different flat
> namespace that represented "project hosting using OpenStack infra
> tooling”.

I dunno. I understand that it’s extra work to have two namespaces,
but it sends a clear message. Approved TC, UC, and Board projects
remain under openstack, and unofficial move to a name that is not
openstack (i.e. stackforge/opium/etc).

As part of a branding exercise, it creates a clear, easy to
understand, and explain division.

For names like stackforge being considered a pejorative, we can
work as a community against that. I know that when I was helping run
the puppet modules under stackforge, I was proud of the work and
understood it to mean that it was a community supported, but not
official project. I was pretty sad when stackforge went away, precisely
because of the confusion we’re experiencing with ‘big tent’ today.


> The hosting location isn't meant to convey anything beyond the project
> is hosted on a Gerrit run by infra and tests are run by Zuul.
> stackforge/ is not an (anti)endorsement (and neither is openstack/).
> 
> Unfortunately, I expect that doing this will also result in a bunch of
> confusion around "why is OpenStack being renamed", "what is happening to
> OpenStack governance", etc.
> 
>>>> An alternative would be to give "the OpenStack project infrastructure"
>>>> some kind of a brand name (say, "Opium", for OpenStack project
>>>> infrastructure ultimate madness) and then call the hosted projects
>>>> "Opium projects". Rename the Infra team to Opium team, and voilà!
>>>> -- 
>>>> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> 
> Clark
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org <mailto:OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org>?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20170621/a2cbc7fc/attachment.html>