Open Stack

> On 29 Jun 2017, at 17:35, Chris Friesen <chris.friesen at windriver.com> wrote:
> 
> On 06/29/2017 09:23 AM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> 
>> We are already WELL past where we can solve the problem you are describing.
>> Pandora's box has been opened - we have defined ourselves as an Open community.
>> Our only requirement to be official is that you behave as one of us. There is
>> nothing stopping those machine learning projects from becoming official. If they
>> did become official but were still bad software - what would we have solved?
>> 
>> We have a long-time official project that currently has staffing problems. If
>> someone Googles for OpenStack DBaaS and finds Trove and then looks to see that
>> the contribution rate has fallen off recently they could get the impression that
>> OpenStack is a bunch of dead crap.
>> 
>> Inclusion as an Official Project in OpenStack is not an indication that anyone
>> thinks the project is good quality. That's a decision we actively made. This is
>> the result.
> 
> I wonder if it would be useful to have a separate orthogonal status as to "level of stability/usefulness/maturity/quality" to help newcomers weed out projects that are under TC governance but are not ready for prime time.
> 

There is certainly a concern on the operator community as to how viable/useful a project is (and how to determine this). Adopting too early makes for a very difficult discussion with cloud users who rely on the function. 

Can an ‘official’ project be deprecated? The economics say yes. The consumer confidence impact would be substantial.

However, home grown solutions where there is common interest implies technical debt in the long term.

Tim

> Chris
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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