Open Stack

Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Joshua Harlow wrote:
>> [...]
>> * Be opinionated; let's actually pick *specific* technologies based on
>> well thought out decisions about what we want out of those technologies
>> and integrate them deeply (and if we make a bad decision, that's ok, we
>> are all grown ups and we'll deal with it). IMHO it hasn't turned out
>> well trying to have drivers for everything and everyone so let's umm
>> stop doing that.
>
> About "being all grown-ups and dealing with it", the problem is that
> it's mostly an externality: the choice is done by developers and the
> cost of handling the bad decision is carried by operators. Externalities
> make for bad decisions.

Fair point, so how do we make it not a externality (I guess this is 
where the core services arch-wg thread comes in?)? It all reminds me of 
the gimp and how its UI was really bad to use for years. Sometimes 
developers don't make the best decisions (and rightly so I will admit I 
sometimes don't either).

>
> I agree that having drivers for everything is nonsense. The model we
> have started to promote (around base services) is an expand/contract
> model: start by expanding support to a couple viable options, and then
> once operators / the market decides on one winner, contract to only
> supporting that winner, and start using the specific features of that
> technology.

Is it possible to avoid the expand/contract? I get that idea, but it 
seems awfully slow and drawn out... I'd almost rather pick a good enough 
solution, and devote a lot of resources into making it the best solution 
instead of choosing 2 solutions (neither very good) and then later 
picking 1 (by the time that happens, someone that picked solution #1 
would be quite a bit farther ahead of you).

>
> The benefit is that the final choice ends up being made by the
> operators. Yes, it means that at the start you will have to do with the
> lowest common denominator. But frankly at this stage it would be awesome
> to just have the LCD of DLMs, rather than continue disagreeing on
> Zookeeper vs. etcd and not even having that lowest common denominator.

On a side note, whenever I heard operators or developers it makes me 
sad... Why do we continue to think there are two groups here? I'd almost 
like there to be some kind of rotation among *all* openstack folks where 
say individuals in the community rotate between companies to get a feel 
for what it means to operate & develop this beast.

Perhaps some kind of internship like thing (except call it something 
else), I'd certainly like to break down these walls that continue to be 
mentioned when I don't really think they need to exist...

>
>> * Leads others; we are one of the older cloud foundations (I think?) so
>> we should be leading others such as the CNCF and such, so we must be
>> heavily outreaching to these others and helping them learn from our
>> mistakes
>
> We can always do more, but this is already happening. I was asked for
> and provided early advice to the CNCF while they were setting up their
> technical governance structure. Other foundations reached out to us to
> discuss and adopt our vulnerability management models. There are a lot
> more examples.

Is it theortically possible that we just merge with some of these 
foundations? Aren't we better as a bundle of twigs instead of our own 
stick?

"A single twig breaks, but the bundle of twigs is strong." - Tecumseh

Why aren't we leading the formation of that bundle?

>
>> [...]
>> * Full control of infrastructure (mostly discard it); I don't think we
>> necessarily need to have full control of infrastructure anymore. I'd
>> rather target something that builds on the layers of others at this
>> point and offers value there.
>
> +1
>