Open Stack

Replying on top of Mohammed, since I like his answer and want to add
some comments.

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Mohammed Naser <mnaser at vexxhost.com> wrote:
[...]

> Ideally, I think that OpenStack should be targeted to become a core
> infrastructure tool that's part of organizations all around the world
> which can deliver both OpenStack-native services (think Nova for VMs,
> Cinder for block storage) and OpenStack-enabled services (think Magnum
> which deployed Kubernetes integrated with OpenStack, Sahara which
> deploys Big Data software integrated with Swift).
>
> This essentially makes OpenStack sit at the heart of the operations of
> every organization (ideally!).  It also translates well with
> OpenStack's goal of providing a unified set of APIs and interfaces
> which are always predictable to do the operations that you expect them
> to do.  With time, this will make OpenStack much more accessible, as
> it becomes very easy to interact with as any individuals move from one
> organization to another.

I agree a lot with Mohammed here. I also like to think we build
OpenStack to place it at the heart of all organizations consuming
infrastructure at any scale or any architecture.
It can be some pieces from OpenStack or a whole set of services
working together.
Also like he said, providing set of API, that are well known; I would
add "stable APIs" (see discussions with Glare / Glance) and ensure
some "perennity" for our end-users.

Having talked with some users, some folks say "OpenStack becomes
boring and we like it". Pursuing the discussion, they like to have
long life API support and stability in how they operate. I think at a
TC level we need to make sure we can both innovate and maintain this
stability at a certain level.

[...]
-- 
Emilien Macchi