Open Stack

Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2017-10-21 13:37:01 +0000:
> On 2017-10-20 22:50:53 +0000 (+0000), Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> [...]
> > Ideally, there should be an OpenStack overarching architecture
> > team of some sort to handle this kind of thing I think.
> 
> There was one for a while, but it dissolved due to lack of community
> participation. If you'd like to help reboot it, Clint B. can
> probably provide you with background on the previous attempt.
> 

I'd be in support of reviving the Architecture Working Group (SIG?).

Would need to see more people commit to it though. It mostly felt like
a place for Thierry and me to write down our ideas, and a title to put
on a room at the PTG so we could have cross-project discussions about
our ideas.

That said, there is a cross-project process that works pretty well when
one project needs to ask for changes from other projects:

https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/cross-project.html

I believe the Keystone team followed this process despite some fumbles
early in the v3 story.

> > Without such an entity though, I think the TC is probably
> > currently the best place to discuss it though?
> 
> Contrary to the impression some people seem to have, the TC is not
> primarily composed of cloud architects; it's an elected body of
> community leaders who seek informed input from people like you. I've
> personally found no fault in the process and timeline the Keystone
> team followed in this situation but I'm also not the primary
> audience for their software, so it's good to hear from those who are
> about ways to improve similar cases in the future. However, I also
> understand that no matter how widely and carefully changes are
> communicated, there's only so much anyone can do to avoid surprising
> the subset of users who simply don't pay attention.

Right, the TC is more or less a legislative body. They can set policy
but they don't actually make sure the vision is implemented directly.

I made an argument that there's a need for an executive branch to get
hard things done here:

http://fewbar.com/2017/02/open-source-governance-needs-presidents/

Without some kind of immediate executive that sits above project levels,
we'll always be designing by committee and find our silos getting deeper.

All of that said, I believe the Keystone team did a great job of getting
something hard done. As Morgan states, it was a 100% necessary evolution
and required delicate orchestration. Well done Keystone team!