Open Stack

On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 09:45:38PM -0300, Rafael Weingärtner wrote:
> Having said that, what puzzled me, and worried us, is the fact that
> features that work are being removed from a project just because some
> contributors/committers left the community. There wasn't (at least I did
> not see) a good technical reason to remove this feature (e.g. it does not

If I remember correctly, it was the other way around.

The idea was to make things cleaner: ceilometer to just gather data and
to send it along, gnocchi for storage, panko for events, etc.


> deliver what is promised, or an alternative solution has been created
> somewhere and effort is being concentrated there, nobody uses it, and so
> on). If the features were broken, and there were no people to fix it, I
> would understand, but that is not the case. The feature works, and it
> delivers what is promised. Moreover, reading the blog you referenced does
> not provide a good feeling about how the community has managed the event
> (the project losing part of its contributors) in question. OpenSource has
> cycles, and it is understandable that sometimes we do not have many people
> working on something. OpenSource projects have cycles, and that is normal.
> As you can see, now there would be us starting/trying to engage with the
> Telemetry project/community. What is hard for us to understand is that the
> contributors while leaving are also "killing" the project by removing part
> of its features (that are very interesting and valuable for us).

So, let's take your understanding what/how OpenSource works aside,
please. I am sure, nobody is trying to kill their baby when leaving a
project.

> 
> Why is that important for us?
> When we work with OpenSource we now that we might need to put effort to
> customize/adapt things to our business workflow, and we expect that the
> community will be there to receive and discuss these changes. Therefore, we
> have predictability that the software/system we base our business will be
> there, and we can contribute back to improve it. An open source community
> could and should live even if the project has no community for a while,
> then if people regroup and start to work on it again, the community is able
> to flourish.

Right. We're at the point "after no community", and it is up to the
community to start something new, taking over the corresponding code (if
they choose to do so).


Matthias
-- 
Matthias Runge <mrunge at matthias-runge.de>