Open Stack

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 10:58 AM Clark Boylan <cboylan at sapwetik.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020, at 3:38 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> >
>
> Snip because I wanted to respond to one specific point made below.
>
> > Now, I do agree that there are steps that can be taken before we go all
> > nuclear. We can definitely work on our own website, we can reduce
> > reliance on oslo, start releasing independently, and so on. I'm
> > wondering what will be left of our participation in OpenStack in the
> > end. Thierry has suggested the role of the TC in ensuring integration.
> > I'm of the opinion that if all stakeholders in Ironic lose interest in
> > Ironic as part of OpenStack, no power will prevent the integration from
> > slowly falling apart.
>
> Opinion from someone that has worked on OpenStack for a long time: I don't think using oslo, sticking to a 6 month release cadence, integration with Nova is what defines "OpenStack". The goal has been to build tools for API driven management of data center resources. When looked at in this way some of the other examples mentioned, Zuul and Gnocchi, don't quite fit. But within that goal even if we aren't using the same underlying libraries or releasing in tight synchronization the involved individuals and projects can learn from each other and help each other in significant ways.
>

You raise many good points, and I would hope that there would be a
continuing cross-learning and collaboration. I feel like the idea of
independence driven by trying to solve two distinct issues
(perceptions (of, about, and related to OpenStack as related to
Ironic), and human resistance to any different pattern of behavior
(releases _AND_ consumption their of)) has elicited a bit of a nuclear
response and interpretation.

> Taking Ironic as the example, I think one of the major ways Ironic can contribute to OpenStack is showing how you can evolve to do things like 1) operate in a standalone fashion to meet user demands 2) remove/refactor/replace existing dependencies like rabbitmq to improve operability and stability 3) rely less on devstack for testing and so on.
>

I think we already have. Although, I'm unsure if the developer
community at large places any value on those things. In my experience,
consumers of ironic software seem to. Has Ironic failed to really
broadcast those things out? Likely, but I'm fairly sure we've
mentioned some of these things in multiple forums (including Forums
and project update). As a result I'm also unsure of what really more
we CAN [effectively] do given the pre-conditions and resistance to
change along with the existing team divisions and focuses. Is there a
better way that reaches everyone? An additional way? I don't know, but
would sure like to know of one.

> Whether or not the proposed split happens isn't up to me, but I'm worried we think that using oslo, integrating with nova, and strict adherence to a 6 month release cycle is what defines OpenStack. What will be left is your participation in the community to not only make management of baremetal servers in the datacenter better, but also networking, and virtualization, and storage and so on.
>
> Clark
>

I believe it is ultimately up to the active contributors to the
project as a whole in terms of splitting, and I guess that should be
put to a vote at some point. Last time we polled among the cores about
a ?year? ago upon revisiting an ask for us to consider working towards
becoming a top level project, it was 50/50. Given everyone's comments,
I'm fairly sure there would not be agreement to move forward.

Maybe out of this, as a community, we could have a serious discussion
of perceptions and headaches, but given our tendency to try and create
process and tools for issues that are fundamentally related to
humans... I am unsure.

-Julia