[tc] [ironic] Promoting ironic to a top-level opendev project?

Jean-Philippe Evrard jean-philippe at evrard.me
Fri Apr 3 07:30:38 UTC 2020


On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 12:38 +0200, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> Hi,
> (snipped)
> People do get surprised when they hear that Ironic can be used
> standalone, yes. "A part of OpenStack" maps to "installed inside
> OpenStack" rather than "is developed on the OpenStack platform".

That's indeed what we need to change.

> > If you consider OpenStack taints this "standalone" part of Ironic,
> > do you think that putting it as a top project of the **OpenStack
> > Foundation ** will help? I don't think so. People will still see
> > it's an OpenStack _related_ technology, with a history of being an
> > OpenStack project, which is now a standalone project inside the
> > OpenStack foundation. At best, it confuses people which are not
> > really aware of all these details.
> > 
> Time to rename the Foundation? :) How is the same problem solved for
> Zuul or Kata Containers?

The first made me smile :)

I would say that Kata and Zuul have a different history. To my eyes,
Kata started as completely separated. How Zuul will eventually manage to detatch itself from the OpenStack name could be interesting. Please note that I have received the same questions (Do I need openstack? Is it a part of openstack?) when questioned about Zuul, in some events.


> As an aside, I don't think gnocchi fell victim of their split, but
> rather shared the overall fate of the Telemetry project.

I don't disagree.

> I also think your suggestion goes against the idea of OpenDev, which
> to me is to embrace a fast collection of Open Infrastructure
> projects, related to OpenStack or not. If you say that anything going
> to OpenDev will be seen as an OpenStack project, it defeats the
> purpose of OpenDev.

I wrongly worded this then. This is not my intent. OpenDev is a good
name/good branding IMO. It feels detached from OpenStack. I can totally
see many projects to be successful there without appearing to be
attached to the OpenStack name. For people searching a little bit, it
wouldn't take long to see that OpenStack was behind OpenDev, and
therefore people can still attach the name if they want. I think that
what matters is to be explicit in the project message.


> > Can't we work on the branding, naming, and message without the
> > move? Why the hassle of moving things? Does that really bring value
> > to your team? Before forging my final (personal) opinion, I would
> > like more information than just gut feelings.
> > 
> It's not "just gut feelings", it's the summary of numerous
> conversations that Julia and I have to hold when advocating for
> Ironic outside of the Nova context. We do this "Ironic does not imply
> OpenStack" explanation over and over, often enough unsuccessfully.

Let me rephrase this: Do you have feedback from people not active in
the project which would be happy to step up/in if Ironic was not an
OpenStack project anymore? What could be changed from the OpenStack
side to change that mindset?

> And then some people just don't like OpenStack...

I don't disagree, sadly. I know it's a hard task, but I prefer tackling
this. Make OpenStack (more) likeable. To me, that seems a better goal in itself. But that's maybe me :)

> 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.

I don't see it that way. I see this as an opportunity to make OpenStack
more clear, more reachable, more interesting. For me, Ironic, Cinder,
Manila (to only name a few), are very good example of datacenter/IaaS
software that could be completely independent in their consumption, and
additionally released together. For me, the strength of OpenStack was
always in the fact it had multiple small projects that work well
together, compared to a single big blob of software which does
everything. We just didn't bank enough on the standalone IMHO. But I am
sure we are aligned there... Wouldn't the next steps be instead to make
it easier to consume standalone?

Also, how is the reliance on oslo a problem? Do you want to use another
library in the python ecosystem instead? If true, what about phasing
out that part of oslo, so we don't have to maintain it? Just curious. 

> (snipped) I'm referring to a very narrow sense of Nova+company. I.e.
> a solution for providing virtual machines booting from virtual
> volumes on virtual networks. Ironic does not clearly fit there, nor
> does, say, Zuul.

Got it. That's not my understanding of what OpenStack is, but I concede
that I might have a different view than most.

> > )snipped) Please note that I am still writing an idea in our ideas
> > framework, proposing a change in the release cycles (that
> > conversation again! but with a little twist), which I guess you
> > might be interested in.
> > 
> Please let me know when it's ready, I really am.

Will do!


More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list