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

Dmitry Tantsur dtantsur at redhat.com
Tue Apr 7 13:07:21 UTC 2020


On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:57 PM Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:

> Mohammed Naser wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 10:53 AM Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis at gmx.com>
> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Cinder has been useful stand alone for several years now, but I have
> >> also seen the reaction of "why would I use that, I don't need all of
> >> that OpenStack stuff".
> >>
> >> I wonder if we need to do something better to highlight and message that
> >> there are certain components of OpenStack that are useful as independent
> >> components that can exist on their own.
> >
> > I think that Sean here hit on the most critical point we need to
> > drive.  There's no amount of splitting that would resolve this.
> I think a large part of the problem lies in the way we communicate about
> OpenStack. In particular, it is difficult to find a webpage that talks
> about ironic as a software component you might want to use.
> Practical exercise: find ironic on openstack.org. The best path involves
> two clicks and you only land on a component page[1] without much
> explanations. Or you reach https://www.openstack.org/bare-metal/ which
> is great, but more about the use case than the software. We are
> collectively to blame for this. The data on that component page is
> maintained by a repo[2] that I issued multiple calls for help for, and
> yet there aren't many changes proposed to expand the information
> presented there. And having a mix of a Foundation and a product website
> coexist at openstack.org means the information is buried so deeply
> someone born in this century would likely never find it.

I didn't even know about osf/openstack-map.. Either I'm living under a rock
(possible) or there may be some improvements in the internal communication
as well (not blaming anyone, we're all in it together).

> I think we need to improve on that, but it takes time due to how search
> engines work. I may sound like a broken record, but the solution in my
> opinion is to have basic, component-specific websites for components
> that can be run standalone. Think ironic.io (except .io domains are
> horrible and it's already taken). A website that would solely be
> dedicated to presenting Ironic, and would only mention OpenStack in the
> fineprint, or as a possible integration. It would list Ironic releases
> outside of openstack cycle context, and display Ironic docs without the
> openstack branding.
> That would go further to solve the issue than any governance change
> IMHO. Thoughts?

I think I've said it already, but it's a great idea and should be done no
matter how this discussion ends up.


> [1] https://www.openstack.org/software/releases/train/components/ironic
> [2] https://opendev.org/osf/openstack-map/
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20200407/cc362879/attachment.html>

More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list