Open Stack

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
wrote:
>
> Second, the question of how to have that discussion in our community. I
> encouraged the recently-announced Architecture WG to take the topic of
> growing the base services set and lead the public discussion
> (cost/benefit as described above) about them. In the end a decision
> needs to be clearly made (otherwise we'll be left in not-yes not-no
> limbo forever like in the DLM case) and therefore I can see a role for
> the TC to define the base services et and bless the suggested additions
> to it. But I'd rather have the public community discussion in an open
> structure (the Architecture WG) rather than a closed group (the elected
> TC members).
>

It doesn't appear that the Arch-WG has gotten off the ground yet.  I can't
find anything outside of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/335141/ (which
seems to have stalled at scoping) and #openstack-architecture does not
appear to be logged yet and is mostly quiet.

I've talked briefly with Clint about the Arch-WG spec and will make some
updates to it in the next day or so to keep things moving.  Would there be
support to use the Barbican requirement as a explicit test case for forming
the WG?

In order to avoid (most?) rabbit holes, the discussion should be
> specifically about adding Barbican (or DLM), not "what could we add ?".
> Defcore certainly needs to be involved but frankly I would find it weird
> if the process of adding an OpenStack project (Barbican) to the base
> service set was made more complex than the process of adding a
> non-OpenStack dependency (a DLM) to the base service set. It feels like
> an important cross-community discussion, which we could have in a Design
> Summit cross-project workshop in Barcelona (although that's not the
> ideal venue due to the pure developer branding around the event). I
> expect this type of cross-community discussions to be facilitated by the
> future neutral "Forum" we'll have starting at the Sydney Summit.
>

I think it would be helpful to spell out the reasons we think it is time
for this discussion (based on what sdague listed above) as a bit of a bar
to opening this for other projects in the future: there is a tangible need
and potentially unacceptable and/or divergent compromises may be made in
multiple projects if we do not act.

To me this is exactly one of the things that makes OpenStack one community,
recognizing when and where common dependencies are worth the pain.

dt

-- 

Dean Troyer
dtroyer at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-tc/attachments/20160819/8fb8f8a9/attachment.html>