On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 17:59 -0500, Ed Leafe wrote: > The longer we try to be both sides of this process, the longer we will > continue to have these back-and-forths about stability vs. innovation.
If I understand correctly your model, it works only for users/operators who decide to rely on a vendor to consume OpenStack. There are quite large enterprises out there who consume directly the code as it's shipped from git.openstack.org, some from trunk others from the stable release .tgz: these guys can't count on companies A, B, C or D to put resources to fix their problems, because they don't talk to those companies. One thing I like of your proposal though, when you say: > So what is "production-ready"? And how would you trust any such > designation? I think that it should be the responsibility of groups > outside of OpenStack development to make that call. This problem has been bugging the European authorities for a long time and they've invested quite a lot of money to find tools that would help IT managers of the public (and private) sector estimate the quality of open source code. It's a big deal in fact when on one hand you have Microsoft and IBM sales folks selling your IT managers overpriced stuff that "just works" and on the other hand you have this "Linux" thing that nobody has heard of, it's gratis and I can find it on the web and many say it "just works", too... crazy, right? Well, at the time it was and to some extent, it still is. So the EU has funded lots of research in this area. One group of researcher that I happen to be familiar with, recently has received another bag of Euros and released code/methodologies to evaluate and compare open source projects[1]. The principles they use to evaluate software are not that hard to find and are quite objective. For example: is there a book published about this project? If there is, chances are this project is popular enough for a publisher to sell copies. Is the project's documentation translated in multiple languages? Then we can assume the project is popular. How long has the code been around? How large is the pool of contributors? Are there training programs offered? You get the gist. Following up on my previous crazy ideas (did I hear someone yell "keep 'em coming"?), probably a set of tags like: book-exists (or book-chapter-exists) specific-training-offered translated-in-1-language (and its bigger brothers translated-in-5, translated-in-10+languages) contributor-size-high (or low, and we can set a rule as we do for the diversity metric used in incubation/graduation) codebase-age-baby, -young and -mature, (in classes, like less than 1, 1-3, 3+ years old) would help a user understand that Nova or Neutron are different from (say) Barbican or Zaqar. These are just statements of facts, not a qualitative assessment of any of the projects mentioned. At the same time, I have the impression these facts would help our users make up their mind. Thoughts? [1] http://www.ict-prose.eu/2014/12/09/osseval-prose-open-source-evaluation-methodology-and-tool/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
