On 9 July 2013 20:12, Thierry Carrez <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert Collins wrote: > > I thought I would get some input on a draft statement before submitting > > one for the TC to vote on. > > > > We're very focused on using OpenStack components in the delivery as much > > as possible - growing the capabilities of OpenStack rather than working > > around things; so I've captured that in the mission statement. While > > we're focused on trunk deploys today, I think that is more tactical than > > mission-level : we'd be totally happy to work with releases (as well) > > should interested people want to step up and help maintain stable > > branches of the tripleo heat templates etc. > > > > So - here is the draft: > > > > Official Title: OpenStack Deployment > > PTL: Robert Collins <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > Mission Statement: > > Develop and maintain the tooling and infrastructure needed to > > deploy OpenStack in production, using OpenStack itself wherever > > possible. > > Looks good. Personally I'd probably not say "needed to deploy OpenStack > in production", which sounds a bit exclusive: I'm not sure we want to > bless one deployment method and exclude others... Maybe something like > "...tooling and infrastructure able to deploy OpenStack in production at > scale, reusing OpenStack itself..."
So tripleo scales down too, the same potential issue you raise with excluding other deployment methodologies applies if we say 'at scale', in reverse ;). How about > Develop and maintain tooling and infrastructure able to > deploy OpenStack in production, using OpenStack itself wherever > possible. That is s/the// - removing the implication of a singleton, and s/needed/able/ -Rob -- Robert Collins <[email protected]> Distinguished Technologist HP Cloud Services
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
