+1 to drop Fuel from governance -- Dims
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Thierry Carrez <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Part of reducing OpenStack perceived complexity is to cull projects that > have not delivered on their initial promises. Those are always difficult > discussions, but we need to have them. In this email I'd like to discuss > whether we should no longer consider Fuel an official OpenStack project, > and turn it into a hosted (unofficial) project. > > Fuel originated at Mirantis as their OpenStack installer. It was > proposed as an official OpenStack project in July 2015 and approved in > November 2015. The promise at that time was that making it official > would drive other organizations to participate in its development and > turn it into the one generic OpenStack installer that everyone wanted. > Fuel was not a small endeavor: in Mitaka and Newton it represented more > commits than Nova. > > The Fuel team fully embraced open collaboration, but failed to attract > other organizations. Mitaka and Newton were still 96% the work of > Mirantis. In my view, while deployment/packaging tools sit at the > periphery of the "OpenStack" map, they make sense as official OpenStack > teams if they create an open collaboration playing field and attract > multiple organizations. Otherwise they are just another opinionated > install tool that happens to be blessed with an "official" label. > > Since October 2016, Fuel's activity has dropped, following the gradual > disengagement of its main sponsor. Comparing activity in the 5 first > months of the year, there was a 68% drop between 2016 and 2017, the > largest of any official OpenStack project. The Fuel team hasn't met on > IRC for the last 3 months. Activity dropped from ~990 commits/month (Apr > 2016, Aug 2016) to 52 commits in April 2017 and 25 commits in May 2017. > And there are unsolved issues around licensing that have been lingering > for the last 6 months. > > I think that, despite the efforts of the Fuel team, Fuel did not become > what we hoped when we made it official: a universal installer that would > be used across the board. It was worth a try, I'm happy that we tried, > but I think it's time to stop considering it a part of "OpenStack" > proper and make it a hosted project. It can of course continue its > existence as an unofficial project hosted on OpenStack infrastructure. > > Thoughts ? > > -- > Thierry Carrez (ttx) > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
