On 08/20/2014 05:06 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 08/20/2014 07:21 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
Hi Thierry, thanks for the reply. Comments inline. :)

On 08/20/2014 06:32 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
If we want to follow your model, we probably would have to dissolve
programs as they stand right now, and have blessed categories on one
side, and teams on the other (with projects from some teams being
blessed as the current solution).

Why do we have to have "blessed" categories at all? I'd like to think of
a day when the TC isn't picking winners or losers at all. Level the
playing field and let the quality of the projects themselves determine
the winner in the space. Stop the incubation and graduation madness and
change the role of the TC to instead play an advisory role to upcoming
(and existing!) projects on the best ways to integrate with other
OpenStack projects, if integration is something that is natural for the
project to work towards.

It seems to me that at some point you need to have a recommended way of
doing things, otherwise it's going to be *really hard* for someone to
bring up an OpenStack installation.

Why can't there be multiple recommended ways of setting up an OpenStack installation? Matter of fact, in reality, there already are multiple recommended ways of setting up an OpenStack installation, aren't there?

There's multiple distributions of OpenStack, multiple ways of doing bare-metal deployment, multiple ways of deploying different message queues and DBs, multiple ways of establishing networking, multiple open and proprietary monitoring systems to choose from, etc. And I don't really see anything wrong with that.

We already run into issues with something as basic as competing SQL

If the TC suddenly said "Only MySQL will be supported", that would not mean that the greater OpenStack community would be served better. It would just unnecessarily take options away from deployers.

> If every component has several competing implementations and
none of them are "official" how many more interaction issues are going
to trip us up?

IMO, OpenStack should be about choice. Choice of hypervisor, choice of DB and MQ infrastructure, choice of operating systems, choice of storage vendors, choice of networking vendors.

If there are multiple actively-developed projects that address the same problem space, I think it serves our OpenStack users best to let the projects work things out themselves and let the cream rise to the top. If the cream ends up being one of those projects, so be it. If the cream ends up being a mix of both projects, so be it. The production community will end up determining what that cream should be based on what it deploys into its clouds and what input it supplies to the teams working on competing implementations.

And who knows... what works or is recommended by one deployer may not be what is best for another type of deployer and I believe we (the TC/governance) do a disservice to our user community by picking a winner in a space too early (or continuing to pick a winner in a clearly unsettled space).

Just my thoughts on the topic, as they've evolved over the years from being a pure developer, to doing QA, then deploy/ops work, and back to doing development on OpenStack...


OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to