Excerpts from Duncan Thomas's message of 2014-08-21 09:21:06 -0700:
> On 21 August 2014 14:27, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Specifically for Triple-O, by making the Deployment program == Triple-O, the
> > TC has picked the disk-image-based deployment of an undercloud design as The
> > OpenStack Way of Deployment. And as I've said previously in this thread, I
> > believe that the deployment space is similarly unsettled, and that it would
> > be more appropriate to let the Chef cookbooks and Puppet modules currently
> > sitting in the stackforge/ code namespace live in the openstack/ code
> > namespace.
> Totally agree with Jay here, I know people who gave up on trying to
> get any official project around deployment because they were told they
> had to do it under the TripleO umbrella

This was why the _program_ versus _project_ distinction was made. But
I think we ended up being 1:1 anyway.

Perhaps the deployment program's mission statement is too narrow, and
we should iterate on that. That others took their ball and went home,
instead of asking for a review of that ruling, is a bit disconcerting.

That probably strikes to the heart of the current crisis. If we were
being reasonable, alternatives to an official OpenStack program's mission
statement would be debated and considered thoughtfully. I know I made the
mistake early on of pushing the narrow _TripleO_ vision into what should
have been a much broader "Deployment" program. I'm not entirely sure why
that seemed o-k to me at the time, or why it was allowed to continue, but
I think it may be a good exercise to review those events and try to come
up with a few theories or even conclusions as to what we could do better.

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to