On 08/25/2014 03:50 PM, Adam Lawson wrote:
I recognize I'm joining the discussion late but I've been following the
dialog fairly closely and want to offer my perspective FWIW. I have a
lot going through my head, not sure how to get it all out there so I'll
do a brain dump, get some feedback and apologize in advance.
One the things I like most about Openstack is its incredible flexibility
- a modular architecture where certain programs/capabilities can be
leveraged for a specific install - or not, and ideally the rest of the
feature suite remains functional irrespective of a program status. When
it comes to a program being approved as part of Openstack Proper (pardon
my stepping over that discussion), I think a LOT of what is being
discussed here touches on what Openstack will ultimately be about and
what it won't.
With products like Cloudstack floating around consuming market share,
all I see is Citrix. A product billed as open source but so closely
aligned with one vendor that it almost doesn't matter. They have matured
decision structure, UI polish and organized support but they don't have
community. Not like us anyway. With Openstack the moral authority to
call ourselves the champions of open cloud and with that, we have
competing interests that make our products better. We don't have a
single vendor (yet) that dictates whether something will happen or not.
The maturity of the Openstack products themselves are driven by a
community of consumers where the needs are accommodated rather than sold.
A positive than comes with such a transparent design pipeline is the
increased capability for design agility and accommodating changes when a
change is needed. But I'm becoming increasingly disappointed at the
mount of attention being given to whether one product is blessed by
Openstack or not. In a modular design, these programs should be
interchangeable with only a couple exceptions. Does being blessed really
matter? The consensus I've garnered in this thread is the desperate need
for the consuming community's continued involvement. What I
/haven't/ heard much about is how Openstack can standardize how these
programs - blessed or not - can interact with the rest of the suite to
the extent they adhere to the correct inputs/outputs which makes them
functional. Program status is irrelevant.
I guess when it comes right down to it, I love what Openstack is and
where we're going and I especially appreciate these discussions. But I'm
disappointed at the number of concerns I've been reading about things
that ultimately don't matter (like being blessed, about who has the
power, etc) and I have concerns we lose sight what this is all about to
the point that the vision for Openstack gets clouded.
We have a good thing and no project can accommodate every request so a
decision must be made as to what is 'included' and what is 'supported'.
But with modularity, it really doesn't matter one iota if a program is
blessed in the Openstack integrated release cycle or not.
Couldn't agree with you more, Adam. I believe if OpenStack is to succeed
in the future, our community and our governance structure needs to
embrace the tremendous growth in scope that OpenStack's success to-date
has generated. The last thing we should do, IMO, is reverse course and
act like a single-vendor product in order to "tame the wildlings".
OpenStack-dev mailing list