Thanks Daniel for taking the time to write such deep message. Obviously
you have thought about this issue for a long time and your opinion comes
from deep personal understanding. I'm adding tags for neutron and
cinder, as I know they're having similar conversations.

I don't have a strong opinion on the solution you and Kyle seem to be
leaning toward, I just have a couple of comments/warnings below

On 09/04/2014 03:24 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> saying 'This Is a Large Crisis'. A large crisis requires a large
> plan.

Not necessarily, quite the contrary indeed. To address and solve big
problems, experience and management literature suggest it's a lot better
to make *one* small change, measure its effect and make one more change,
measure its effect, and on and on until perfection. The discussion
triggered by TripleO about 'what to measure' goes in the right

Your proposal seem to require a long term investment before its effects
can be visible, although some of the things necessary for the split will
be needed anyway. Do you think there are small changes with high impact
that we can refine in Paris and put in place for Juno?

The other comment I have is about the risks of splitting teams and
create new ones whose only expertise is their company's domain. I'm
concerned of the bad side effect of having teams in Nova Program with
very limited or no incentive at all to participate in nova-common
project since all they care about will be their little (proprietary)
hypervisor or network driver. I fear we may end up with nova-common
owned by a handful of people from a couple of companies, limping along,
while nova-drivers devs throw stones or ignore.

Maybe this worst case scenario of disenfranchised membership is not as
bad as I think it would be, I'm voicing my concern also to gauge this
risk better. What are your thoughts on this specific risk? How can we
mitigate it?



OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to