On 09/18/2014 02:53 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> Hey all,
> I've recently been thinking a lot about Sean's Layers stuff. So I wrote
> a blog post which Jim Blair and Devananda were kind enough to help me edit.
> http://inaugust.com/post/108

When I first read Monty's post, my basic reaction was "yes, please".

I think there are plenty of devils in the details, but all of which we
can work through, we're mostly all reasonable people.

A couple of follow ups for parts of the thread:

Concerning the summit: while I understand ttx's concerns at -
- my experience with the summits is the in project alignment isn't being
well served by current format. The absolutely most valuable parts of the
last summit for me were the Operator meetup sessions, and some of the
cross project sessions.

I think there is an interesting question of what does the TC govern.
Honestly, I'm more in the camp that the TC focus should be on the
Foundational Infrastructure (hey, new words, not sure if they are any
better than layer 1 or ring 0....), and have the ecosystem largely
outside TC governance per Joe / Vish's ASF model -
There are pragmatic reasons for that, which is a TC that's based around
that Foundation will tend to have more shared context about how we make
that better and move forward.

I'm not sure I see the point of a TC who's main job is ranking 100s of
ecosystem projects on their production readiness... when most of them
don't run production clouds.

I really like markmc's point about Production Ready being something the
User Committee should probably have more of a hand in -
I actually think some kind of self certification by projects to make
them easy to evaluate by potential consumers would be really handy. This
template might be a good thing to co-evolve between the User Committee
and the TC.

I'm completely happy getting rid of incubation, given that we're talking
about a basically static foundation. I think the process of raising TC
expectations on projects this past year exposed an interesting fact that
there were things some of us felt were core values of OpenStack, that a
lot of projects weren't doing. Our approach was "they are doing it
wrong" and to put them on an improvement plan. But I think Monty's
slicing up of things brings out an interesting point. Maybe they were
doing it fine, they just weren't part of the particular shared culture
needed to build foundational infrastructure. Maybe that was ok, because
they weren't actually part of that.

So, honestly, I'd say full speed ahead on Monty's plan. Is it perfect,
probably not. But I think it's a demonstrable move towards a more
sustainable base, a more inclusive ecosystem, and a better consumption
experience by our users. So how do we put a big stamp on it and make
this the direction we are headed in?


Sean Dague

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to