Thanks for the summary, Sean. I couldn't follow the thread and this
pointed me to the things I needed to read.

On 09/24/2014 02:44 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
> 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.
> 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?

I like the way this is shaping out, I believe what has been discussed so
far allows for a more open and healthy ecosystem.

To the above, I'd like us to be very careful on providing enough
mentoring and guidance to new projects. Instead of incubation, which I'm
find with getting rid of, it'd be great to have a program/team
responsible for providing this technical mentoring.

Other than that, this looks quite good to me.


Flavio Percoco

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to