On Fri, 3 Oct 2014, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
Nope. I am not making any value judgement whatsoever. I'm describing dependencies for minimally satisfying the intended purpose of a given project. For example, Nova's primary goal is not "emit telemetry", it is "scalable, on demand, self service access to compute resources" [1]
So while I agree with the usefulness of being able to describe these technical dependencies for minimal satisfaction and agree that it is a useful tool for creating boundaries and compartments for testing, the reason I started the subthread is because I think this form of statement I'm describing [...] for [...] of a given _project_. is prejudicing a certain set of priorities and perspectives which over the long term are damaging to the health of the larger ecosystem (the big tent or whatever it is), especially in terms of satisfying people other than us haute dev types. It's pretty clear everyone's intentions are pretty much in the right and similar place, but there's some friction over language and details. The tribalism associated with "project" appears to contribute: * to getting people off track a bit * keeping us in technical solutions when what we need are both technical solutions and organizational/social solutions Presumably (I wasn't there to see it) the program/project distinction was an effort to overcome this, but it hasn't worked. Of course not, you don't gain much if you have people in a room with name A and all you do is put a new name on the room and don't change the people or the room. We need to do more this time around than change some names. -- Chris Dent tw:@anticdent freenode:cdent https://tank.peermore.com/tanks/cdent _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
