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

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to