On 02/10/2015 08:01 AM, Everett Toews wrote: > On Feb 9, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com > <mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> On 02/02/2015 02:51 PM, Stefano Maffulli wrote: >>> On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 23:05 +0000, Everett Toews wrote: >>>> To converge the OpenStack APIs to a consistent and pragmatic RESTful >>>> design by creating guidelines that the projects should follow. The >>>> intent is not to create backwards incompatible changes in existing >>>> APIs, but to have new APIs and future versions of existing APIs >>>> converge. >>> >>> It's looking good already. I think it would be good also to mention the >>> end-recipients of the consistent and pragmatic RESTful design so that >>> whoever reads the mission is reminded why that's important. Something >>> like: >>> >>> To improve developer experience converging the OpenStack API to >>> a consistent and pragmatic RESTful design. The working group >>> creates guidelines that all OpenStack projects should follow, >>> avoids introducing backwards incompatible changes in existing >>> APIs and promotes convergence of new APIs and future versions of >>> existing APIs. >> >> After reading all the mails in this thread, I've decided that Stef's >> suggested mission statement above is the one I think best represents >> what we're trying to do. >> >> That said, I think it should begin "To improve developer experience >> *by* converging" ... :) > > +1 > > I think we could be even more explicit about the audience. > > To improve developer experience *of API consumers by* converging the > OpenStack API to a consistent and pragmatic RESTful design. The working > group creates guidelines that all OpenStack projects should > follow, avoids introducing backwards incompatible changes in > existing APIs, and promotes convergence of new APIs and future versions > of existing APIs. > > I’m not crazy about the term "API consumer" and could bike shed a bit on > it. The problem being that alternative terms for "API consumer" have > been taken in OpenStack land. “developer” is used for contributor > developers building OpenStack itself, “user” is used for operators > deploying OpenStack, and “end user” has too many meanings. “API > consumer” makes it clear what side of the API the working group audience > falls on.
I wouldn't mind "API user", I think it conveys intent but doesn't sound as stilted as "API consumer". > I also like dtroyer’s idea of a Tweetable mantra but I think we need to > distill that mantra _from_ a longer mission statement. If we constrained > the mission statement to <= 140 chars at the outset, we’d be losing > valuable information that’s vital in communicating our intent. And if we > can’t fully communicate our intent in a mission statement then it > doesn’t have as much value. > > Thanks, > Everett > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Ryan Brown / Software Engineer, Openstack / Red Hat, Inc. __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev