> On Apr 1, 2015, at 7:19 PM, Jay Pipes <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 04/01/2015 12:31 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote: >> On 1 April 2015 at 10:04, Joshua Harlow <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> +1 to this. There will always be people who will want to work on fun >> stuff and those who don't; it's the job of leadership in the >> community to direct people if they can (but also the same job of >> that leadership to understand that they can't direct everyone; it is >> open-source after all and saying 'no' to people just makes them run >> to some other project that doesn't do this...). >> >> IMHO (and a rant probably better for another thread) but I've seen >> to many projects/specs/split-outs (ie, scheduler tweaks, constraint >> solving scheduler...) get abandoned because of cores saying this or >> that is the priority right now (and this in all honesty pisses me >> off); I don't feel this is right (cores should be leaders and >> guides, not dictators); if a core is going to tell anyone that then >> they better act as a guide to the person they are telling that to >> and make sure they lead that person they just told "no"; after all >> any child can say "no" but it takes a real man/woman to go the extra >> distance... >> >> >> So I think saying no is sometimes a vital part of the core team's role, >> keeping up code quality and vision is really hard to do while new >> features are flooding in, and doing architectural reworking while >> features are merging is an epic task. There are also plenty of features >> that don't necessarily fit the shared vision of the project; just >> because we can do something doesn't mean we should. For example: there >> are plenty of companies trying to turn Openstack into a datacentre >> manager rather than a cloud (i.e. too much focus on pets .v. cattle >> style VMs), and I think we're right to push back against that. > > Amen to the above. All of it. > >> Right now there are some strong indications that there are areas we are >> very weak at (nova network still being preferred to neutron, the amount >> of difficultly people had establishing 3rd party CI setups for cinder) >> that really *should* be prioritised over new features. >> >> That said, some projects can be worked on successfully in parallel with >> the main development - I suspect that a scheduler split out proposal is >> one of them. This doesn't need much/any buy-in from cores, it can be >> demonstrated in a fairly complete state before it is evaluated, so the >> only buyi-in needed is on the concept. > > Ha, I had to laugh at this last paragraph :) You mention the fact that > nova-network is still very much in use in the paragraph above (for good > reasons that have been highlighted in other threads). And yet you then go on > to suspect that a nova-scheduler split would something that would be > successfully worked on in parallel... > > The Gantt project tried and failed to split the Nova scheduler out (before it > had any public or versioned interfaces). The "solver scheduler" has not > gotten any traction not because as Josh says "some cores are acting like > dictators" but because it doesn't solve the right problem: it makes more > complex scheduling placement decisions in a different way from the Nova > scheduler, but it doesn't solve the distributed scale problems in the Nova > scheduler architecture. > > If somebody developed an external generic resource placement engine that > scaled in a distributed, horizontal fashion and that had well-documented > public interfaces, I'd welcome that work and quickly work to add a driver for > it inside Nova. But both Gantt and the solver scheduler fall victim to the > same problem: trying to use the existing Nova scheduler architecture when > it's flat-out not scalable. > > Alright, now that I've said that, I'll wait here for the inevitable > complaints that as a Nova core, I'm being a dictator because I speak my mind > about major architectural issues I see in proposals.
Isn't this last statement the crux of the perception issue? You're not a dictator because you're a core, you're a dictator because you're saying no (and I mean that in a good way.) I'd assume that any -1 with a strong technical basis would be valid, core or not. Cores happen to usually be the ones saying no most often, because they tend to have a broader/deeper understanding of the code base/architecture/direction. Correlation/causation fallacy at play, and the gist of the re-naming/re-structuring would be to make the structure less prone to that mis-perception. > > Best, > -jay > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
