On 06/16/2015 08:16 PM, Georgy Okrokvertskhov wrote:
In Murano project we do see a positive impact of BigTent model. Since
Murano was accepted as a part of BigTent community we had a lot of
conversations with potential users. They were driven exactly by the fact
that Murano is now "officially" recognized in OpenStack community. It
might be a wrong perception, but this is a perception they have.

+1, the same experience as we had with ironic-inspector (former ironic-discoverd)

Most of the guys we met  are enterprises for whom catalog functionality
is interesting. The problem with enterprises is that their thinking
periods are often more than 6-9 months. They are not individuals who can
start contributing over a night. They need some time to create proper
org structure changes to organize development process. The benefits of
that is more stable and predictable development over time as soon as
they start contributing.

Thanks
Gosha


On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com
<mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    You may also find my explanation about the Big Tent helpful in this
    interview with Niki Acosta and Jeff Dickey:

    http://blogs.cisco.com/cloud/ospod-29-jay-pipes

    Best,
    -jay


    On 06/16/2015 06:09 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:

        On 16/06/15 04:39 -0400, gordon chung wrote:

            i won't speak to whether this confirms/refutes the
            usefulness of the
            big tent.
            that said, probably as a by-product of being in non-stop
            meetings with
            sales/
            marketing/managers for last few days, i think there needs to
            be better
            definitions (or better publicised definitions) of what the
            goals of
            the big
            tent are. from my experience, they've heard of the big tent
            and they
            are, to
            varying degrees, critical of it. one common point is that
            they see it as
            greater fragmentation to a process that is already too slow.


        Not saying this is the final answer to all the questions but at
        least
        it's a good place to start from:

        
https://www.openstack.org/summit/vancouver-2015/summit-videos/presentation/the-big-tent-a-look-at-the-new-openstack-projects-governance



        That said, this is great feedback and we may indeed need to do a
        better job to explain the big tent. That presentation, I
        believe, was
        an attempt to do so.

        Flavio


            just giving my fly-on-the-wall view from the other side.

            On 15/06/2015 6:20 AM, Joe Gordon wrote:

                One of the stated problems the 'big tent' is supposed to
            solve is:

                'The binary nature of the integrated release results in
            projects
            outside
                the integrated release failing to get the recognition
            they deserve.
                "Non-official" projects are second- or third-class
            citizens which
            can't get
                development resources. Alternative solutions can't
            emerge in the
            shadow of
                the blessed approach. Becoming part of the integrated
            release,
            which was
                originally designed to be a technical decision, quickly
            became a
                life-or-death question for new projects, and a
            political/community
                minefield.' [0]

                Meaning projects should see an uptick in development
            once they drop
            their
                second-class citizenship and join OpenStack. Now that we
            have been
            living
                in the world of the big tent for several months now, we
            can see if
            this
                claim is true.

                Below is a list of the first few few projects to join
            OpenStack
            after the
                big tent, All of which have now been part of OpenStack
            for at least
            two
                months.[1]

                * Mangum -  Tue Mar 24 20:17:36 2015
                * Murano - Tue Mar 24 20:48:25 2015
                * Congress - Tue Mar 31 20:24:04 2015
                * Rally - Tue Apr 7 21:25:53 2015

                When looking at stackalytics [2] for each project, we
            don't see any
                noticeably change in number of reviews, contributors, or
            number of
            commits
                from before and after each project joined OpenStack.

                So what does this mean? At least in the short term
            moving from
            Stackforge
                to OpenStack does not result in an increase in development
            resources (too
                early to know about the long term).  One of the three
            reasons for
            the big
                tent appears to be unfounded, but the other two reasons
            hold.  The
            only
                thing I think this information changes is what peoples
            expectations
            should
                be when applying to join OpenStack.

                [0]
            https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/resolutions/
                20141202-project-structure-reform-spec.rst
                [1] Ignoring OpenStackClent since the repos were always in
            OpenStack it
                just didn't have a formal home in the governance repo.
                [2] h
            http://stackalytics.com/?module=magnum-group&metric=commits



            
__________________________________________________________________________

                OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
                Unsubscribe:
            openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe 
<http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
            http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


            --
            gord


            
__________________________________________________________________________

            OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
            Unsubscribe:
            openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe 
<http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
            http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev





        
__________________________________________________________________________
        OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
        Unsubscribe:
        openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
        <http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
        http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


    __________________________________________________________________________
    OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
    Unsubscribe:
    openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
    <http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
    http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev




--
Georgy Okrokvertskhov
Architect,
OpenStack Platform Products,
Mirantis
http://www.mirantis.com <http://www.mirantis.com/>
Tel. +1 650 963 9828
Mob. +1 650 996 3284


__________________________________________________________________________
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



__________________________________________________________________________
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

Reply via email to