Excerpts from Julien Danjou's message of 2016-07-19 09:30:36 +0200: > On Mon, Jul 18 2016, Joshua Harlow wrote: > > > Thus why I think the starting of the architecture working group is a good > > thing; because I have a believe that people are forgetting among all of this > > that such a group holds a lot of the keys to the kingdom (whether u, the > > reader, want to admit that or not is well the readers problem) in openstack > > (sorry and no disrespect to independent folks & contributors), but most of > > us > > work for large companies that have architects (and leads) and if those > > architects (and leads) can get together cross-company to aggregate and > > (agree > > on) and solve actual problems then that really is IMHO the only way to keep > > our > > projects healthy (assuming we can even do that at this stage). > > I think it is a bit naive to think any working group is going to fix > architectural problems. You know first hand what happened¹ with the Nova > service group and tooz for example. >
Perhaps if we form and start working together as a group, we can disect why nothing happened, build consensus on the most important thing to do next, and actually fix some architectural problems. The social structure that teams have is a huge part of the deadlock we find ourselves in with certain controversial changes. The idea is to unroll the dependency loop and start _somewhere_ rather than where a lot of these efforts die: starting _everywhere_. __________________________________________________________________________ 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
