subject:"\[openstack\-dev\] \[all\]\[tc\] Moving away from \"big tent\" terminology"

On 2017-06-21 16:27:14 -0400 (-0400), Sean Dague wrote:
[...]
> I'd still also like to see us using that structure well, and
> mirroring only things we tag as official to github.com/openstack,
> and the rest to /openstack-ecosystem or something.
[...]

I can understand the sentiment, but we'd need to completely abandon
the replication mechanism provided by Gerrit and implement our own
separate solution to do any conditional filtering or shuffling of
different repos between namespaces. It's not something I expect
we'll find volunteers chomping at the bit to write, so it might make
more sense to stop having the Infra team manage GH mirroring at all
and let someone else in the community manually curate and
periodically update what goes there instead if they want to be
responsible for that.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 2017-06-21 13:52:11 -0500 (-0500), Lauren Sell wrote:
[...]
> To make this actionable...Github is just a mirror of our
> repositories, but for better or worse it's the way most people in
> the world explore software. If you look at OpenStack on Github
> now, it’s impossible to tell which projects are official. Maybe we
> could help by better curating the Github projects (pinning some of
> the top projects, using the new new topics feature to put tags
> like openstack-official or openstack-unofficial, coming up with
> more standard descriptions or naming, etc.).

I hadn't noticed the pinned repositories option until you mentioned
it: appears they just extended that feature to orgs back in October
(and introduced the topics feature in January). I could see
potentially integrating pinning and topic management into the
current GH API script we run when creating new mirrors
there--assuming these are accessible via their API anyway--and yes
normalizing the descriptions to something less freeform is something
else we'd discussed to be able to drive users back to the official
locations for repositories (or perhaps to the project navigator).

I've already made recent attempts to clarify our use of GH in the
org descriptions and linked the openstack org back to the project
navigator too, since those were easy enough to do right off the bat.

> Same goes for our repos…if there’s a way we could differentiate
> between official and unofficial projects on this page it would be
> really useful: https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/

I have an idea as to how to go about that by generating custom
indices rather than relying on the default one cgit provides; I'll
mull it over.

> 2) Create a simple structure within the official set of projects
> to provide focus and a place to get started. The challenge (again
> to our success, and lots of great work by the community) is that
> even the official project set is too big for most people to
> follow.

This is one of my biggest concerns as well where high-cost (in the
sense of increasingly valuable Infra team member time) solutions are
being tossed around to solve the "what's official?" dilemma, while
not taking into account that the overwhelming majority of active Git
repositories we're hosting _are_ already deliverables for official
teams. I strongly doubt that just labelling the minority as
unofficial will any any way lessen the overall confusion about the
*more than one thousand* official Git repositories we're
maintaining.

> While I fully admit it was an imperfect system, the three tier
> delineation of “integrated," “incubated" and “stackforge" was
> something folks could follow pretty easily. The tagging and
> mapping is valuable and provides additional detail, but having the
> three clear buckets is ideal.  I would like to see us adopt a
> similar system, even if the names change (i.e. core infrastructure
> services, optional services, stackforge). Happy to throw out ideas
> if there is interest.
[...]

Nearly none (almost certainly only a single-digit percentage anyway)
of the Git repositories we host are themselves source code for
persistent network services. We have lots of tools, reusable
libraries, documentation, meta-documentation, test harnesses,
configuration management frameworks, plugins... we probably need a
way to reroute audiences who are not strictly interested in browsing
source code itself so they stop looking at those Git repositories or
else confusion is imminent regardless. As a community we do nearly
_everything_ in Git, far beyond mere application and service
software.

The other logical disconnect I'm seeing is that our governance is
formed around teams, not around software. Trying to explain the
software through the lens of governance is almost certain to confuse
newcomers. Because we use one term (OpenStack!) for both the
community of contributors and the software they produce, it's going
to become very tangled in people's minds. I'm starting to strongly
wish could use entirely different names for the community and the
software, but that train has probably already sailed (and could
result in different confusion all its own too, I suppose).
-- 
Jeremy Stanley

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-21 Thread Sean Dague

On 06/21/2017 02:52 PM, Lauren Sell wrote:
> Two things we should address:
> 
> 1) Make it more clear which projects are “officially” part of
> OpenStack. It’s possible to find that information, but it’s not obvious.
> I am one of the people who laments the demise of stackforge…it was very
> clear that stackforge projects were not official, but part of the
> OpenStack ecosystem. I wish it could be resurrected, but I know that’s
> impractical. 
> 
> To make this actionable...Github is just a mirror of our repositories,
> but for better or worse it's the way most people in the world
> explore software. If you look at OpenStack on Github now, it’s
> impossible to tell which projects are official. Maybe we could help by
> better curating the Github projects (pinning some of the top projects,
> using the new new topics feature to put tags like openstack-official or
> openstack-unofficial, coming up with more standard descriptions or
> naming, etc.). Same goes for our repos…if there’s a way we could
> differentiate between official and unofficial projects on this page it
> would be really useful: https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/

I think even if it was only solvable on github, and not cgit, it would
help a lot. The idea of using github project tags and pinning suggested
by Lauren seems great to me.

If we replicated the pinning on github.com/openstack to "popular
projects" here - https://www.openstack.org/software/, and then even just
start with the tags as defined in governance -
https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/tags/index.html it would
go a long way.

I think where the conversation is breaking down is realizing that
different people process the information we put out there in different
ways, and different things lock in and make sense to them. Lots of
people are trained to perceive github structure as meaningful, because
it is 98% of the time. As such I'd still also like to see us using that
structure well, and mirroring only things we tag as official to
github.com/openstack, and the rest to /openstack-ecosystem or something.

Even if that's flat inside our gerrit and cgit environment.

-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-21 Thread Lauren Sell

Several folks on this thread have talked about the different constituencies and 
problems we’re trying to solve with naming. Most of the people following this 
thread understand all of the terminology and governance we’ve defined, but 
that's still a very small percentage of people who care about OpenStack at the 
end of the day. I think we’re trying to communicate to the 99% who have 
relatively low context: potential users, people in other open source 
communities, managers at vendor companies, press/analysts, etc. who really want 
to know what we’re doing, but feel overwhelmed and need a simple structure 
interpret it.

Two things we should address:

1) Make it more clear which projects are “officially” part of OpenStack. It’s 
possible to find that information, but it’s not obvious. I am one of the people 
who laments the demise of stackforge…it was very clear that stackforge projects 
were not official, but part of the OpenStack ecosystem. I wish it could be 
resurrected, but I know that’s impractical. 

To make this actionable...Github is just a mirror of our repositories, but for 
better or worse it's the way most people in the world explore software. If you 
look at OpenStack on Github now, it’s impossible to tell which projects are 
official. Maybe we could help by better curating the Github projects (pinning 
some of the top projects, using the new new topics feature to put tags like 
openstack-official or openstack-unofficial, coming up with more standard 
descriptions or naming, etc.). Same goes for our repos…if there’s a way we 
could differentiate between official and unofficial projects on this page it 
would be really useful: https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/

2) Create a simple structure within the official set of projects to provide 
focus and a place to get started. The challenge (again to our success, and lots 
of great work by the community) is that even the official project set is too 
big for most people to follow. 

While I fully admit it was an imperfect system, the three tier delineation of 
“integrated," “incubated" and “stackforge" was something folks could follow 
pretty easily. The tagging and mapping is valuable and provides additional 
detail, but having the three clear buckets is ideal.  I would like to see us 
adopt a similar system, even if the names change (i.e. core infrastructure 
services, optional services, stackforge). Happy to throw out ideas if there is 
interest.

Thanks,
Lauren

> On Jun 21, 2017, at 11:42 AM, Chris Hoge  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jun 21, 2017, at 9:20 AM, Clark Boylan > > wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017, at 08:48 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
>>> On 06/19/2017 05:42 PM, Chris Hoge wrote:

> On Jun 15, 2017, at 5:57 AM, Thierry Carrez  > wrote:
> 
> Sean Dague wrote:
>> [...]
>> I think those are all fine. The other term that popped into my head was
>> "Friends of OpenStack" as a way to describe the openstack-hosted efforts
>> that aren't official projects. It may be too informal, but I do think
>> the OpenStack-Hosted vs. OpenStack might still mix up in people's head.
> 
> My original thinking was to call them "hosted projects" or "host
> projects", but then it felt a bit incomplete. I kinda like the "Friends
> of OpenStack" name, although it seems to imply some kind of vetting that
> we don't actually do.

 Why not bring back the name Stackforge and apply that
 to unofficial projects? It’s short, descriptive, and unambiguous.
>>> 
>>> Just keep in mind that people always looked at stackforge projects as
>>> "immature 
>>> experimental projects". I remember getting questions "when is
>>> ironic-inspector 
>>> going to become a real project" because of our stackforge prefix back
>>> then, even 
>>> though it was already used in production.
>> 
>> A few days ago I suggested a variant of Thierry's suggestion below. Get
>> rid of the 'openstack' prefix entirely for hosting and use stackforge
>> for everything. Then officially governed OpenStack projects are hosted
>> just like any other project within infra under the stackforge (or Opium)
>> name. The problem with the current "flat" namespace is that OpenStack
>> means something specific and we have overloaded it for hosting. But we
>> could flip that upside down and host OpenStack within a different flat
>> namespace that represented "project hosting using OpenStack infra
>> tooling”.
> 
> I dunno. I understand that it’s extra work to have two namespaces,
> but it sends a clear message. Approved TC, UC, and Board projects
> remain under openstack, and unofficial move to a name that is not
> openstack (i.e. stackforge/opium/etc).
> 
> As part of a branding exercise, it creates a clear, easy to
> understand, and explain division.
> 
> For names like stackforge being considered a pejorative,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 2017-06-19 08:42:04 -0700 (-0700), Chris Hoge wrote:
[...]
> Why not bring back the name Stackforge and apply that to
> unofficial projects? It’s short, descriptive, and unambiguous.
[...]

Logistical points aside, that name is strikingly similar to another
and previously much more popular but now defunct s.*forge source
code hosting platform; that naming pattern can imply a fork of the
original codebase, as is the case for gforge/fusionforge.

"Unambiguous" is in the eye of the beholder.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 2017-06-21 09:20:42 -0700 (-0700), Clark Boylan wrote:
[...]
> A few days ago I suggested a variant of Thierry's suggestion below. Get
> rid of the 'openstack' prefix entirely for hosting and use stackforge
> for everything. Then officially governed OpenStack projects are hosted
> just like any other project within infra under the stackforge (or Opium)
> name. The problem with the current "flat" namespace is that OpenStack
> means something specific and we have overloaded it for hosting. But we
> could flip that upside down and host OpenStack within a different flat
> namespace that represented "project hosting using OpenStack infra
> tooling".
> 
> The hosting location isn't meant to convey anything beyond the project
> is hosted on a Gerrit run by infra and tests are run by Zuul.
> stackforge/ is not an (anti)endorsement (and neither is openstack/).
[...]

For a thorough solution, we should probably switch all our
infrastructure to a different domain name too, preferably one which
doesn't mention "openstack" as a substring at all. This would
actually solve a number of other challenges as well, like our
current shared control of the openstack.org domain with the dev team
at the foundation (which presently limits what either the foundation
or the community can do with that domain because we have to take
each others' workflows into account).
-- 
Jeremy Stanley


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-21 Thread Chris Hoge


> On Jun 21, 2017, at 9:20 AM, Clark Boylan  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017, at 08:48 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
>> On 06/19/2017 05:42 PM, Chris Hoge wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
 On Jun 15, 2017, at 5:57 AM, Thierry Carrez  wrote:
 
 Sean Dague wrote:
> [...]
> I think those are all fine. The other term that popped into my head was
> "Friends of OpenStack" as a way to describe the openstack-hosted efforts
> that aren't official projects. It may be too informal, but I do think
> the OpenStack-Hosted vs. OpenStack might still mix up in people's head.
 
 My original thinking was to call them "hosted projects" or "host
 projects", but then it felt a bit incomplete. I kinda like the "Friends
 of OpenStack" name, although it seems to imply some kind of vetting that
 we don't actually do.
>>> 
>>> Why not bring back the name Stackforge and apply that
>>> to unofficial projects? It’s short, descriptive, and unambiguous.
>> 
>> Just keep in mind that people always looked at stackforge projects as
>> "immature 
>> experimental projects". I remember getting questions "when is
>> ironic-inspector 
>> going to become a real project" because of our stackforge prefix back
>> then, even 
>> though it was already used in production.
> 
> A few days ago I suggested a variant of Thierry's suggestion below. Get
> rid of the 'openstack' prefix entirely for hosting and use stackforge
> for everything. Then officially governed OpenStack projects are hosted
> just like any other project within infra under the stackforge (or Opium)
> name. The problem with the current "flat" namespace is that OpenStack
> means something specific and we have overloaded it for hosting. But we
> could flip that upside down and host OpenStack within a different flat
> namespace that represented "project hosting using OpenStack infra
> tooling”.

I dunno. I understand that it’s extra work to have two namespaces,
but it sends a clear message. Approved TC, UC, and Board projects
remain under openstack, and unofficial move to a name that is not
openstack (i.e. stackforge/opium/etc).

As part of a branding exercise, it creates a clear, easy to
understand, and explain division.

For names like stackforge being considered a pejorative, we can
work as a community against that. I know that when I was helping run
the puppet modules under stackforge, I was proud of the work and
understood it to mean that it was a community supported, but not
official project. I was pretty sad when stackforge went away, precisely
because of the confusion we’re experiencing with ‘big tent’ today.


> The hosting location isn't meant to convey anything beyond the project
> is hosted on a Gerrit run by infra and tests are run by Zuul.
> stackforge/ is not an (anti)endorsement (and neither is openstack/).
> 
> Unfortunately, I expect that doing this will also result in a bunch of
> confusion around "why is OpenStack being renamed", "what is happening to
> OpenStack governance", etc.
> 
 An alternative would be to give "the OpenStack project infrastructure"
 some kind of a brand name (say, "Opium", for OpenStack project
 infrastructure ultimate madness) and then call the hosted projects
 "Opium projects". Rename the Infra team to Opium team, and voilà!
 -- 
 Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> 
> Clark
> 
> __
> 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-21 Thread Clark Boylan

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017, at 08:48 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> On 06/19/2017 05:42 PM, Chris Hoge wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >> On Jun 15, 2017, at 5:57 AM, Thierry Carrez  wrote:
> >>
> >> Sean Dague wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>> I think those are all fine. The other term that popped into my head was
> >>> "Friends of OpenStack" as a way to describe the openstack-hosted efforts
> >>> that aren't official projects. It may be too informal, but I do think
> >>> the OpenStack-Hosted vs. OpenStack might still mix up in people's head.
> >>
> >> My original thinking was to call them "hosted projects" or "host
> >> projects", but then it felt a bit incomplete. I kinda like the "Friends
> >> of OpenStack" name, although it seems to imply some kind of vetting that
> >> we don't actually do.
> > 
> > Why not bring back the name Stackforge and apply that
> > to unofficial projects? It’s short, descriptive, and unambiguous.
> 
> Just keep in mind that people always looked at stackforge projects as
> "immature 
> experimental projects". I remember getting questions "when is
> ironic-inspector 
> going to become a real project" because of our stackforge prefix back
> then, even 
> though it was already used in production.

A few days ago I suggested a variant of Thierry's suggestion below. Get
rid of the 'openstack' prefix entirely for hosting and use stackforge
for everything. Then officially governed OpenStack projects are hosted
just like any other project within infra under the stackforge (or Opium)
name. The problem with the current "flat" namespace is that OpenStack
means something specific and we have overloaded it for hosting. But we
could flip that upside down and host OpenStack within a different flat
namespace that represented "project hosting using OpenStack infra
tooling".

The hosting location isn't meant to convey anything beyond the project
is hosted on a Gerrit run by infra and tests are run by Zuul.
stackforge/ is not an (anti)endorsement (and neither is openstack/).

Unfortunately, I expect that doing this will also result in a bunch of
confusion around "why is OpenStack being renamed", "what is happening to
OpenStack governance", etc.

> >> An alternative would be to give "the OpenStack project infrastructure"
> >> some kind of a brand name (say, "Opium", for OpenStack project
> >> infrastructure ultimate madness) and then call the hosted projects
> >> "Opium projects". Rename the Infra team to Opium team, and voilà!
> >> -- 
> >> Thierry Carrez (ttx)

Clark

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-21 Thread Dmitry Tantsur


On 06/19/2017 05:42 PM, Chris Hoge wrote:




On Jun 15, 2017, at 5:57 AM, Thierry Carrez  wrote:

Sean Dague wrote:

[...]
I think those are all fine. The other term that popped into my head was
"Friends of OpenStack" as a way to describe the openstack-hosted efforts
that aren't official projects. It may be too informal, but I do think
the OpenStack-Hosted vs. OpenStack might still mix up in people's head.


My original thinking was to call them "hosted projects" or "host
projects", but then it felt a bit incomplete. I kinda like the "Friends
of OpenStack" name, although it seems to imply some kind of vetting that
we don't actually do.


Why not bring back the name Stackforge and apply that
to unofficial projects? It’s short, descriptive, and unambiguous.


Just keep in mind that people always looked at stackforge projects as "immature 
experimental projects". I remember getting questions "when is ironic-inspector 
going to become a real project" because of our stackforge prefix back then, even 
though it was already used in production.




-Chris


An alternative would be to give "the OpenStack project infrastructure"
some kind of a brand name (say, "Opium", for OpenStack project
infrastructure ultimate madness) and then call the hosted projects
"Opium projects". Rename the Infra team to Opium team, and voilà!
--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__
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




__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-21 Thread joehuang

Hi,

If we just want to replace "bigtent" concept to another concept which mentioned 
in this thread,
many of them gave me the impression that there are still some projects more
important than others, so that's why I suggest to use flat project list, and 
put stress
"OPEN" stack here.

Best Regards
Chaoyi Huang (joehuang)


From: Flavio Percoco [fla...@redhat.com]
Sent: 21 June 2017 15:44
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "bigtent"   
terminology

On 21/06/17 06:18 +, joehuang wrote:
>hello, Flavio,

Hi :D

>This thread is to discuss moving away from the "big tent" term, not removing 
>some project.
>Removing a project will make this flavor disappear from the ice-cream counter, 
>but this thread,
>it's to use another concept to describe projects under openstack project 
>governance.
>If we don't want to use "big tent" for those projects staying in the counter,
>I hope all projects could be treated in flat, just like different flavor 
>ice-creams are flat in the
>same counter, kid can make choice by themselves.
>
>Even Nova may be only "core"  to some cloud operators, but not always for all 
>cloud operators,
>for example, those who only run object storage service, hyper.sh also not use 
>Nova,  some day may
>some cloud operators only use Zun or K8S instead for computing, it should not 
>be an issue
>to OpenStack community.

I think you misunderstood my message. I'm not talking about removing projects,
I'm talking about the staging of these projects to join the "Big tent" -
regardless of how we call it. The distinction *is* important and we ought to
find a way to preserve it and communicate it so that there's the least amount of
confusion possible.


>OpenStack should be "OPEN" stack for infrastructure, just like kid can choose 
>how many
>balls of ice-cream, cloud operators can make decision to choose which project 
>to use or
>not to manage his infrastructure.

You keep mentioning "OPEN stack" as if we weren't being open (enough?) and I
think I'm failing to see why you think that. Could you please elaborate more?
What you're describing seems to be the current status.

Flavio

>Best Regards
>Chaoyi Huang (joehuang)
>
>________________
>From: Flavio Percoco [fla...@redhat.com]
>Sent: 20 June 2017 17:44
>To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "bigtent"   
>terminology
>
>On 20/06/17 00:33 +, joehuang wrote:
>>I think openstack community  provides a flat project market place for 
>>infrastructure is good enough:
>>
>>all projects are just some "goods" in the market place, let the cloud 
>>operators to select projects
>>from the project market place for his own infrastructure.
>>
>>We don't have to mark a project a core project or not, only need to tag 
>>attribute of a project, for
>>example how mature it is, how many "like" they have, what the cloud operator 
>>said for the project. etc.
>>
>>All flat, just let people make decision by themselves, they are not idiot, 
>>they have wisdom
>>on building infrastructure.
>>
>>Not all people need a package: you bought a package of ice-cream, but not all 
>>you will like it,
>>If they want package, distribution provider can help them to define and 
>>customize a package, if
>>you want customization, you will decide which ball of cream you want, isn't 
>>it?
>
>The flavors you see in a ice-creem shop counter are not there by accident. 
>Those
>flavors have gone through a creation process, they have been tested and they
>have also survived over the years. Some flavors are removed with time and some
>others stay there forever.
>
>Unfortunately, tagging those flavors won't cut it, which is why you don't see
>tags in their labels when you go to an ice-cream shop. Some tags are implied,
>other tags are inferred and other tags are subjective.
>
>Experimenting with new flavors doesn't happen overnight in some person's
>bedroom. The new flavors are tested using the *same* infrastructure as the 
>other
>flavors and once they reach a level of maturity, they are exposed in the 
>counter
>so that customers will able to consume them.
>
>Ultimately, experimentation is part of the ice-cream shop's mission and it
>requires time, effort and resources but not all experiments end well. At the
>end, though, what really matters is that all these flavors serve the same
>mission and that's why they a

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-21 Thread Flavio Percoco


On 21/06/17 06:18 +, joehuang wrote:

hello, Flavio,


Hi :D


This thread is to discuss moving away from the "big tent" term, not removing 
some project.
Removing a project will make this flavor disappear from the ice-cream counter, 
but this thread,
it's to use another concept to describe projects under openstack project 
governance.
If we don't want to use "big tent" for those projects staying in the counter,
I hope all projects could be treated in flat, just like different flavor 
ice-creams are flat in the
same counter, kid can make choice by themselves.

Even Nova may be only "core"  to some cloud operators, but not always for all 
cloud operators,
for example, those who only run object storage service, hyper.sh also not use 
Nova,  some day may
some cloud operators only use Zun or K8S instead for computing, it should not 
be an issue
to OpenStack community.


I think you misunderstood my message. I'm not talking about removing projects,
I'm talking about the staging of these projects to join the "Big tent" -
regardless of how we call it. The distinction *is* important and we ought to
find a way to preserve it and communicate it so that there's the least amount of
confusion possible.



OpenStack should be "OPEN" stack for infrastructure, just like kid can choose 
how many
balls of ice-cream, cloud operators can make decision to choose which project 
to use or
not to manage his infrastructure.


You keep mentioning "OPEN stack" as if we weren't being open (enough?) and I
think I'm failing to see why you think that. Could you please elaborate more?
What you're describing seems to be the current status.

Flavio


Best Regards
Chaoyi Huang (joehuang)


From: Flavio Percoco [fla...@redhat.com]
Sent: 20 June 2017 17:44
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "bigtent"   
terminology

On 20/06/17 00:33 +, joehuang wrote:

I think openstack community  provides a flat project market place for 
infrastructure is good enough:

all projects are just some "goods" in the market place, let the cloud operators 
to select projects
from the project market place for his own infrastructure.

We don't have to mark a project a core project or not, only need to tag 
attribute of a project, for
example how mature it is, how many "like" they have, what the cloud operator 
said for the project. etc.

All flat, just let people make decision by themselves, they are not idiot, they 
have wisdom
on building infrastructure.

Not all people need a package: you bought a package of ice-cream, but not all 
you will like it,
If they want package, distribution provider can help them to define and 
customize a package, if
you want customization, you will decide which ball of cream you want, isn't it?


The flavors you see in a ice-creem shop counter are not there by accident. Those
flavors have gone through a creation process, they have been tested and they
have also survived over the years. Some flavors are removed with time and some
others stay there forever.

Unfortunately, tagging those flavors won't cut it, which is why you don't see
tags in their labels when you go to an ice-cream shop. Some tags are implied,
other tags are inferred and other tags are subjective.

Experimenting with new flavors doesn't happen overnight in some person's
bedroom. The new flavors are tested using the *same* infrastructure as the other
flavors and once they reach a level of maturity, they are exposed in the counter
so that customers will able to consume them.

Ultimately, experimentation is part of the ice-cream shop's mission and it
requires time, effort and resources but not all experiments end well. At the
end, though, what really matters is that all these flavors serve the same
mission and that's why they are sold at the ice-cream shop, that's why they are
exposed in the counter. Customer's of the ice-cream shop know they can trust
what's in the counter. They know the exposed flavors serve their needs at a high
level and they can now focus on their specific needs.

So, do you really think it's just a set of flavors and it doesn't really matter
how those flavors got there?

Flavio

--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco

__
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


--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-21 Thread joehuang

hello, Flavio,

This thread is to discuss moving away from the "big tent" term, not removing 
some project.
Removing a project will make this flavor disappear from the ice-cream counter, 
but this thread,
it's to use another concept to describe projects under openstack project 
governance. 
If we don't want to use "big tent" for those projects staying in the counter, 
I hope all projects could be treated in flat, just like different flavor 
ice-creams are flat in the
same counter, kid can make choice by themselves. 

Even Nova may be only "core"  to some cloud operators, but not always for all 
cloud operators,
for example, those who only run object storage service, hyper.sh also not use 
Nova,  some day may
some cloud operators only use Zun or K8S instead for computing, it should not 
be an issue
to OpenStack community.

OpenStack should be "OPEN" stack for infrastructure, just like kid can choose 
how many
balls of ice-cream, cloud operators can make decision to choose which project 
to use or
not to manage his infrastructure.

Best Regards
Chaoyi Huang (joehuang)

From: Flavio Percoco [fla...@redhat.com]
Sent: 20 June 2017 17:44
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "bigtent"   
terminology

On 20/06/17 00:33 +, joehuang wrote:
>I think openstack community  provides a flat project market place for 
>infrastructure is good enough:
>
>all projects are just some "goods" in the market place, let the cloud 
>operators to select projects
>from the project market place for his own infrastructure.
>
>We don't have to mark a project a core project or not, only need to tag 
>attribute of a project, for
>example how mature it is, how many "like" they have, what the cloud operator 
>said for the project. etc.
>
>All flat, just let people make decision by themselves, they are not idiot, 
>they have wisdom
>on building infrastructure.
>
>Not all people need a package: you bought a package of ice-cream, but not all 
>you will like it,
>If they want package, distribution provider can help them to define and 
>customize a package, if
>you want customization, you will decide which ball of cream you want, isn't it?

The flavors you see in a ice-creem shop counter are not there by accident. Those
flavors have gone through a creation process, they have been tested and they
have also survived over the years. Some flavors are removed with time and some
others stay there forever.

Unfortunately, tagging those flavors won't cut it, which is why you don't see
tags in their labels when you go to an ice-cream shop. Some tags are implied,
other tags are inferred and other tags are subjective.

Experimenting with new flavors doesn't happen overnight in some person's
bedroom. The new flavors are tested using the *same* infrastructure as the other
flavors and once they reach a level of maturity, they are exposed in the counter
so that customers will able to consume them.

Ultimately, experimentation is part of the ice-cream shop's mission and it
requires time, effort and resources but not all experiments end well. At the
end, though, what really matters is that all these flavors serve the same
mission and that's why they are sold at the ice-cream shop, that's why they are
exposed in the counter. Customer's of the ice-cream shop know they can trust
what's in the counter. They know the exposed flavors serve their needs at a high
level and they can now focus on their specific needs.

So, do you really think it's just a set of flavors and it doesn't really matter
how those flavors got there?

Flavio

--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-20 Thread Flavio Percoco


On 20/06/17 00:33 +, joehuang wrote:

I think openstack community  provides a flat project market place for 
infrastructure is good enough:

all projects are just some "goods" in the market place, let the cloud operators 
to select projects
from the project market place for his own infrastructure.

We don't have to mark a project a core project or not, only need to tag 
attribute of a project, for
example how mature it is, how many "like" they have, what the cloud operator 
said for the project. etc.

All flat, just let people make decision by themselves, they are not idiot, they 
have wisdom
on building infrastructure.

Not all people need a package: you bought a package of ice-cream, but not all 
you will like it,
If they want package, distribution provider can help them to define and 
customize a package, if
you want customization, you will decide which ball of cream you want, isn't it?


The flavors you see in a ice-creem shop counter are not there by accident. Those
flavors have gone through a creation process, they have been tested and they
have also survived over the years. Some flavors are removed with time and some
others stay there forever.

Unfortunately, tagging those flavors won't cut it, which is why you don't see
tags in their labels when you go to an ice-cream shop. Some tags are implied,
other tags are inferred and other tags are subjective.

Experimenting with new flavors doesn't happen overnight in some person's
bedroom. The new flavors are tested using the *same* infrastructure as the other
flavors and once they reach a level of maturity, they are exposed in the counter
so that customers will able to consume them.

Ultimately, experimentation is part of the ice-cream shop's mission and it
requires time, effort and resources but not all experiments end well. At the
end, though, what really matters is that all these flavors serve the same
mission and that's why they are sold at the ice-cream shop, that's why they are
exposed in the counter. Customer's of the ice-cream shop know they can trust
what's in the counter. They know the exposed flavors serve their needs at a high
level and they can now focus on their specific needs.

So, do you really think it's just a set of flavors and it doesn't really matter
how those flavors got there?

Flavio

--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-19 Thread joehuang

I think openstack community  provides a flat project market place for 
infrastructure is good enough:

all projects are just some "goods" in the market place, let the cloud operators 
to select projects
from the project market place for his own infrastructure.

We don't have to mark a project a core project or not, only need to tag 
attribute of a project, for
example how mature it is, how many "like" they have, what the cloud operator 
said for the project. etc.

All flat, just let people make decision by themselves, they are not idiot, they 
have wisdom
on building infrastructure.

Not all people need a package: you bought a package of ice-cream, but not all 
you will like it,
If they want package, distribution provider can help them to define and 
customize a package, if
you want customization, you will decide which ball of cream you want, isn't it?

openstack is "OPEN" stack. 

Best Regards
Chaoyi Huang (joehuang)

From: Matt Riedemann [mriede...@gmail.com]
Sent: 19 June 2017 22:56
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent"  
terminology

On 6/17/2017 10:55 AM, Jay Bryant wrote:
>
> I am responding under Tim's note because I think it gets at what we
> really want to communicate and takes me to what we have presented in
> OUI.  We have Core OpenStack Projects and then a whole community of
> additional projects that support cloud functionality.
>
> So, without it being named, or cutesy, though I liked "Friends of
> Openstack", can we go with "OpenStack Core Projects" and "Peripheral
> OpenStack Projects"?

Because then you have to define what "core" means, and how you get to be
"core", which is like the old system of integrated and incubated
projects. I agree that a "core" set of projects is more understandable
at first, probably most for an outsider. But it gets confusing from a
governance perspective within the community.

And if you want to run just containers with Kubernetes and you want to
use Keystone and Cinder with it, you don't need Nova, so is Nova "core"
or not?

This is probably where the constellations idea comes in [1].

At the end of the day it's all OpenStack to me if it's hosted on
OpenStack infra, but I'm not the guy making budget decisions at a
company determining what to invest in. I think Doug has tried to explain
that perspective a bit elsewhere in this thread, and it sounds like
that's the key issue, the outside perspective from people making budget
decisions.

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/453262/

--

Thanks,

Matt

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-19 Thread Chris Friesen


On 06/16/2017 02:57 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:

On Thu, Jun 15 2017, Doug Hellmann wrote:


One of the *most* common complaints the TC gets from outside the
contributor community is that people do not understand what projects
are part of OpenStack and what parts are not. We have a clear
definition of that in our minds (the projects that have said they
want to be part of OpenStack, and agreed to put themselves under
TC governance, with all of the policies that implies). That definition
is so trivial to say, that it seems like a tautology.  However,
looking in from the outside of the community, that definition isn't
helpful.


I still wonder why they care. Who care, really? Can we have some people
that care on this thread so they explain directly what we're trying to
solve here?

Everything is just a bunch of free software projects to me. The
governance made zero difference in my contributions or direction of the
projects I PTL'ed.


When I was first starting out, I didn't care at all about governance.  I wanted 
to know "What do the various components *do*, and which of them do I need to 
install to get a practical and useful OpenStack installation?".


A bit later on, I started thinking about "Which of these components are mature 
enough to be usable, and likely to be around for long enough to make it 
worthwhile to use them?"


A bit further down the road the issue became "I have this specific thing I want 
to accomplish, are there any projects out there that are working on it?"


I suspect I'm not the only one that went through this process, and I don't feel 
like there's a lot of information out there aimed at answering this sort of 
question without spending a lot of time digging into individual service 
documentation.


Chris

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-19 Thread Graham Hayes

On 19/06/17 16:11, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 06/16/2017 05:18 AM, Graham Hayes wrote:
>> On 15/06/17 22:35, Ed Leafe wrote:
>>> On Jun 15, 2017, at 3:35 PM, Jeremy Stanley  wrote:
>>>
 For me it's one of the most annoying yet challenging/interesting
 aspects: free software development is as much about community and
 politics as it is actual software development (perhaps more so).
>>>
>>> Another way to look at it is how we see ourselves (as a community)
>>> and how people on the outside see OpenStack. I would imagine that
>>> someone looking at OpenStack for the first time would not care a whit
>>> about governance, repo locations, etc. They would certainly care
>>> about "what do I need to do to use this thing?"
>>>
>>> What we call things isn't confusing to those of us in the community -
>>> well, at least to those of us who take the time to read big long
>>> email threads like this. We need to be clearer in how we represent
>>> OpenStack to outsiders. To that end, I think that limiting the term
>>> "OpenStack" to a handful of the core projects would make things a
>>> whole lot clearer. We can continue to present everything else as a
>>> marketplace, or an ecosystem, or however the more marketing-minded
>>> want to label it, but we should *not* call those projects "OpenStack".
>>>
>>> Now I know, I work on Nova, so I'm expecting responses that "of
>>> course you don't care", or "OpenStack is people, and you're hurting
>>> our feelings!". So flame away!
>>
>> Where to start.
>>
>> Most of the small projects are not complaining about "hurt feelings".
>>
>> If the community want to follow advice from a certain tweet, and limit
>> OpenStack to Nova + its spinouts, we should do that. Just let the rest
>> of us know, so we can either start shutting down the projects, or look
>> at moving the projects to another foundation.
>>
>> Of course we should probably change the OpenStack mission statement,
>> and give the board a heads up that all these project teams they talk
>> about publicly will be going away.
>>
>> And, yes, coming from different project teams does mean that we will
>> have differing views on what should be in OpenStack, and its level of
>> priority - but (in my personal, biased opinion) we should not throw the
>> baby out with the bath water because we cannot find two names to
>> describe things.
> 
> How about Designate become a standalone DNSaaS project that more than
> OpenStack can use? Kubernetes could use Designate as a DNS provider,
> then, in the same way that it can currently use Cinder as a
> PersistenVolume provider.

We already have that. Designate is usable without anything else
(although I would recommend keystone to make it manageable).

Designate is at its core an API that maintains DNS servers. Nearly all
of our current advanced integrations are from other projects to
Designate, and they just use this API.

Kubernetes just doesn't have the concept of external DNS providers
build in yet (there is a incubator project, but it seems new).

> 
> Then there'd be no need to fret about a particular tweet.

Its not just one tweet. (See the parent of my email)

There are already repercussions of not being part of OpenStack for
project teams, and pending on the outcome of this discussion,
potentially more.

Also, Designate was not what I was thinking of when I wrote this,
I am working under the assumption that DNS is a core bit of
infrastructure, and hence would be in any "core". I am thinking
of the myriad of other projects that would then have to start hosting
docs, re-writing functional tests, potentially start building CI
systems.



> Best,
> -jay
> 
> __
> 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




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-19 Thread Chris Hoge



> On Jun 15, 2017, at 5:57 AM, Thierry Carrez  wrote:
> 
> Sean Dague wrote:
>> [...]
>> I think those are all fine. The other term that popped into my head was
>> "Friends of OpenStack" as a way to describe the openstack-hosted efforts
>> that aren't official projects. It may be too informal, but I do think
>> the OpenStack-Hosted vs. OpenStack might still mix up in people's head.
> 
> My original thinking was to call them "hosted projects" or "host
> projects", but then it felt a bit incomplete. I kinda like the "Friends
> of OpenStack" name, although it seems to imply some kind of vetting that
> we don't actually do.

Why not bring back the name Stackforge and apply that
to unofficial projects? It’s short, descriptive, and unambiguous.

-Chris

> An alternative would be to give "the OpenStack project infrastructure"
> some kind of a brand name (say, "Opium", for OpenStack project
> infrastructure ultimate madness) and then call the hosted projects
> "Opium projects". Rename the Infra team to Opium team, and voilà!
> -- 
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> 
> __
> 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-19 Thread Jay Pipes

On 06/16/2017 05:18 AM, Graham Hayes wrote:

On 15/06/17 22:35, Ed Leafe wrote:

On Jun 15, 2017, at 3:35 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:

For me it's one of the most annoying yet challenging/interesting
aspects: free software development is as much about community and
politics as it is actual software development (perhaps more so).

Another way to look at it is how we see ourselves (as a community) and how people on the
outside see OpenStack. I would imagine that someone looking at OpenStack for the first
time would not care a whit about governance, repo locations, etc. They would certainly
care about "what do I need to do to use this thing?"

What we call things isn't confusing to those of us in the community - well, at least to those of us
who take the time to read big long email threads like this. We need to be clearer in how we
represent OpenStack to outsiders. To that end, I think that limiting the term "OpenStack"
to a handful of the core projects would make things a whole lot clearer. We can continue to present
everything else as a marketplace, or an ecosystem, or however the more marketing-minded want to
label it, but we should *not* call those projects "OpenStack".

Now I know, I work on Nova, so I'm expecting responses that "of course you don't care",
or "OpenStack is people, and you're hurting our feelings!". So flame away!

Where to start.

Most of the small projects are not complaining about "hurt feelings".

If the community want to follow advice from a certain tweet, and limit
OpenStack to Nova + its spinouts, we should do that. Just let the rest
of us know, so we can either start shutting down the projects, or look
at moving the projects to another foundation.

Of course we should probably change the OpenStack mission statement,
and give the board a heads up that all these project teams they talk
about publicly will be going away.

And, yes, coming from different project teams does mean that we will
have differing views on what should be in OpenStack, and its level of
priority - but (in my personal, biased opinion) we should not throw the
baby out with the bath water because we cannot find two names to
describe things.

How about Designate become a standalone DNSaaS project that more than
OpenStack can use? Kubernetes could use Designate as a DNS provider,
then, in the same way that it can currently use Cinder as a
PersistenVolume provider.

Then there'd be no need to fret about a particular tweet.

Best,
-jay

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-19 Thread Matt Riedemann


On 6/17/2017 10:55 AM, Jay Bryant wrote:


I am responding under Tim's note because I think it gets at what we 
really want to communicate and takes me to what we have presented in 
OUI.  We have Core OpenStack Projects and then a whole community of 
additional projects that support cloud functionality.


So, without it being named, or cutesy, though I liked "Friends of 
Openstack", can we go with "OpenStack Core Projects" and "Peripheral 
OpenStack Projects"?


Because then you have to define what "core" means, and how you get to be 
"core", which is like the old system of integrated and incubated 
projects. I agree that a "core" set of projects is more understandable 
at first, probably most for an outsider. But it gets confusing from a 
governance perspective within the community.


And if you want to run just containers with Kubernetes and you want to 
use Keystone and Cinder with it, you don't need Nova, so is Nova "core" 
or not?


This is probably where the constellations idea comes in [1].

At the end of the day it's all OpenStack to me if it's hosted on 
OpenStack infra, but I'm not the guy making budget decisions at a 
company determining what to invest in. I think Doug has tried to explain 
that perspective a bit elsewhere in this thread, and it sounds like 
that's the key issue, the outside perspective from people making budget 
decisions.


[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/453262/

--

Thanks,

Matt

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-19 Thread gordon chung

On 19/06/17 07:32 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
>> as an aside, in telemetry project, we did something somewhat similar
>> when we renamed/rebranded to telemetry from ceilometer. we wrote several
>> notes to the ML, had a few blog posts, fixed the docs, mentioned the new
>> project structure in our presentations... 2 years on, we still
>> occasionally get asked "what's ceilometer", "is xyz not ceilometer?", or
>> "so ceilometer is deprecated?". to a certain extent i think we'll have
>> to be prepared to do some hand holding and say "hey, that's not what the
>> "big tent/."
>
> Is it clear to these people, once you explain the difference, what
> telemetry is?
>
> I would assume it is and this is one of the problems we're trying to
> solve. Even
> after explaining the difference, it's sometimes hard for people to grasp
> the
> concept because the naming that was used is poor and, to be honest, it
> feels
> like it came out from an analogy without properly considering the impact it
> would have in the community.
>
> Over-communicating won't get rid of surprises but sometimes the problem
> is in
> the message and not the receivers of it. We must stay honest with
> ourselves.

i think once we send them to the doc page and correct them, they get it.

i imagine a/the problem is because people are going to read a lot of 
historical unofficial/official stuff while they google. so while we 
fixed all the docs we could, there are still many more other sources 
(blogs, forks, etc...) that still reference the project from prior 
years. i would think this is an issue you'll get as well. people will 
stumble across the many 'big-tent' articles from 2 years ago and that 
becomes their knowledge until they're corrected. i'm not a branding 
specialist so i'm not sure how to correct this but it does seem like 
just renaming will not necessarily fix the issue (based on our experience).

-- 
gord
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-19 Thread Flavio Percoco

On 16/06/17 04:32 +, gordon chung wrote:

On 15/06/17 06:28 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:

i see, so this is less an existential question of 'what is openstack'
> and more 'how to differentiate governance projects from a random repo
> created last weekend'
>
> this might have been just me, but big tent was exactly 'big tent ==
> governance' so when i read 'moving away from "big tent"' i think 'what
> is this *new* thing we're moving to and if we're redefining this new
> thing, what for?'. it seems this is not the case.

No. We're trying to pick new words, because there continues to be
confusion about the old words.

my bad, apologies for taking the scenic route. regardless of new words,
we failed to properly describe what the big tent was the first go to
some people, how do we make sure they're not confused this time? and how
do we not confuse the ones that did understand the first time?

for me personally, the first go, the messaging was kind of muddled. i
remember 'level playing field' being used frequently. not sure if that's
still one of the reasons for ?

>
> sorry, i probably wasn't clear, i simply noticed that it was a corporate
> sponsor that was misusing the 'big tent' name so was just thinking we
> could easily tell them, that's not what it means. wasn't suggesting
> anything else by sponsor comment.

You'd think it would be that easy. A surprising number of folks
within the community don't really understand the old naming either,
though (see the rest of this thread for examples).

*sigh* so this is why we can't have nice things :p

as an aside, in telemetry project, we did something somewhat similar
when we renamed/rebranded to telemetry from ceilometer. we wrote several
notes to the ML, had a few blog posts, fixed the docs, mentioned the new
project structure in our presentations... 2 years on, we still
occasionally get asked "what's ceilometer", "is xyz not ceilometer?", or
"so ceilometer is deprecated?". to a certain extent i think we'll have
to be prepared to do some hand holding and say "hey, that's not what the
"big tent/."

Is it clear to these people, once you explain the difference, what telemetry is?

I would assume it is and this is one of the problems we're trying to solve. Even
after explaining the difference, it's sometimes hard for people to grasp the
concept because the naming that was used is poor and, to be honest, it feels
like it came out from an analogy without properly considering the impact it
would have in the community.

Over-communicating won't get rid of surprises but sometimes the problem is in
the message and not the receivers of it. We must stay honest with ourselves.

Flavio

--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-19 Thread Andrea Frittoli

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:45 PM Jeremy Stanley  wrote:

> On 2017-06-15 11:15:36 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
> [...]
> > I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
> > projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
> > "Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side (all
> > still under the openstack/ git repo prefix).
>
> I'm still unconvinced a term is needed for this. Can't we just have
> "OpenStack Projects" (those under TC governance) and "everything
> else?" Why must the existence of any term require a term for its
> opposite?
>

+1!

We don't need to try and bring everything which is not an OpenStack
project under a single name which will also then require a definition which
may not fit all.

Andrea Frittoli (andreaf)


>
> > We'll stop saying "official OpenStack project" and "unofficial
> > OpenStack project". The only "OpenStack projects" will be the
> > official ones. We'll chase down the last mentions of "big tent" in
> > documentation and remove it from our vocabulary.
> [...]
>
> I agree on getting rid of the "big tent" phrase anywhere we find it,
> though I thought we'd already avoided using that in favor of more
> descriptive terminology anyway. Also I'm very excited to see a focus
> on "OpenStack projects" I just don't see a benefit to making up a
> name for "not an OpenStack project."



> --
> Jeremy Stanley
> __
> 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-17 Thread Jay Bryant

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017, 10:45 AM Tim Bell <tim.b...@cern.ch> wrote:

> OpenStack Nucleus and OpenStack Electrons?
>
> Tim
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org>
> Organization: OpenStack
> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> Date: Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 14:57
> To: "openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> >
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent"
> terminology
>
> Sean Dague wrote:
> > [...]
> > I think those are all fine. The other term that popped into my head
> was
> > "Friends of OpenStack" as a way to describe the openstack-hosted
> efforts
> > that aren't official projects. It may be too informal, but I do think
> > the OpenStack-Hosted vs. OpenStack might still mix up in people's
> head.
>
> My original thinking was to call them "hosted projects" or "host
> projects", but then it felt a bit incomplete. I kinda like the "Friends
> of OpenStack" name, although it seems to imply some kind of vetting
> that
> we don't actually do.
>
> An alternative would be to give "the OpenStack project infrastructure"
> some kind of a brand name (say, "Opium", for OpenStack project
> infrastructure ultimate madness) and then call the hosted projects
> "Opium projects". Rename the Infra team to Opium team, and voilà!
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
>
> __
> 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


I think moving away from "big tent" is fine though the terminology did work
for some people.

I am responding under Tim's note because I think it gets at what we really
want to communicate and takes me to what we have presented in OUI.  We have
Core OpenStack Projects and then a whole community of additional projects
that support cloud functionality.

So, without it being named, or cutesy, though I liked "Friends of
Openstack", can we go with "OpenStack Core Projects" and "Peripheral
OpenStack Projects"?

Hope that idea helps.

Jay

>
>
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-16 Thread Julien Danjou

On Fri, Jun 16 2017, Thierry Carrez wrote:

> I should have made it clearer in my original post that this discussion
> actually originated at the Board+TC+UC workshop in Boston, as part of
> the "better communicating what is openstack" subgroup.

This is still such a vague problem statement that it's hard to see how
any interesting outcome will emerge in this thread.

-- 
Julien Danjou
# Free Software hacker
# https://julien.danjou.info


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-16 Thread Thierry Carrez

Matt Riedemann wrote:
> On 6/15/2017 9:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Obviously we are not the target audience for that term. I think we are
>> deep enough in OpenStack and technically-focused enough to see through
>> that. But reality is, the majority of the rest of the world is confused,
>> and needs help figuring it out. Giving the category a name is a way to
>> do that.
> 
> Maybe don't ask the inmates what the asylum/prison should be called. Why
> don't we have people that are confused about this weighing in on this
> thread? Oh right because they don't subscribe to, or read, or reply to a
> development mailing list.

I should have made it clearer in my original post that this discussion
actually originated at the Board+TC+UC workshop in Boston, as part of
the "better communicating what is openstack" subgroup.

We discussed producing better maps of OpenStack, but the most
marketing-minded people in the group also insisted that we need to move
on from "big tent" branding and explain our structure with new, less
confusing terminology.

This thread is just the TC part of the discussion (as it happens, the TC
owns the upstream project structure, so changes to this will have to go
through us). We said that the TC should discuss its affairs in open
threads, so here it is. That doesn't really make it a technical issue,
or an issue that we'd solely decide amongst the inmates in the asylum.
The discussion will ultimately feed back to that Board+TC+UC workgroup
to come up with a clearer plan. We just need to get general feedback on
the general issue, which is what this thread is about.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-16 Thread Graham Hayes

On 15/06/17 22:35, Ed Leafe wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2017, at 3:35 PM, Jeremy Stanley  wrote:
> 
>> For me it's one of the most annoying yet challenging/interesting
>> aspects: free software development is as much about community and
>> politics as it is actual software development (perhaps more so).
> 
> Another way to look at it is how we see ourselves (as a community) and how 
> people on the outside see OpenStack. I would imagine that someone looking at 
> OpenStack for the first time would not care a whit about governance, repo 
> locations, etc. They would certainly care about "what do I need to do to use 
> this thing?"
> 
> What we call things isn't confusing to those of us in the community - well, 
> at least to those of us who take the time to read big long email threads like 
> this. We need to be clearer in how we represent OpenStack to outsiders. To 
> that end, I think that limiting the term "OpenStack" to a handful of the core 
> projects would make things a whole lot clearer. We can continue to present 
> everything else as a marketplace, or an ecosystem, or however the more 
> marketing-minded want to label it, but we should *not* call those projects 
> "OpenStack".
> 
> Now I know, I work on Nova, so I'm expecting responses that "of course you 
> don't care", or "OpenStack is people, and you're hurting our feelings!". So 
> flame away!

Where to start.

Most of the small projects are not complaining about "hurt feelings".

If the community want to follow advice from a certain tweet, and limit
OpenStack to Nova + its spinouts, we should do that. Just let the rest
of us know, so we can either start shutting down the projects, or look
at moving the projects to another foundation.

Of course we should probably change the OpenStack mission statement,
and give the board a heads up that all these project teams they talk
about publicly will be going away.

And, yes, coming from different project teams does mean that we will
have differing views on what should be in OpenStack, and its level of
priority - but (in my personal, biased opinion) we should not throw the
baby out with the bath water because we cannot find two names to
describe things.

> 
> -- Ed Leafe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 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
> 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-16 Thread Julien Danjou

On Thu, Jun 15 2017, Doug Hellmann wrote:

> One of the *most* common complaints the TC gets from outside the
> contributor community is that people do not understand what projects
> are part of OpenStack and what parts are not. We have a clear
> definition of that in our minds (the projects that have said they
> want to be part of OpenStack, and agreed to put themselves under
> TC governance, with all of the policies that implies). That definition
> is so trivial to say, that it seems like a tautology.  However,
> looking in from the outside of the community, that definition isn't
> helpful.

I still wonder why they care. Who care, really? Can we have some people
that care on this thread so they explain directly what we're trying to
solve here?

Everything is just a bunch of free software projects to me. The
governance made zero difference in my contributions or direction of the
projects I PTL'ed.

(There's so much effort put around trivial things like that. Why do I
read only 20 emails in the "Glance is dying" thread and already 55 in
that "let's rename big tent". Sigh.

-- 
Julien Danjou
/* Free Software hacker
   https://julien.danjou.info */

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-16 Thread Julien Danjou

On Fri, Jun 16 2017, gordon chung wrote:

> *sigh* so this is why we can't have nice things :p
>
> as an aside, in telemetry project, we did something somewhat similar 
> when we renamed/rebranded to telemetry from ceilometer. we wrote several 
> notes to the ML, had a few blog posts, fixed the docs, mentioned the new 
> project structure in our presentations... 2 years on, we still 
> occasionally get asked "what's ceilometer", "is xyz not ceilometer?", or 
> "so ceilometer is deprecated?". to a certain extent i think we'll have 
> to be prepared to do some hand holding and say "hey, that's not what the 
> "big tent/."

Yeah, even the Foundation kept talking about Ceilometer instead of
Telemetry in some internal/summit branding. I just gave up on that.

They say time helps.

-- 
Julien Danjou
-- Free Software hacker
-- https://julien.danjou.info


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 15/06/17 06:28 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> i see, so this is less an existential question of 'what is openstack'
>> > and more 'how to differentiate governance projects from a random repo
>> > created last weekend'
>> >
>> > this might have been just me, but big tent was exactly 'big tent ==
>> > governance' so when i read 'moving away from "big tent"' i think 'what
>> > is this *new* thing we're moving to and if we're redefining this new
>> > thing, what for?'. it seems this is not the case.
> No. We're trying to pick new words, because there continues to be
> confusion about the old words.

my bad, apologies for taking the scenic route. regardless of new words, 
we failed to properly describe what the big tent was the first go to 
some people, how do we make sure they're not confused this time? and how 
do we not confuse the ones that did understand the first time?

for me personally, the first go, the messaging was kind of muddled. i 
remember 'level playing field' being used frequently. not sure if that's 
still one of the reasons for ?

>> >
>> > sorry, i probably wasn't clear, i simply noticed that it was a corporate
>> > sponsor that was misusing the 'big tent' name so was just thinking we
>> > could easily tell them, that's not what it means. wasn't suggesting
>> > anything else by sponsor comment.
> You'd think it would be that easy. A surprising number of folks
> within the community don't really understand the old naming either,
> though (see the rest of this thread for examples).

*sigh* so this is why we can't have nice things :p

as an aside, in telemetry project, we did something somewhat similar 
when we renamed/rebranded to telemetry from ceilometer. we wrote several 
notes to the ML, had a few blog posts, fixed the docs, mentioned the new 
project structure in our presentations... 2 years on, we still 
occasionally get asked "what's ceilometer", "is xyz not ceilometer?", or 
"so ceilometer is deprecated?". to a certain extent i think we'll have 
to be prepared to do some hand holding and say "hey, that's not what the 
"big tent/."

-- 
gord
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread Amrith Kumar

I'm confused by the proposal; you've made a 1-1 substitution of "big tent"
with "openstack project" and then there are some "openstack hosted
projects".

How does that clarify the situation?

It does not help me answer the question "Is Trove part of OpenStack?" with
any more clarity than before.

So I'm missing something and judging by the follow-up's I'm not the only
one.

And yes, "friends of OpenStack" only begs the question who are not friends
of OpenStack :)

-amrith


-amrith

--
Amrith Kumar
Phone: +1-978-563-9590


On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Thierry Carrez 
wrote:

> Sean Dague wrote:
> > [...]
> > I think those are all fine. The other term that popped into my head was
> > "Friends of OpenStack" as a way to describe the openstack-hosted efforts
> > that aren't official projects. It may be too informal, but I do think
> > the OpenStack-Hosted vs. OpenStack might still mix up in people's head.
>
> My original thinking was to call them "hosted projects" or "host
> projects", but then it felt a bit incomplete. I kinda like the "Friends
> of OpenStack" name, although it seems to imply some kind of vetting that
> we don't actually do.
>
> An alternative would be to give "the OpenStack project infrastructure"
> some kind of a brand name (say, "Opium", for OpenStack project
> infrastructure ultimate madness) and then call the hosted projects
> "Opium projects". Rename the Infra team to Opium team, and voilà!
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
> __
> 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread Doug Hellmann

Excerpts from gordon chung's message of 2017-06-15 20:24:06 +:
> 
> On 15/06/17 03:23 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> >
> > We are very open with our hosting, allowing projects that have not
> > yet, and may never, sign up to be governed by the TC to use our
> > infrastructure services. We expect them to be related in some way,
> > but we have even imported projects when we've taken over maintenance
> > (several Oslo libs fall into this category, as do a few others like
> > mox3 and sqlalchemy-migrate). With the move away from stackforge,
> > and other changes in that hosting (that were made for good reasons
> > to make the infra team's lives easier and to make it simpler for a
> > project to join the set of governed projects), we have removed most
> > of the other technical signals about which projects are in that
> > "official" list and which are not.  We did not at the same time
> > remove all of the people in the world who want to understand what
> > is, and what is not, "in" OpenStack.
> 
> i see, so this is less an existential question of 'what is openstack' 
> and more 'how to differentiate governance projects from a random repo 
> created last weekend'
> 
> this might have been just me, but big tent was exactly 'big tent == 
> governance' so when i read 'moving away from "big tent"' i think 'what 
> is this *new* thing we're moving to and if we're redefining this new 
> thing, what for?'. it seems this is not the case.

No. We're trying to pick new words, because there continues to be
confusion about the old words.

> > And for the record, from the TC's perspective, being a governed
> > project has nothing to do with whether the participants are sponsors
> > of the foundation.
> 
> sorry, i probably wasn't clear, i simply noticed that it was a corporate 
> sponsor that was misusing the 'big tent' name so was just thinking we 
> could easily tell them, that's not what it means. wasn't suggesting 
> anything else by sponsor comment.

You'd think it would be that easy. A surprising number of folks
within the community don't really understand the old naming either,
though (see the rest of this thread for examples).

Doug

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 2017-06-15 16:35:15 -0500 (-0500), Ed Leafe wrote:
[...]
> I'm expecting responses that "of course you don't care", or
> "OpenStack is people, and you're hurting our feelings!". So flame
> away!

Nah. Now SoylentStack on the other hand, that one _is_ people but
have you actually tried it? Not very appetizing in my opinion. ;)
-- 
Jeremy Stanley

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread Ed Leafe

On Jun 15, 2017, at 3:35 PM, Jeremy Stanley  wrote:

> For me it's one of the most annoying yet challenging/interesting
> aspects: free software development is as much about community and
> politics as it is actual software development (perhaps more so).

Another way to look at it is how we see ourselves (as a community) and how 
people on the outside see OpenStack. I would imagine that someone looking at 
OpenStack for the first time would not care a whit about governance, repo 
locations, etc. They would certainly care about "what do I need to do to use 
this thing?"

What we call things isn't confusing to those of us in the community - well, at 
least to those of us who take the time to read big long email threads like 
this. We need to be clearer in how we represent OpenStack to outsiders. To that 
end, I think that limiting the term "OpenStack" to a handful of the core 
projects would make things a whole lot clearer. We can continue to present 
everything else as a marketplace, or an ecosystem, or however the more 
marketing-minded want to label it, but we should *not* call those projects 
"OpenStack".

Now I know, I work on Nova, so I'm expecting responses that "of course you 
don't care", or "OpenStack is people, and you're hurting our feelings!". So 
flame away!

-- Ed Leafe

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread Arkady.Kanevsky

Right on the point Rocky (no wonder you have release named after you)

We also need to update https://www.openstack.org/software/project-navigator/
To align with whatever decision agreed upon.
And we better make decision stick and not change it again in a year or two.
Arkady

-Original Message-
From: Rochelle Grober [mailto:rochelle.gro...@huawei.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 3:21 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

OK.  So, our naming is like branding.  We are techies -- not good at marketing. 
 But, gee, the foundation has a marketing team.  And they end up fielding a lot 
of the confusing questions from companies not deeply entrenched in the 
OpenStack Dev culture.  Perhaps it would be worth explaining what we are trying 
to do to the marketing team and let them suggest some branding words.

What we would need to do pretty much goes back to Chris and Gord's emails about 
answering the questions of what we mean by "Openstack Project" and  "projects 
we allow to use our infrastructure in pursuit of something that somehow works 
with OpenStack projects".  If we provide marketing with a solid definition of 
what is an OpenStack project (we have that one down fairly well, but they might 
ask about core or other things we haven't debated in a while), and provide them 
with what those other projects have in common besides being hosted by us, they 
might come up with something that works for them and is ok for us.  Remember, 
they get hit with it a lot more than we do at this point.

So what we need is:

* detailed definition of "OpenStack Project" (maybe based on answering those 
questions Chris proposed plus others)
* good definition of what the "others" hosted on our infrastructure are/are 
expected to be
* removal of "big tent" from everywhere (aside/non sequitur -- There was a doge 
of Venice that got deposed for treason and his visage and name were eradicated 
from all buildings, documents, etc.  He also happened to be the inventor of the 
chastity belt)
* introduce the marketing guys to the definitions and the branding issue
* call in OpenStack projects and Others until we have a reasonable brand for 
Others.

--Rocky 

Thierry Carrez Wrote:
> Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> > On 2017-06-15 11:15:36 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
> > [...]
> >> I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept:
> >> "OpenStack-Hosted projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on 
> >> one side, and "Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the 
> >> other side (all still under the openstack/ git repo prefix).
> >
> > I'm still unconvinced a term is needed for this. Can't we just have 
> > "OpenStack Projects" (those under TC governance) and "everything 
> > else?" Why must the existence of any term require a term for its 
> > opposite?
> 
> Well, we tried that for 2.5 years now, and people are still confused 
> about which projects are an Openstack project and what are not. The 
> confusion led to the perception that everything under openstack/ is an 
> openstack project.
> It led to the perception that "big tent" means "anything goes in" or 
> "flea market".
> 
> Whether we like it or not, giving a name to that category, a name that 
> people can refer to (not "projects under openstack infrastructure that 
> are not officially recognized by the TC"), is I think the only way out of 
> this confusion.
> 
> Obviously we are not the target audience for that term. I think we are 
> deep enough in OpenStack and technically-focused enough to see through that.
> But reality is, the majority of the rest of the world is confused, and 
> needs help figuring it out. Giving the category a name is a way to do that.
> 
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread Paul Belanger

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:56:30PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2017-06-15 11:48:42 -0400 (-0400), Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > We took that tradeoff before and have suffered as a result. I'd say
> > it's the cost of getting a project under governance.
> 
> Well, sort of. We took the slightly less work (for the Infra team)
> approach of renaming repos within a single Gerrit instead of trying
> to relocate projects between Gerrit deployments.
> 
> Ultimately, if the solution is to run a separate copy of our
> infrastructure to host non-OpenStack projects, it might as well have
> its own volunteer team running it. We're down to a skeleton crew as
> it is, so I don't relish the idea of us being responsible for
> maintaining an extra copy of all these services.
> -- 
> Jeremy Stanley

++ completely agree!


> __
> 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 2017-06-15 15:22:14 -0500 (-0500), Matt Riedemann wrote:
[...]
> God I feel like I waste an inordinate amount of time each week
> reading about what new process or thing we're going to call
> something, rather than actually working on getting stuff done for
> the release or reviewing changes. I'm tired of constant
> bureaucratic distraction. I believe it has to be demoralizing to
> the development community.
[...]

For me it's one of the most annoying yet challenging/interesting
aspects: free software development is as much about community and
politics as it is actual software development (perhaps more so).
-- 
Jeremy Stanley


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Matt Riedemann  wrote:
> On 6/15/2017 9:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>
>> Obviously we are not the target audience for that term. I think we are
>> deep enough in OpenStack and technically-focused enough to see through
>> that. But reality is, the majority of the rest of the world is confused,
>> and needs help figuring it out. Giving the category a name is a way to
>> do that.
>
>
> Maybe don't ask the inmates what the asylum/prison should be called. Why
> don't we have people that are confused about this weighing in on this
> thread? Oh right because they don't subscribe to, or read, or reply to a
> development mailing list.
>
> God I feel like I waste an inordinate amount of time each week reading about
> what new process or thing we're going to call something, rather than
> actually working on getting stuff done for the release or reviewing changes.
> I'm tired of constant bureaucratic distraction. I believe it has to be
> demoralizing to the development community.

I hear you loud and clear Matt. unfortunately this affects how our
community is viewed/perceived and will have an effect for our health
long term.

> I'm not trying to offend or troll so much as vent some frustration.
>
> --
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt
>
>
> __
> 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



-- 
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology



On 15/06/17 03:23 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
> We are very open with our hosting, allowing projects that have not
> yet, and may never, sign up to be governed by the TC to use our
> infrastructure services. We expect them to be related in some way,
> but we have even imported projects when we've taken over maintenance
> (several Oslo libs fall into this category, as do a few others like
> mox3 and sqlalchemy-migrate). With the move away from stackforge,
> and other changes in that hosting (that were made for good reasons
> to make the infra team's lives easier and to make it simpler for a
> project to join the set of governed projects), we have removed most
> of the other technical signals about which projects are in that
> "official" list and which are not.  We did not at the same time
> remove all of the people in the world who want to understand what
> is, and what is not, "in" OpenStack.

i see, so this is less an existential question of 'what is openstack' 
and more 'how to differentiate governance projects from a random repo 
created last weekend'

this might have been just me, but big tent was exactly 'big tent == 
governance' so when i read 'moving away from "big tent"' i think 'what 
is this *new* thing we're moving to and if we're redefining this new 
thing, what for?'. it seems this is not the case.

> And for the record, from the TC's perspective, being a governed
> project has nothing to do with whether the participants are sponsors
> of the foundation.

sorry, i probably wasn't clear, i simply noticed that it was a corporate 
sponsor that was misusing the 'big tent' name so was just thinking we 
could easily tell them, that's not what it means. wasn't suggesting 
anything else by sponsor comment.


-- 
gord
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread Matt Riedemann


On 6/15/2017 9:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:

Obviously we are not the target audience for that term. I think we are
deep enough in OpenStack and technically-focused enough to see through
that. But reality is, the majority of the rest of the world is confused,
and needs help figuring it out. Giving the category a name is a way to
do that.


Maybe don't ask the inmates what the asylum/prison should be called. Why 
don't we have people that are confused about this weighing in on this 
thread? Oh right because they don't subscribe to, or read, or reply to a 
development mailing list.


God I feel like I waste an inordinate amount of time each week reading 
about what new process or thing we're going to call something, rather 
than actually working on getting stuff done for the release or reviewing 
changes. I'm tired of constant bureaucratic distraction. I believe it 
has to be demoralizing to the development community.


I'm not trying to offend or troll so much as vent some frustration.

--

Thanks,

Matt

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread Rochelle Grober

OK.  So, our naming is like branding.  We are techies -- not good at marketing. 
 But, gee, the foundation has a marketing team.  And they end up fielding a lot 
of the confusing questions from companies not deeply entrenched in the 
OpenStack Dev culture.  Perhaps it would be worth explaining what we are trying 
to do to the marketing team and let them suggest some branding words.

What we would need to do pretty much goes back to Chris and Gord's emails about 
answering the questions of what we mean by "Openstack Project" and  "projects 
we allow to use our infrastructure in pursuit of something that somehow works 
with OpenStack projects".  If we provide marketing with a solid definition of 
what is an OpenStack project (we have that one down fairly well, but they might 
ask about core or other things we haven't debated in a while), and provide them 
with what those other projects have in common besides being hosted by us, they 
might come up with something that works for them and is ok for us.  Remember, 
they get hit with it a lot more than we do at this point.

So what we need is:

* detailed definition of "OpenStack Project" (maybe based on answering those 
questions Chris proposed plus others)
* good definition of what the "others" hosted on our infrastructure are/are 
expected to be
* removal of "big tent" from everywhere (aside/non sequitur -- There was a doge 
of Venice that got deposed for treason and his visage and name were eradicated 
from all buildings, documents, etc.  He also happened to be the inventor of the 
chastity belt)
* introduce the marketing guys to the definitions and the branding issue
* call in OpenStack projects and Others until we have a reasonable brand for 
Others.

--Rocky 

Thierry Carrez Wrote:
> Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> > On 2017-06-15 11:15:36 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
> > [...]
> >> I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept:
> >> "OpenStack-Hosted projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on
> >> one side, and "Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the
> >> other side (all still under the openstack/ git repo prefix).
> >
> > I'm still unconvinced a term is needed for this. Can't we just have
> > "OpenStack Projects" (those under TC governance) and "everything
> > else?" Why must the existence of any term require a term for its
> > opposite?
> 
> Well, we tried that for 2.5 years now, and people are still confused about
> which projects are an Openstack project and what are not. The confusion led
> to the perception that everything under openstack/ is an openstack project.
> It led to the perception that "big tent" means "anything goes in" or "flea
> market".
> 
> Whether we like it or not, giving a name to that category, a name that people
> can refer to (not "projects under openstack infrastructure that are not
> officially recognized by the TC"), is I think the only way out of this 
> confusion.
> 
> Obviously we are not the target audience for that term. I think we are deep
> enough in OpenStack and technically-focused enough to see through that.
> But reality is, the majority of the rest of the world is confused, and needs
> help figuring it out. Giving the category a name is a way to do that.
> 
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread Doug Hellmann

Excerpts from gordon chung's message of 2017-06-15 18:56:22 +:
> 
> On 15/06/17 02:05 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > Example from https://www.meetup.com/openstack/events/237621777/
> > "Platform9 recently open-sourced Project Mors and VM HA as part of the
> > OpenStack Big Tent initiative."
> 
> ah i see, i imagine you could correct those who are corporate sponsors 
> (and send in the suits for those who aren't. j/k).
> 
> it seems like we want to drop "big tent" because marketers ruined it but 
> i'm still not sure we've formalised why we need a replacement (not 
> saying we don't).
> 

One of the *most* common complaints the TC gets from outside the
contributor community is that people do not understand what projects
are part of OpenStack and what parts are not. We have a clear
definition of that in our minds (the projects that have said they
want to be part of OpenStack, and agreed to put themselves under
TC governance, with all of the policies that implies). That definition
is so trivial to say, that it seems like a tautology.  However,
looking in from the outside of the community, that definition isn't
helpful.

We are very open with our hosting, allowing projects that have not
yet, and may never, sign up to be governed by the TC to use our
infrastructure services. We expect them to be related in some way,
but we have even imported projects when we've taken over maintenance
(several Oslo libs fall into this category, as do a few others like
mox3 and sqlalchemy-migrate). With the move away from stackforge,
and other changes in that hosting (that were made for good reasons
to make the infra team's lives easier and to make it simpler for a
project to join the set of governed projects), we have removed most
of the other technical signals about which projects are in that
"official" list and which are not.  We did not at the same time
remove all of the people in the world who want to understand what
is, and what is not, "in" OpenStack.

So, we need to find a way to answer that question. As Thierry said,
one way is to have 2 names to describe the 2 states. Big Tent used
to be one such name, except that we have learned that term was
unclear to a bunch of people (insert joke about how hard naming
things can be here).

Other communities don't seem to have this problem, because they either
don't host projects that are not part of their umbrella, or they don't
have projects moving in and out of governance so often.

And for the record, from the TC's perspective, being a governed
project has nothing to do with whether the participants are sponsors
of the foundation. The minute it does, I will step down. As part
of continuing to have a healthy community, we want to attract new
members, regardless of whether they are coming with money (and in
fact being an individual member is free).  We look at whether
projects (a) ask to be and (b) follow the guidelines we've set down.
We do look at who is contributing, but only when we consider the
various team diversity tags, none of which are required to be a
governed project.

Doug

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 15/06/17 02:05 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Example from https://www.meetup.com/openstack/events/237621777/
> "Platform9 recently open-sourced Project Mors and VM HA as part of the
> OpenStack Big Tent initiative."

ah i see, i imagine you could correct those who are corporate sponsors 
(and send in the suits for those who aren't. j/k).

it seems like we want to drop "big tent" because marketers ruined it but 
i'm still not sure we've formalised why we need a replacement (not 
saying we don't).

-- 
gord
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

Sorry, re-reading my email :)

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:38 PM, gordon chung  wrote:
>
>
> On 15/06/17 01:17 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>> [DIMS] Tons of folks confused about "Big-Tent", folks are confusing
>> that label with "projects under governance".

What i meant was "Folks are equating Big-Tent with all projects in our
git repo and not just projects-under-governance"

Example from https://www.meetup.com/openstack/events/237621777/
"Platform9 recently open-sourced Project Mors and VM HA as part of the
OpenStack Big Tent initiative."

> wait, the big tent isn't the projects under governance? that's what i
> thought it was based on all the noise... more confused than i thought.
>
> so if what we're trying to do is emphasis/segregate these project under
> governance, what for?  who's the target audience of: "here are some
> projects that use the openstack name, have 1+ people working on it, are
> 'open', have some testing"?
>
> cheers,
>
> --
> gord
> __
> 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



-- 
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 15/06/17 01:17 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> [DIMS] Tons of folks confused about "Big-Tent", folks are confusing
> that label with "projects under governance".

wait, the big tent isn't the projects under governance? that's what i 
thought it was based on all the noise... more confused than i thought.

so if what we're trying to do is emphasis/segregate these project under 
governance, what for?  who's the target audience of: "here are some 
projects that use the openstack name, have 1+ people working on it, are 
'open', have some testing"?

cheers,

-- 
gord
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread Michał Jastrzębski

First of all, we definitely need that distinction to be clear.
Second, what are incentives to actually be an OpenStack project?
1. TC oversight - it's more a requirement than incentive
2. PTG space - definitely incentive
...anything else?

What else? TC has an important role, we need oversight to keep
OpenStack tidy, working together, follow four opens and all that. But
to agree for TC oversight (which you could argue makes life harder,
more rules to adhere to) project has to be an OpenStack project. How
do we push projects to join?

On 15 June 2017 at 10:17, Davanum Srinivas  wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:01 PM, gordon chung  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 15/06/17 11:28 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>> The purpose (my 2 cents) is to highlight what projects are under
>>> governance and those that are not.
>>
>> going down the rabbit hole, what does it mean to be under governance?
>> projects that want to use the openstack brand and were, at the time of
>> acceptance, supported some subset[1] of: 'open',
> [DIMS] Yes,
>> had some testing,
> [DIMS] Yes
>> supported keystone,
> [DIMS] No. It was never mandatory
> had a human resource?
> [DIMS] Yes, hopefully a bunch of people work on it
>  i don't really see how this
>> differs from big tent?
> [DIMS] Tons of folks confused about "Big-Tent", folks are confusing
> that label with "projects under governance".
> seems more like the same but without the
>> 'big-tent' stigma?
> [DIMS] Not sure about stigma. The label is useless right now.
>
>
>
>>
>> are we hoping openstack foundation to be a cloud-specific apache
>> foundation? maybe it already is, and if so, i don't really understand
>> the additional labeling we're trying to achieve.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/new-projects-requirements.html
>>
>> --
>> gord
>> __
>> 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
>
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims
>
> __
> 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:01 PM, gordon chung  wrote:
>
>
> On 15/06/17 11:28 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>> The purpose (my 2 cents) is to highlight what projects are under
>> governance and those that are not.
>
> going down the rabbit hole, what does it mean to be under governance?
> projects that want to use the openstack brand and were, at the time of
> acceptance, supported some subset[1] of: 'open',
[DIMS] Yes,
> had some testing,
[DIMS] Yes
> supported keystone,
[DIMS] No. It was never mandatory
had a human resource?
[DIMS] Yes, hopefully a bunch of people work on it
 i don't really see how this
> differs from big tent?
[DIMS] Tons of folks confused about "Big-Tent", folks are confusing
that label with "projects under governance".
seems more like the same but without the
> 'big-tent' stigma?
[DIMS] Not sure about stigma. The label is useless right now.



>
> are we hoping openstack foundation to be a cloud-specific apache
> foundation? maybe it already is, and if so, i don't really understand
> the additional labeling we're trying to achieve.
>
> [1]
> https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/new-projects-requirements.html
>
> --
> gord
> __
> 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



-- 
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread Tim Bell

And since Electrons are neither waves or particles, it is difficult to pin them 
down (

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

Tim

-Original Message-
From: Sean McGinnis <sean.mcgin...@gmx.com>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Date: Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 18:36
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent"  
terminology

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:41:30PM +, Tim Bell wrote:
> OpenStack Nucleus and OpenStack Electrons?
> 
> Tim
> 

Hah, love it!


__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 15/06/17 11:28 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> The purpose (my 2 cents) is to highlight what projects are under
> governance and those that are not.

going down the rabbit hole, what does it mean to be under governance? 
projects that want to use the openstack brand and were, at the time of 
acceptance, supported some subset[1] of: 'open', had some testing, 
supported keystone, had a human resource? i don't really see how this 
differs from big tent? seems more like the same but without the 
'big-tent' stigma?

are we hoping openstack foundation to be a cloud-specific apache 
foundation? maybe it already is, and if so, i don't really understand 
the additional labeling we're trying to achieve.

[1] 
https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/new-projects-requirements.html

-- 
gord
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread Sean McGinnis

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:41:30PM +, Tim Bell wrote:
> OpenStack Nucleus and OpenStack Electrons?
> 
> Tim
> 

Hah, love it!


__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread Kirill Zaitsev

Not touching the separate gerrit topic, but I genuinely like the "community" 
name. In my opinion it very well covers the "projects not governed by TC" 
definition.

Regards, Kirill

> Le 15 июня 2017 г. à 18:28, Davanum Srinivas  a écrit :
> 
>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:17 AM, gordon chung  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 15/06/17 10:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>> Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> 
> I'm still unconvinced a term is needed for this. Can't we just have
> "OpenStack Projects" (those under TC governance) and "everything
> else?" Why must the existence of any term require a term for its
> opposite?
>>> Well, we tried that for 2.5 years now, and people are still confused
>>> about which projects are an Openstack project and what are not. The
>>> confusion led to the perception that everything under openstack/ is an
>>> openstack project. It led to the perception that "big tent" means
>>> "anything goes in" or "flea market".
>> 
>> regardless of terminology, i'm not entirely certain what everyone's
>> definition of an openstack project and > it> project is. additionally, what the purpose of this categorization is?
> 
> The purpose (my 2 cents) is to highlight what projects are under
> governance and those that are not.
> 
> Maybe we should call those not under governance as "community"
> projects, aggregate these under say community.openstack.org also run a
> second gerrit instance (community-git.openstack.org ?) so the
> separation is clear and distinct.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dims
> 
>> 
>> --
>> gord
>> __
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims
> 
> __
> 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

Please note that this ended up being discussed during (and before and
after) the TC office hour today on #openstack-tc:

For those interested, see:

http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2017-06-15.log.html#t2017-06-15T13:00:53

TL;DR: We are still deep in initial discussion, trying to wrap our heads
around the problem space and the potential solutions.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 2017-06-15 11:07:11 -0400 (-0400), Sean Dague wrote:
[...]
> I do kind of wonder if we returned the stackforge or
> friends-of-openstack or whatever to the github namespace when we
> mirrored if it would clear a bunch of things up for people. It would
> just need to be an extra piece of info in our project list about where
> those projects should mirror to (which may not be the same namespace as
> in gerrit).

I don't immediately see any good way to do that with
https://gerrit.googlesource.com/plugins/replication/+doc/master/src/main/resources/Documentation/config.md
 >
so if that's something we wanted, we'd likely need to switch to a
different replication solution than the one Gerrit itself provides.

I'm also not thrilled with the idea of making the hoops we already
jump through to deal with GH mirroring any more complex, just for
the sake of people who want to use it instead of the systems we
maintain. It's not free software, probably never will be, and most
of the Infra team (me included) don't get any real joy from
supporting it in the first place.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 2017-06-15 11:48:42 -0400 (-0400), Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> We took that tradeoff before and have suffered as a result. I'd say
> it's the cost of getting a project under governance.

Well, sort of. We took the slightly less work (for the Infra team)
approach of renaming repos within a single Gerrit instead of trying
to relocate projects between Gerrit deployments.

Ultimately, if the solution is to run a separate copy of our
infrastructure to host non-OpenStack projects, it might as well have
its own volunteer team running it. We're down to a skeleton crew as
it is, so I don't relish the idea of us being responsible for
maintaining an extra copy of all these services.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

Jeremy,

We took that tradeoff before and have suffered as a result. I'd say
it's the cost of getting a project under governance.

-- Dims

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Jeremy Stanley  wrote:
> On 2017-06-15 11:28:23 -0400 (-0400), Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> [...]
>> Maybe we should call those not under governance as "community"
>> projects, aggregate these under say community.openstack.org also run a
>> second gerrit instance (community-git.openstack.org ?) so the
>> separation is clear and distinct.
>
> Expecting everyone to change Git and Gerrit URLs when becoming (or
> ceasing to be) official is still pretty painful.
> --
> Jeremy Stanley
>
> __
> 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
>



-- 
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread Jay Pipes


On 06/15/2017 08:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:

An alternative would be to give "the OpenStack project infrastructure"
some kind of a brand name (say, "Opium", for OpenStack project
infrastructure ultimate madness)


or... OpenStack Stadium, shortened.

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread Clay Gerrard

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Sean Dague  wrote:

>
> I do kind of wonder if we returned the stackforge or
> friends-of-openstack or whatever to the github namespace when we
> mirrored if it would clear a bunch of things up for people. It would
> just need to be an extra piece of info in our project list about where
> those projects should mirror to (which may not be the same namespace as
> in gerrit).
>
>
Whoa.  

-Clay
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread Tim Bell

OpenStack Nucleus and OpenStack Electrons?

Tim

-Original Message-
From: Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org>
Organization: OpenStack
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Date: Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 14:57
To: "openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent"  
terminology

Sean Dague wrote:
> [...]
> I think those are all fine. The other term that popped into my head was
> "Friends of OpenStack" as a way to describe the openstack-hosted efforts
> that aren't official projects. It may be too informal, but I do think
> the OpenStack-Hosted vs. OpenStack might still mix up in people's head.

My original thinking was to call them "hosted projects" or "host
projects", but then it felt a bit incomplete. I kinda like the "Friends
of OpenStack" name, although it seems to imply some kind of vetting that
we don't actually do.

An alternative would be to give "the OpenStack project infrastructure"
some kind of a brand name (say, "Opium", for OpenStack project
infrastructure ultimate madness) and then call the hosted projects
"Opium projects". Rename the Infra team to Opium team, and voilà!

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 2017-06-15 11:28:23 -0400 (-0400), Davanum Srinivas wrote:
[...]
> Maybe we should call those not under governance as "community"
> projects, aggregate these under say community.openstack.org also run a
> second gerrit instance (community-git.openstack.org ?) so the
> separation is clear and distinct.

Expecting everyone to change Git and Gerrit URLs when becoming (or
ceasing to be) official is still pretty painful.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:17 AM, gordon chung  wrote:
>
>
> On 15/06/17 10:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I'm still unconvinced a term is needed for this. Can't we just have
>>> > "OpenStack Projects" (those under TC governance) and "everything
>>> > else?" Why must the existence of any term require a term for its
>>> > opposite?
>> Well, we tried that for 2.5 years now, and people are still confused
>> about which projects are an Openstack project and what are not. The
>> confusion led to the perception that everything under openstack/ is an
>> openstack project. It led to the perception that "big tent" means
>> "anything goes in" or "flea market".
>
> regardless of terminology, i'm not entirely certain what everyone's
> definition of an openstack project and  it> project is. additionally, what the purpose of this categorization is?

The purpose (my 2 cents) is to highlight what projects are under
governance and those that are not.

Maybe we should call those not under governance as "community"
projects, aggregate these under say community.openstack.org also run a
second gerrit instance (community-git.openstack.org ?) so the
separation is clear and distinct.

Thanks,
Dims

>
> --
> gord
> __
> 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



-- 
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology



On 15/06/17 10:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm still unconvinced a term is needed for this. Can't we just have
>> > "OpenStack Projects" (those under TC governance) and "everything
>> > else?" Why must the existence of any term require a term for its
>> > opposite?
> Well, we tried that for 2.5 years now, and people are still confused
> about which projects are an Openstack project and what are not. The
> confusion led to the perception that everything under openstack/ is an
> openstack project. It led to the perception that "big tent" means
> "anything goes in" or "flea market".

regardless of terminology, i'm not entirely certain what everyone's 
definition of an openstack project and  project is. additionally, what the purpose of this categorization is?

-- 
gord
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread Sean Dague

On 06/15/2017 10:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>> On 2017-06-15 11:15:36 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
>>> projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
>>> "Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side (all
>>> still under the openstack/ git repo prefix).
>>
>> I'm still unconvinced a term is needed for this. Can't we just have
>> "OpenStack Projects" (those under TC governance) and "everything
>> else?" Why must the existence of any term require a term for its
>> opposite?
> 
> Well, we tried that for 2.5 years now, and people are still confused
> about which projects are an Openstack project and what are not. The
> confusion led to the perception that everything under openstack/ is an
> openstack project. It led to the perception that "big tent" means
> "anything goes in" or "flea market".
> 
> Whether we like it or not, giving a name to that category, a name that
> people can refer to (not "projects under openstack infrastructure that
> are not officially recognized by the TC"), is I think the only way out
> of this confusion.
> 
> Obviously we are not the target audience for that term. I think we are
> deep enough in OpenStack and technically-focused enough to see through
> that. But reality is, the majority of the rest of the world is confused,
> and needs help figuring it out. Giving the category a name is a way to
> do that.

Right, I think the point is that we both need to have an internal
understanding, as well as be able to effectively communicate the state
of things with people that aren't reading yaml out of git trees. The
human tendency to need a category for things (especially things they
aren't 100% familiar with the inner workings of) is way too strong to
ignore.

And the fact that namespaces in github mean something to the rest of the
world, even if they don't mean it to us, as that's a first order piece
of data the way other projects organize.

I do kind of wonder if we returned the stackforge or
friends-of-openstack or whatever to the github namespace when we
mirrored if it would clear a bunch of things up for people. It would
just need to be an extra piece of info in our project list about where
those projects should mirror to (which may not be the same namespace as
in gerrit).

-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 15/06/17 07:03 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
>
> Part of the issue is that the meaning and value of being  an
> "OpenStack project" (an "official" one) is increasingly diffuse.
> I suspect that if we could make that more concrete then things like
> names would be easier to decide. Some things we might ask ourselves
> to help clarify the situation include (as usual, some of these
> questions may have obvious answers, but enumerating them can help
> make things explicit):
>
> * What motivates a project to seek status as an OpenStack project?
>   * What do they get?
>   * What do they lose?
>
> * What motivates OpenStack to seek more projects?
>   * What does OpenStack get?
>   * What does OpenStack lose?
>   * What gets more complicated when there are more projects?
>
> * Why would a project choose to be "hosted on OpenStack
>   infrastructure" instead of be an "OpenStack project"?
>
> * Why should OpenStack be willing to host projects that are not
>   "OpenStack projects"?
>
> * When a project goes from the status of "OpenStack project" to
>   "hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" (as currently being discussed
>   with regard to Fuel) what is the project losing, what does the
>   change signify and why should anyone care?
>
> (I'm sure other people can come up with a few more questions.)
>
> I think that if we're going to focus on this issue then we need to
> make sure that we focus on marshalling the value and resources that
> are required to support a project. That is: it has to be worth
> everyone's time and enery to be and have (official) projects. It's
> likely that this could mean that some projects are unable to be
> (official) projects anymore.

do this ^ first. if we cant qualify what we're trying to do with this 
labeling then it doesn't matter what name you slap on it. is it for 
marketing purposes? is it to define an OpenStack Community Edition? is 
it to create a repo of known projects that are solely funded/developed 
by OpenStack sponsors? is it to help developers somehow?

currently, if i read the new projects requirements[1], the 'big tent' is 
something along the lines of "here's a bunch of 'cloud' stuff the 
proprietary companies provide but from companies that fund openstack 
brand that is 'open'. we make no guarantees that they actually work 
(they probably don't), this is solely to say these projects: exists, are 
'open', and probably work with nova/keystone."

there is nothing wrong with this (except it being a terrible sales 
pitch) but since the 'big tent' message was ambiguous and we labeled it, 
it reached a marketer and became: 'look at us, we have a big tent 
project. what's the big tent? it's '.

labeling is inherently a branding exercise, so my question is what are 
we trying to market and should we be doing it or is it something that 
companies[2] should be doing.

[1] 
https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/new-projects-requirements.html
[2] https://www.openstack.org/marketplace/

-- 
gord
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2017-06-15 11:15:36 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
> [...]
>> I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
>> projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
>> "Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side (all
>> still under the openstack/ git repo prefix).
> 
> I'm still unconvinced a term is needed for this. Can't we just have
> "OpenStack Projects" (those under TC governance) and "everything
> else?" Why must the existence of any term require a term for its
> opposite?

Well, we tried that for 2.5 years now, and people are still confused
about which projects are an Openstack project and what are not. The
confusion led to the perception that everything under openstack/ is an
openstack project. It led to the perception that "big tent" means
"anything goes in" or "flea market".

Whether we like it or not, giving a name to that category, a name that
people can refer to (not "projects under openstack infrastructure that
are not officially recognized by the TC"), is I think the only way out
of this confusion.

Obviously we are not the target audience for that term. I think we are
deep enough in OpenStack and technically-focused enough to see through
that. But reality is, the majority of the rest of the world is confused,
and needs help figuring it out. Giving the category a name is a way to
do that.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 2017-06-15 11:15:36 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]
> I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
> projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
> "Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side (all
> still under the openstack/ git repo prefix).

I'm still unconvinced a term is needed for this. Can't we just have
"OpenStack Projects" (those under TC governance) and "everything
else?" Why must the existence of any term require a term for its
opposite?

> We'll stop saying "official OpenStack project" and "unofficial
> OpenStack project". The only "OpenStack projects" will be the
> official ones. We'll chase down the last mentions of "big tent" in
> documentation and remove it from our vocabulary.
[...]

I agree on getting rid of the "big tent" phrase anywhere we find it,
though I thought we'd already avoided using that in favor of more
descriptive terminology anyway. Also I'm very excited to see a focus
on "OpenStack projects" I just don't see a benefit to making up a
name for "not an OpenStack project."
-- 
Jeremy Stanley


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread John Griffith

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:15 AM, Thierry Carrez 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Back in 2014, OpenStack was facing a problem. Our project structure,
> inherited from days where Nova, Swift and friends were the only game in
> town, was not working anymore. The "integrated release" that we ended up
> producing was not really integrated, already too big to be installed by
> everyone, and yet too small to accommodate the growing interest in other
> forms of "open infrastructure". The incubation process (from stackforge
> to incubated, from incubated to integrated) created catch-22s that
> prevented projects from gathering enough interest to reach the upper
> layers. Something had to give.
>
> The project structure reform[1] that resulted from those discussions
> switched to a simpler model: project teams would be approved based on
> how well they fit the OpenStack overall mission and community
> principles, rather than based on a degree of maturity. It was nicknamed
> "the big tent" based on a blogpost[2] that Monty wrote -- mostly
> explaining that things produced by the OpenStack community should be
> considered OpenStack projects.
>
> So the reform removed the concept of incubated vs. integrated, in favor
> of a single "official" category. Tags[3] were introduced to better
> describe the degree of maturity of the various official things. "Being
> part of the big tent" was synonymous to "being an official project" (but
> people kept saying the former).
>
> At around the same time, mostly for technical reasons around the
> difficulty of renaming git repositories, the "stackforge/" git
> repository prefix was discontinued (all projects hosted on OpenStack
> infrastructure would be created under an "openstack/" git repository
> prefix).
>
> All those events combined, though, sent a mixed message, which we are
> still struggling with today. "Big tent" has a flea market connotation of
> "everyone can come in". Combined with the fact that all git repositories
> are under the same prefix, it created a lot of confusion. Some people
> even think the big tent is the openstack/ namespace, not the list of
> official projects. We tried to stop using the "big tent" meme, but (I
> blame Monty), the name is still sticking. I think it's time to more
> aggressively get rid of it. We tried using "unofficial" and "official"
> terminology, but that did not stick either.
>
> I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
> projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
> "Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side (all
> still under the openstack/ git repo prefix). We'll stop saying "official
> OpenStack project" and "unofficial OpenStack project". The only
> "OpenStack projects" will be the official ones. We'll chase down the
> last mentions of "big tent" in documentation and remove it from our
> vocabulary.
>
> I think this new wording (replacing what was previously Stackforge,
> replacing what was previously called "unofficial OpenStack projects")
> will bring some clarity as to what is OpenStack and what is beyond it.
>
> Thoughts ?
>
> [1]
> https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20141202-
> project-structure-reform-spec.html
> [2] http://inaugust.com/posts/big-tent.html
> [3] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/tags/index.html
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
> __
> 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
>
I like it, and I actually like the naming.  "Friends of OpenStack" is way
too touchy feely, koomba ya.  True there's not a glaring distinction in the
names (OpenStack Project vs OpenStack Hosted), but I thought that was kind
of a good thing.  A sort of compromise between the two extremes we've had
in the past.  Either way, whatever the names etc, the concept seems solid
to me and I think might be more clear for those trying to wrap their head
around things.
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread Flavio Percoco


On 15/06/17 14:09 +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:

On 2017-06-15 14:57:20 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]

An alternative would be to give "the OpenStack project infrastructure"
some kind of a brand name (say, "Opium", for OpenStack project
infrastructure ultimate madness) and then call the hosted projects
"Opium projects". Rename the Infra team to Opium team, and voilà!


Not to be cynical, but it sounds like a return to StackForge under a
different name.

The thing I like about _not_ having a name for that is it's not an
either/or situation. There are OpenStack projects under official
governance, and everything else in existence (some of which we might
host, other stuff is elsewhere on the Internet at large). Keeping
the discussion focused on OpenStack is key for me. I am not
personally keen on the idea of branding the Infrastructure team's
work as an unrelated hosting service and feel like we only recently
managed to get away from that paradigm when we ditched the
StackForge branding as a euphemism for projects that weren't under
OpenStack governance.


+1 I literally just sent an email asking whether we want to make this separation
more evident. The fact that we're picking these names makes me think it's
important for us to have such separation so that we can be clear on what the
releases will bring, among other things.

If we're going to have such separation, then I'd rather make it evident since
it's confusing for people to understand what the difference between big-tent and
official project is and the name change won't help much with this problem, I
reckon.

Flavio

--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread Flavio Percoco


On 15/06/17 11:15 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:

I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
"Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side (all
still under the openstack/ git repo prefix). We'll stop saying "official
OpenStack project" and "unofficial OpenStack project". The only
"OpenStack projects" will be the official ones. We'll chase down the
last mentions of "big tent" in documentation and remove it from our
vocabulary.

I think this new wording (replacing what was previously Stackforge,
replacing what was previously called "unofficial OpenStack projects")
will bring some clarity as to what is OpenStack and what is beyond it.


The wording sounds good to me. I've found that it's a bit unclear what projects
are part of OpenStack to folks that are not entirely familiar with the
terminology (regardless of the terminology). Stackforge made this very clear,
so, I wonder if we should find a better way to clarify what projects are Hosted
and what projects are part of OpenStack. So far we have badges, which were added
to some Readmes and they only show up on github so, badges might not be clear
enough. To be honest, I don't have an idea that I'm happy with but here are a
couple:

* Have an autogenerated (?) doc with the list of hosted services
* Update badges to reflect the terminology change
* Have a different documentation theme for hosted projects (?)

I'm not super happy with these ideas but I'm throwing them out there hoping that
we can brainstorm a bit on how we can do this and whether this is something we
really want/need to do.

Flavio

--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 2017-06-15 14:57:20 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]
> An alternative would be to give "the OpenStack project infrastructure"
> some kind of a brand name (say, "Opium", for OpenStack project
> infrastructure ultimate madness) and then call the hosted projects
> "Opium projects". Rename the Infra team to Opium team, and voilà!

Not to be cynical, but it sounds like a return to StackForge under a
different name.

The thing I like about _not_ having a name for that is it's not an
either/or situation. There are OpenStack projects under official
governance, and everything else in existence (some of which we might
host, other stuff is elsewhere on the Internet at large). Keeping
the discussion focused on OpenStack is key for me. I am not
personally keen on the idea of branding the Infrastructure team's
work as an unrelated hosting service and feel like we only recently
managed to get away from that paradigm when we ditched the
StackForge branding as a euphemism for projects that weren't under
OpenStack governance.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread Sean McGinnis

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 02:57:20PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Sean Dague wrote:
> > [...]
> > I think those are all fine. The other term that popped into my head was
> > "Friends of OpenStack" as a way to describe the openstack-hosted efforts
> > that aren't official projects. It may be too informal, but I do think
> > the OpenStack-Hosted vs. OpenStack might still mix up in people's head.
> 
> My original thinking was to call them "hosted projects" or "host
> projects", but then it felt a bit incomplete. I kinda like the "Friends
> of OpenStack" name, although it seems to imply some kind of vetting that
> we don't actually do.
> 
> An alternative would be to give "the OpenStack project infrastructure"
> some kind of a brand name (say, "Opium", for OpenStack project
> infrastructure ultimate madness) and then call the hosted projects
> "Opium projects". Rename the Infra team to Opium team, and voilà!
> 
> -- 
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)

Hmm, I like the concept. Giing it a "brand" would make it something identifiable
while still creating a separation from OpenStack as a whole.

Not sure about the name, but I like this direction more than "OpenStack Hosted".


__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread Melvin Hillsman

Just my .02,

I agree with those who have said distinction is still difficult with
initial thoughts and possibly fleshing out more clearly how that would be
handled - opium branding, questions/criteria proposed by Chris, etc. - can
address the identified potential confusion. I like the idea of branding the
infra team - wonder what they think of that. As others have stated I do not
have any good suggestions just throwing in an extra +1 where appropriate :)

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Thierry Carrez 
wrote:

> Sean Dague wrote:
> > [...]
> > I think those are all fine. The other term that popped into my head was
> > "Friends of OpenStack" as a way to describe the openstack-hosted efforts
> > that aren't official projects. It may be too informal, but I do think
> > the OpenStack-Hosted vs. OpenStack might still mix up in people's head.
>
> My original thinking was to call them "hosted projects" or "host
> projects", but then it felt a bit incomplete. I kinda like the "Friends
> of OpenStack" name, although it seems to imply some kind of vetting that
> we don't actually do.
>
> An alternative would be to give "the OpenStack project infrastructure"
> some kind of a brand name (say, "Opium", for OpenStack project
> infrastructure ultimate madness) and then call the hosted projects
> "Opium projects". Rename the Infra team to Opium team, and voilà!
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
> __
> 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
>



-- 
-- 
Kind regards,

Melvin Hillsman
mrhills...@gmail.com
mobile: (832) 264-2646

Learner | Ideation | Belief | Responsibility | Command
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

Sean Dague wrote:
> [...]
> I think those are all fine. The other term that popped into my head was
> "Friends of OpenStack" as a way to describe the openstack-hosted efforts
> that aren't official projects. It may be too informal, but I do think
> the OpenStack-Hosted vs. OpenStack might still mix up in people's head.

My original thinking was to call them "hosted projects" or "host
projects", but then it felt a bit incomplete. I kinda like the "Friends
of OpenStack" name, although it seems to imply some kind of vetting that
we don't actually do.

An alternative would be to give "the OpenStack project infrastructure"
some kind of a brand name (say, "Opium", for OpenStack project
infrastructure ultimate madness) and then call the hosted projects
"Opium projects". Rename the Infra team to Opium team, and voilà!

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread Sean McGinnis

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:06:17PM +0100, Chris Dent wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Chris Dent wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> >
> >>I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
> >>projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
> >>"Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side (all
> >>still under the openstack/ git repo prefix). We'll stop saying "official
> >>OpenStack project" and "unofficial OpenStack project". The only
> >>"OpenStack projects" will be the official ones. We'll chase down the
> >>last mentions of "big tent" in documentation and remove it from our
> >>vocabulary.
> >
> >I agree that something needs to change, but also agree with some of
> >the followups that the distinction you're proposing isn't
> >particularly memorable.
> 
> I should also say that despite my previous comments, discussion
> resolving those issues should not delay sanitizing the term "big
> tent".

I'm in the same boat (or tent? :) ) that I don't think the new terms would
be distinguishing enough to improve the misunderstanding. But like Chris,
I don't really have any good suggestions at the moment either.

+1 for removing references to the big tent while we bikeshed on naming.

Sean

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread Sean Dague

On 06/15/2017 05:15 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Back in 2014, OpenStack was facing a problem. Our project structure,
> inherited from days where Nova, Swift and friends were the only game in
> town, was not working anymore. The "integrated release" that we ended up
> producing was not really integrated, already too big to be installed by
> everyone, and yet too small to accommodate the growing interest in other
> forms of "open infrastructure". The incubation process (from stackforge
> to incubated, from incubated to integrated) created catch-22s that
> prevented projects from gathering enough interest to reach the upper
> layers. Something had to give.
> 
> The project structure reform[1] that resulted from those discussions
> switched to a simpler model: project teams would be approved based on
> how well they fit the OpenStack overall mission and community
> principles, rather than based on a degree of maturity. It was nicknamed
> "the big tent" based on a blogpost[2] that Monty wrote -- mostly
> explaining that things produced by the OpenStack community should be
> considered OpenStack projects.
> 
> So the reform removed the concept of incubated vs. integrated, in favor
> of a single "official" category. Tags[3] were introduced to better
> describe the degree of maturity of the various official things. "Being
> part of the big tent" was synonymous to "being an official project" (but
> people kept saying the former).
> 
> At around the same time, mostly for technical reasons around the
> difficulty of renaming git repositories, the "stackforge/" git
> repository prefix was discontinued (all projects hosted on OpenStack
> infrastructure would be created under an "openstack/" git repository
> prefix).
> 
> All those events combined, though, sent a mixed message, which we are
> still struggling with today. "Big tent" has a flea market connotation of
> "everyone can come in". Combined with the fact that all git repositories
> are under the same prefix, it created a lot of confusion. Some people
> even think the big tent is the openstack/ namespace, not the list of
> official projects. We tried to stop using the "big tent" meme, but (I
> blame Monty), the name is still sticking. I think it's time to more
> aggressively get rid of it. We tried using "unofficial" and "official"
> terminology, but that did not stick either.
> 
> I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
> projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
> "Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side (all
> still under the openstack/ git repo prefix). We'll stop saying "official
> OpenStack project" and "unofficial OpenStack project". The only
> "OpenStack projects" will be the official ones. We'll chase down the
> last mentions of "big tent" in documentation and remove it from our
> vocabulary.
> 
> I think this new wording (replacing what was previously Stackforge,
> replacing what was previously called "unofficial OpenStack projects")
> will bring some clarity as to what is OpenStack and what is beyond it.

I think those are all fine. The other term that popped into my head was
"Friends of OpenStack" as a way to describe the openstack-hosted efforts
that aren't official projects. It may be too informal, but I do think
the OpenStack-Hosted vs. OpenStack might still mix up in people's head.

-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread Chris Dent


On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Chris Dent wrote:


On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Thierry Carrez wrote:


I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
"Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side (all
still under the openstack/ git repo prefix). We'll stop saying "official
OpenStack project" and "unofficial OpenStack project". The only
"OpenStack projects" will be the official ones. We'll chase down the
last mentions of "big tent" in documentation and remove it from our
vocabulary.


I agree that something needs to change, but also agree with some of
the followups that the distinction you're proposing isn't
particularly memorable.


I should also say that despite my previous comments, discussion
resolving those issues should not delay sanitizing the term "big
tent".

--
Chris Dent  ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)   https://anticdent.org/
freenode: cdent tw: @anticdent__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread Joshua Hesketh

An [official] OpenStack project is also a hosted project by OpenStack
[infra].

I agree that "OpenStack-Hosted projects" is not very distinct from
"OpenStack projects". Furthermore the "hosted" part is not unique to either
category.

I don't have an immediate suggestion for an alternative, but I might give
it some thought.

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Shake Chen  wrote:

>
> +1000
> very clearly.
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Dmitry Tantsur 
> wrote:
>
>> On 06/15/2017 11:56 AM, Neil Jerram wrote:
>>
>>> Just an immediate reaction: to me "OpenStack-Hosted projects" is not
>>> very distinct from "OpenStack projects".  So with that terminology I think
>>> there will still be confusion (perhaps more).
>>>
>>
>> This was my reaction as well. For people who misunderstood official vs
>> unofficial, this is going to pose an even bigger challenge, I'm afraid.
>>
>>
>>> (Or did I misunderstand your new proposal?)
>>>
>>> Regards - Neil
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:16 AM Thierry Carrez >> > wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> Back in 2014, OpenStack was facing a problem. Our project structure,
>>> inherited from days where Nova, Swift and friends were the only game
>>> in
>>> town, was not working anymore. The "integrated release" that we
>>> ended up
>>> producing was not really integrated, already too big to be installed
>>> by
>>> everyone, and yet too small to accommodate the growing interest in
>>> other
>>> forms of "open infrastructure". The incubation process (from
>>> stackforge
>>> to incubated, from incubated to integrated) created catch-22s that
>>> prevented projects from gathering enough interest to reach the upper
>>> layers. Something had to give.
>>>
>>> The project structure reform[1] that resulted from those discussions
>>> switched to a simpler model: project teams would be approved based on
>>> how well they fit the OpenStack overall mission and community
>>> principles, rather than based on a degree of maturity. It was
>>> nicknamed
>>> "the big tent" based on a blogpost[2] that Monty wrote -- mostly
>>> explaining that things produced by the OpenStack community should be
>>> considered OpenStack projects.
>>>
>>> So the reform removed the concept of incubated vs. integrated, in
>>> favor
>>> of a single "official" category. Tags[3] were introduced to better
>>> describe the degree of maturity of the various official things.
>>> "Being
>>> part of the big tent" was synonymous to "being an official project"
>>> (but
>>> people kept saying the former).
>>>
>>> At around the same time, mostly for technical reasons around the
>>> difficulty of renaming git repositories, the "stackforge/" git
>>> repository prefix was discontinued (all projects hosted on OpenStack
>>> infrastructure would be created under an "openstack/" git repository
>>> prefix).
>>>
>>> All those events combined, though, sent a mixed message, which we are
>>> still struggling with today. "Big tent" has a flea market
>>> connotation of
>>> "everyone can come in". Combined with the fact that all git
>>> repositories
>>> are under the same prefix, it created a lot of confusion. Some people
>>> even think the big tent is the openstack/ namespace, not the list of
>>> official projects. We tried to stop using the "big tent" meme, but (I
>>> blame Monty), the name is still sticking. I think it's time to more
>>> aggressively get rid of it. We tried using "unofficial" and
>>> "official"
>>> terminology, but that did not stick either.
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept:
>>> "OpenStack-Hosted
>>> projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
>>> "Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side (all
>>> still under the openstack/ git repo prefix). We'll stop saying
>>> "official
>>> OpenStack project" and "unofficial OpenStack project". The only
>>> "OpenStack projects" will be the official ones. We'll chase down the
>>> last mentions of "big tent" in documentation and remove it from our
>>> vocabulary.
>>>
>>> I think this new wording (replacing what was previously Stackforge,
>>> replacing what was previously called "unofficial OpenStack projects")
>>> will bring some clarity as to what is OpenStack and what is beyond
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Thoughts ?
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20141202-pro
>>> ject-structure-reform-spec.html
>>> [2] http://inaugust.com/posts/big-tent.html
>>> [3] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/tags/index.html
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>>>
>>> 
>>> __
>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread Chris Dent


On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Thierry Carrez wrote:


I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
"Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side (all
still under the openstack/ git repo prefix). We'll stop saying "official
OpenStack project" and "unofficial OpenStack project". The only
"OpenStack projects" will be the official ones. We'll chase down the
last mentions of "big tent" in documentation and remove it from our
vocabulary.


I agree that something needs to change, but also agree with some of
the followups that the distinction you're proposing isn't
particularly memorable. Nor, if we put ourselves in the shoes of an
outside observer, is "OpenStack project" versus "hosted on OpenStack
infrastructure" particularly meaningful. From many angles it all
looks like OpenStack.

Part of the issue is that the meaning and value of being  an
"OpenStack project" (an "official" one) is increasingly diffuse.
I suspect that if we could make that more concrete then things like
names would be easier to decide. Some things we might ask ourselves
to help clarify the situation include (as usual, some of these
questions may have obvious answers, but enumerating them can help
make things explicit):

* What motivates a project to seek status as an OpenStack project?
  * What do they get?
  * What do they lose?

* What motivates OpenStack to seek more projects?
  * What does OpenStack get?
  * What does OpenStack lose?
  * What gets more complicated when there are more projects?

* Why would a project choose to be "hosted on OpenStack
  infrastructure" instead of be an "OpenStack project"?

* Why should OpenStack be willing to host projects that are not
  "OpenStack projects"?

* When a project goes from the status of "OpenStack project" to
  "hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" (as currently being discussed
  with regard to Fuel) what is the project losing, what does the
  change signify and why should anyone care?

(I'm sure other people can come up with a few more questions.)

I think that if we're going to focus on this issue then we need to
make sure that we focus on marshalling the value and resources that
are required to support a project. That is: it has to be worth
everyone's time and enery to be and have (official) projects. It's
likely that this could mean that some projects are unable to be
(official) projects anymore.

--
Chris Dent  ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)   https://anticdent.org/
freenode: cdent tw: @anticdent__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread Shake Chen

+1000
very clearly.

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Dmitry Tantsur  wrote:

> On 06/15/2017 11:56 AM, Neil Jerram wrote:
>
>> Just an immediate reaction: to me "OpenStack-Hosted projects" is not very
>> distinct from "OpenStack projects".  So with that terminology I think there
>> will still be confusion (perhaps more).
>>
>
> This was my reaction as well. For people who misunderstood official vs
> unofficial, this is going to pose an even bigger challenge, I'm afraid.
>
>
>> (Or did I misunderstand your new proposal?)
>>
>> Regards - Neil
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:16 AM Thierry Carrez > > wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Back in 2014, OpenStack was facing a problem. Our project structure,
>> inherited from days where Nova, Swift and friends were the only game
>> in
>> town, was not working anymore. The "integrated release" that we ended
>> up
>> producing was not really integrated, already too big to be installed
>> by
>> everyone, and yet too small to accommodate the growing interest in
>> other
>> forms of "open infrastructure". The incubation process (from
>> stackforge
>> to incubated, from incubated to integrated) created catch-22s that
>> prevented projects from gathering enough interest to reach the upper
>> layers. Something had to give.
>>
>> The project structure reform[1] that resulted from those discussions
>> switched to a simpler model: project teams would be approved based on
>> how well they fit the OpenStack overall mission and community
>> principles, rather than based on a degree of maturity. It was
>> nicknamed
>> "the big tent" based on a blogpost[2] that Monty wrote -- mostly
>> explaining that things produced by the OpenStack community should be
>> considered OpenStack projects.
>>
>> So the reform removed the concept of incubated vs. integrated, in
>> favor
>> of a single "official" category. Tags[3] were introduced to better
>> describe the degree of maturity of the various official things. "Being
>> part of the big tent" was synonymous to "being an official project"
>> (but
>> people kept saying the former).
>>
>> At around the same time, mostly for technical reasons around the
>> difficulty of renaming git repositories, the "stackforge/" git
>> repository prefix was discontinued (all projects hosted on OpenStack
>> infrastructure would be created under an "openstack/" git repository
>> prefix).
>>
>> All those events combined, though, sent a mixed message, which we are
>> still struggling with today. "Big tent" has a flea market connotation
>> of
>> "everyone can come in". Combined with the fact that all git
>> repositories
>> are under the same prefix, it created a lot of confusion. Some people
>> even think the big tent is the openstack/ namespace, not the list of
>> official projects. We tried to stop using the "big tent" meme, but (I
>> blame Monty), the name is still sticking. I think it's time to more
>> aggressively get rid of it. We tried using "unofficial" and "official"
>> terminology, but that did not stick either.
>>
>> I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
>> projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
>> "Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side (all
>> still under the openstack/ git repo prefix). We'll stop saying
>> "official
>> OpenStack project" and "unofficial OpenStack project". The only
>> "OpenStack projects" will be the official ones. We'll chase down the
>> last mentions of "big tent" in documentation and remove it from our
>> vocabulary.
>>
>> I think this new wording (replacing what was previously Stackforge,
>> replacing what was previously called "unofficial OpenStack projects")
>> will bring some clarity as to what is OpenStack and what is beyond it.
>>
>> Thoughts ?
>>
>> [1]
>> https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20141202-pro
>> ject-structure-reform-spec.html
>> [2] http://inaugust.com/posts/big-tent.html
>> [3] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/tags/index.html
>>
>> --
>> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>>
>> 
>> __
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.op
>> enstack.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:unsubscrib
>> e
>>

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread Dmitry Tantsur

On 06/15/2017 11:56 AM, Neil Jerram wrote:
Just an immediate reaction: to me "OpenStack-Hosted projects" is not very
distinct from "OpenStack projects". So with that terminology I think there will
still be confusion (perhaps more).

This was my reaction as well. For people who misunderstood official vs
unofficial, this is going to pose an even bigger challenge, I'm afraid.

(Or did I misunderstand your new proposal?)

Regards - Neil

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:16 AM Thierry Carrez > wrote:

Hi everyone,

Back in 2014, OpenStack was facing a problem. Our project structure,
inherited from days where Nova, Swift and friends were the only game in
town, was not working anymore. The "integrated release" that we ended up
producing was not really integrated, already too big to be installed by
everyone, and yet too small to accommodate the growing interest in other
forms of "open infrastructure". The incubation process (from stackforge
to incubated, from incubated to integrated) created catch-22s that
prevented projects from gathering enough interest to reach the upper
layers. Something had to give.

The project structure reform[1] that resulted from those discussions
switched to a simpler model: project teams would be approved based on
how well they fit the OpenStack overall mission and community
principles, rather than based on a degree of maturity. It was nicknamed
"the big tent" based on a blogpost[2] that Monty wrote -- mostly
explaining that things produced by the OpenStack community should be
considered OpenStack projects.

So the reform removed the concept of incubated vs. integrated, in favor
of a single "official" category. Tags[3] were introduced to better
describe the degree of maturity of the various official things. "Being
part of the big tent" was synonymous to "being an official project" (but
people kept saying the former).

At around the same time, mostly for technical reasons around the
difficulty of renaming git repositories, the "stackforge/" git
repository prefix was discontinued (all projects hosted on OpenStack
infrastructure would be created under an "openstack/" git repository
prefix).

All those events combined, though, sent a mixed message, which we are
still struggling with today. "Big tent" has a flea market connotation of
"everyone can come in". Combined with the fact that all git repositories
are under the same prefix, it created a lot of confusion. Some people
even think the big tent is the openstack/ namespace, not the list of
official projects. We tried to stop using the "big tent" meme, but (I
blame Monty), the name is still sticking. I think it's time to more
aggressively get rid of it. We tried using "unofficial" and "official"
terminology, but that did not stick either.

I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
"Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side (all
still under the openstack/ git repo prefix). We'll stop saying "official
OpenStack project" and "unofficial OpenStack project". The only
"OpenStack projects" will be the official ones. We'll chase down the
last mentions of "big tent" in documentation and remove it from our
vocabulary.

I think this new wording (replacing what was previously Stackforge,
replacing what was previously called "unofficial OpenStack projects")
will bring some clarity as to what is OpenStack and what is beyond it.

Thoughts ?

[1]

https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20141202-project-structure-reform-spec.html
[2] http://inaugust.com/posts/big-tent.html
[3] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/tags/index.html

--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread Neil Jerram

Just an immediate reaction: to me "OpenStack-Hosted projects" is not very
distinct from "OpenStack projects".  So with that terminology I think there
will still be confusion (perhaps more).

(Or did I misunderstand your new proposal?)

Regards - Neil


On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:16 AM Thierry Carrez 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Back in 2014, OpenStack was facing a problem. Our project structure,
> inherited from days where Nova, Swift and friends were the only game in
> town, was not working anymore. The "integrated release" that we ended up
> producing was not really integrated, already too big to be installed by
> everyone, and yet too small to accommodate the growing interest in other
> forms of "open infrastructure". The incubation process (from stackforge
> to incubated, from incubated to integrated) created catch-22s that
> prevented projects from gathering enough interest to reach the upper
> layers. Something had to give.
>
> The project structure reform[1] that resulted from those discussions
> switched to a simpler model: project teams would be approved based on
> how well they fit the OpenStack overall mission and community
> principles, rather than based on a degree of maturity. It was nicknamed
> "the big tent" based on a blogpost[2] that Monty wrote -- mostly
> explaining that things produced by the OpenStack community should be
> considered OpenStack projects.
>
> So the reform removed the concept of incubated vs. integrated, in favor
> of a single "official" category. Tags[3] were introduced to better
> describe the degree of maturity of the various official things. "Being
> part of the big tent" was synonymous to "being an official project" (but
> people kept saying the former).
>
> At around the same time, mostly for technical reasons around the
> difficulty of renaming git repositories, the "stackforge/" git
> repository prefix was discontinued (all projects hosted on OpenStack
> infrastructure would be created under an "openstack/" git repository
> prefix).
>
> All those events combined, though, sent a mixed message, which we are
> still struggling with today. "Big tent" has a flea market connotation of
> "everyone can come in". Combined with the fact that all git repositories
> are under the same prefix, it created a lot of confusion. Some people
> even think the big tent is the openstack/ namespace, not the list of
> official projects. We tried to stop using the "big tent" meme, but (I
> blame Monty), the name is still sticking. I think it's time to more
> aggressively get rid of it. We tried using "unofficial" and "official"
> terminology, but that did not stick either.
>
> I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
> projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
> "Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side (all
> still under the openstack/ git repo prefix). We'll stop saying "official
> OpenStack project" and "unofficial OpenStack project". The only
> "OpenStack projects" will be the official ones. We'll chase down the
> last mentions of "big tent" in documentation and remove it from our
> vocabulary.
>
> I think this new wording (replacing what was previously Stackforge,
> replacing what was previously called "unofficial OpenStack projects")
> will bring some clarity as to what is OpenStack and what is beyond it.
>
> Thoughts ?
>
> [1]
>
> https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20141202-project-structure-reform-spec.html
> [2] http://inaugust.com/posts/big-tent.html
> [3] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/tags/index.html
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
> __
> 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

2017-06-15 Thread ChangBo Guo

+1000
Thanks for the proposal,  " OpenStack projects"  vs "OpenStack-Hosted
projects" is more clear for everyone. That also helps people uderstand the
scope of OpenStack projects when evaluating the maturity of OpenStack.
We would gain more benifit.  I like the idea.


2017-06-15 17:15 GMT+08:00 Thierry Carrez :

> Hi everyone,
>
> Back in 2014, OpenStack was facing a problem. Our project structure,
> inherited from days where Nova, Swift and friends were the only game in
> town, was not working anymore. The "integrated release" that we ended up
> producing was not really integrated, already too big to be installed by
> everyone, and yet too small to accommodate the growing interest in other
> forms of "open infrastructure". The incubation process (from stackforge
> to incubated, from incubated to integrated) created catch-22s that
> prevented projects from gathering enough interest to reach the upper
> layers. Something had to give.
>
> The project structure reform[1] that resulted from those discussions
> switched to a simpler model: project teams would be approved based on
> how well they fit the OpenStack overall mission and community
> principles, rather than based on a degree of maturity. It was nicknamed
> "the big tent" based on a blogpost[2] that Monty wrote -- mostly
> explaining that things produced by the OpenStack community should be
> considered OpenStack projects.
>
> So the reform removed the concept of incubated vs. integrated, in favor
> of a single "official" category. Tags[3] were introduced to better
> describe the degree of maturity of the various official things. "Being
> part of the big tent" was synonymous to "being an official project" (but
> people kept saying the former).
>
> At around the same time, mostly for technical reasons around the
> difficulty of renaming git repositories, the "stackforge/" git
> repository prefix was discontinued (all projects hosted on OpenStack
> infrastructure would be created under an "openstack/" git repository
> prefix).
>
> All those events combined, though, sent a mixed message, which we are
> still struggling with today. "Big tent" has a flea market connotation of
> "everyone can come in". Combined with the fact that all git repositories
> are under the same prefix, it created a lot of confusion. Some people
> even think the big tent is the openstack/ namespace, not the list of
> official projects. We tried to stop using the "big tent" meme, but (I
> blame Monty), the name is still sticking. I think it's time to more
> aggressively get rid of it. We tried using "unofficial" and "official"
> terminology, but that did not stick either.
>
> I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
> projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
> "Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side (all
> still under the openstack/ git repo prefix). We'll stop saying "official
> OpenStack project" and "unofficial OpenStack project". The only
> "OpenStack projects" will be the official ones. We'll chase down the
> last mentions of "big tent" in documentation and remove it from our
> vocabulary.
>
> I think this new wording (replacing what was previously Stackforge,
> replacing what was previously called "unofficial OpenStack projects")
> will bring some clarity as to what is OpenStack and what is beyond it.
>
> Thoughts ?
>
> [1]
> https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20141202-
> project-structure-reform-spec.html
> [2] http://inaugust.com/posts/big-tent.html
> [3] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/tags/index.html
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
> __
> 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
>



-- 
ChangBo Guo(gcb)
__
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-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology