Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

[Emilien Macchi]

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Vladimir Kuklin  wrote:
> Folks, I sent a reply a couple of days ago, but somehow it got lost. The
> original message goes below
>
> Folks
>
> It is essentially true that Fuel is no longer being developed as almost 99%
> of people have left the project and are working on something else. May be,
> in the future, when the dust settles, we can resume working on it, but the
> probability is not so high as of now.
>
> I would like to thank everyone who worked on the project - contributors,
> reviewers, core-reviewers, ex-PTLs Alex Shtokolov, Vladimir Kozhukalov and
> Dmitry Borodaenko - it was a pleasure to work with you guys.
>
> Also, I would like to thank puppet-openstack project team as we worked
> together on many things really effectively and wish them good luck as well.

Thank YOU for your collaboration, I remember the amount of patches you
sent when we started to really work together - we had hard time to
catch up but were so happy to have you aboard.
Anyway, it was a great time and thanks again for the hard work.
I hope you'll have fun in your next things :-)

> Special Kudos to Jay and Dims as they helped as a lot on governance and
> community side.
>
> I hope, we will work some day together again.
>
> At the same time, I would like to mention that Fuel is still being actively
> used and some bugs are still being fixed, so I would suggest, if that is
> possible, that we keep the github repository available for a while, so that
> those guys can still access the repositories.
>
> Having that said, I do not have any other objections on making Fuel Hosted
> project.
>
>
> Yours Faithfully
>
> Vladimir Kuklin
>
> email: ag...@aglar.ru
> email(alt.): aglaren...@gmail.com
> mob.: +79267023968
> mob.: (when in EU) +393497028541
> mob.: (when in US) +19293122331
> skype: kuklinvv
> telegram
>
> __
> 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
>



-- 
Emilien Macchi

__
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] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

[Davanum Srinivas]

Vova,

I really hope and wish for a reboot!.

Please do note that the change proposed is only just a governance repo
change. There is no one here who has proposed any retiring of the fuel
repositories (process for retirement is here - [1]).

Thanks,
Dims

[1] https://docs.openstack.org/infra/manual/drivers.html#retiring-a-project

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Vladimir Kuklin  wrote:
> Folks, I sent a reply a couple of days ago, but somehow it got lost. The
> original message goes below
>
> Folks
>
> It is essentially true that Fuel is no longer being developed as almost 99%
> of people have left the project and are working on something else. May be,
> in the future, when the dust settles, we can resume working on it, but the
> probability is not so high as of now.
>
> I would like to thank everyone who worked on the project - contributors,
> reviewers, core-reviewers, ex-PTLs Alex Shtokolov, Vladimir Kozhukalov and
> Dmitry Borodaenko - it was a pleasure to work with you guys.
>
> Also, I would like to thank puppet-openstack project team as we worked
> together on many things really effectively and wish them good luck as well.
>
> Special Kudos to Jay and Dims as they helped as a lot on governance and
> community side.
>
> I hope, we will work some day together again.
>
> At the same time, I would like to mention that Fuel is still being actively
> used and some bugs are still being fixed, so I would suggest, if that is
> possible, that we keep the github repository available for a while, so that
> those guys can still access the repositories.
>
> Having that said, I do not have any other objections on making Fuel Hosted
> project.
>
>
> Yours Faithfully
>
> Vladimir Kuklin
>
> email: ag...@aglar.ru
> email(alt.): aglaren...@gmail.com
> mob.: +79267023968
> mob.: (when in EU) +393497028541
> mob.: (when in US) +19293122331
> skype: kuklinvv
> telegram



-- 
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-dev] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

[Vladimir Kuklin]

Folks, I sent a reply a couple of days ago, but somehow it got lost. The
original message goes below

Folks

It is essentially true that Fuel is no longer being developed as almost 99%
of people have left the project and are working on something else. May be,
in the future, when the dust settles, we can resume working on it, but the
probability is not so high as of now.

I would like to thank everyone who worked on the project - contributors,
reviewers, core-reviewers, ex-PTLs Alex Shtokolov, Vladimir Kozhukalov and
Dmitry Borodaenko - it was a pleasure to work with you guys.

Also, I would like to thank puppet-openstack project team as we worked
together on many things really effectively and wish them good luck as well.

Special Kudos to Jay and Dims as they helped as a lot on governance and
community side.

I hope, we will work some day together again.

At the same time, I would like to mention that Fuel is still being actively
used and some bugs are still being fixed, so I would suggest, if that is
possible, that we keep the github repository available for a while, so that
those guys can still access the repositories.

Having that said, I do not have any other objections on making Fuel Hosted
project.


Yours Faithfully

Vladimir Kuklin

email: ag...@aglar.ru
email(alt.): aglaren...@gmail.com
mob.: +79267023968
mob.: (when in EU) +393497028541
mob.: (when in US) +19293122331
skype: kuklinvv
telegram
__
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] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

[Thierry Carrez]

Thanks for the initial feedback everyone.
I proposed the matching governance change at:

https://review.openstack.org/475721

Please comment there if you think it's a good or bad idea.

-- 
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] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

[Samuel Cassiba]

> On Jun 16, 2017, at 07:28, Jay Pipes  wrote:
> 
> On 06/16/2017 09:57 AM, Emilien Macchi wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Dean Troyer  wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes  wrote:
 I'd fully support the removal of all deployment projects from the "official
 OpenStack projects list".
>>> 
>>> Nice to hear Jay! :)
>>> 
>>> It was intentional from the beginning to not be in the deployment
>>> space, we allowed those projects in (not unanimously IIRC) and most of
>>> them did not evolve as expected.
>> Just for the record, it also happens out of the deployment space. We
>> allowed (not unanimously either, irrc) some projects to be part of the
>> Big Tent and some of them have died or are dying.
> 
> Sure, and this is a natural thing.
> 
> As I mentioned, I support removing Fuel from the official OpenStack projects 
> list because the project has lost the majority of its contributors and 
> Mirantis has effectively moved in a different direction, causing Fuel to be a 
> wilting flower (to use Thierry's delightful terminology).

It is not my intention to hijack this, but reading the thread compelled me to 
respond, maintaining the #4 deployment tool per the recent user survey and all. 
To be frank, Chef is almost right where Fuel is heading. I’m a little surprised 
we haven’t been shown the door yet, since people keep saying we’re dead. When 
Chef finally did cut Newton, we said our size as a team limited what we could 
produce, and that we were effectively keeping the lights on. To borrow the 
analogy, if Fuel is a wilting flower, Chef is a tumbleweed. Against all odds, 
it just keeps on tumbling. Some even think it’s dead. :)

> 
>>> I would not mind picking one winner and spending effort making an
>>> extremely easy, smooth, upgradable install that is The OneTrue
>>> OpenStack, I do not expect us to ever agree what that will look like
>>> so it is effectively never going to happen.  We've seen how far
>>> single-vendor projects have gone, and none of them reached that level.
>> Regarding all the company efforts to invest in one deployment tool,
>> it's going to be super hard to find The OneTrue and convince everyone
>> else to work on it.
> 
> Right, as Dean said above :)

Operators will pick what works best for their infrastructure and their needs, 
so let them, and be there for them when they fuck up and need help. Prescribing 
a One True Method will alienate those who might otherwise become the biggest 
cheerleaders. If OpenStack wants to become a distro, that’s one thing. If not, 
we’re swinging the pendulum pretty hard.

> 
>> Future will tell us but it's possible that deployments tools will be
>> reduced to 2 or 3 projects if it continues that way (Fuel is slowly
>> dying, Puppet OpenStack has less and less contributors, same for Chef
>> afik, etc).
> 
> Not sure about that. OpenStack Ansible and Kolla have emerged over the last 
> couple years as very strong communities with lots of momentum.
> 
> Sure, Chef has effectively died and yes, Puppet has become less shiny.

Ahem. We’re not dead, just few, super distributed and way stretched. We’re 
asynchronous to the point where pretty much only IRC and Gerrit makes sense to 
use. I can understand how you might misconstrue this as rigor mortis, so allow 
me to illuminate. We still manage to muddle through a review or three a month. 
Sure, there isn’t the rapid cadence we’d all hoped there would be, but my last 
rant highlighted on some of those deficiencies. Deployment tools, in this case, 
Chef, really lack a solid orchestration component to build from nothing, which 
has become more of an essential thing to have in the development of OpenStack. 
Compound this by an overly complex CI process to resemble something close to 
the real world, and you have what we have today. Please, don’t start sweeping 
Chef out the door with Fuel. I won’t sugar coat: it’s bad, but not to the point 
where we should say Chef has “died”. To say Chef has “died”, when we’re still 
pushing reviews, is mighty exclusionary and disrespectful of those that still 
do dedicate time and resources, even if that wasn’t the intention. I do what I 
can to help new users along their path, when they come across my radar. We 
still have newcomers. We still have semi-active contributors, no matter how 
many days between change sets.

Some things need a One True Path, but more so in what goes into the tools than 
tooling options themselves.  A set of standards would go well in that 
direction, but I refer you to the XKCD on standards in that case. I say this, 
lest we start alienating operators that can’t easily change the universe to 
turn their $10MM+ production clouds on a dime. Even at the Boston Summit, there 
were whispers of some people still using Chef. Chef hasn’t “effectively died”, 
just become way less shiny, boring even, without marketing and a strong team 
advocating for it. 

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

[Dean Troyer]

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Emilien Macchi  wrote:
> Regarding all the company efforts to invest in one deployment tool,
> it's going to be super hard to find The OneTrue and convince everyone
> else to work on it.

The idea is not that everyone works on it, it is simply that OpenStack
_does_ have one single known tested common way to do things, ie
fulfill the role that many people think DevStack should have been when
not used for dev/testing. I make this point not to suggest that this
is the way forward, but as the starting point from which we hear a LOT
of requests and questions.

> Future will tell us but it's possible that deployments tools will be
> reduced to 2 or 3 projects if it continues that way (Fuel is slowly
> dying, Puppet OpenStack has less and less contributors, same for Chef
> afik, etc).

This is the market effects that ttx talks about, and is the setting
for another example of where we should be careful with documentation
and 'officialness' around projects that disappear, lest we repeat the
experiences with PostgreSQL and have deployers make choices based on
our docs that do not reflect reality.

dt

-- 

Dean Troyer
dtro...@gmail.com

__
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] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

[Jay Pipes]

On 06/16/2017 09:57 AM, Emilien Macchi wrote:

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Dean Troyer  wrote:

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes  wrote:

I'd fully support the removal of all deployment projects from the "official
OpenStack projects list".


Nice to hear Jay! :)

It was intentional from the beginning to not be in the deployment
space, we allowed those projects in (not unanimously IIRC) and most of
them did not evolve as expected.


Just for the record, it also happens out of the deployment space. We
allowed (not unanimously either, irrc) some projects to be part of the
Big Tent and some of them have died or are dying.


Sure, and this is a natural thing.

As I mentioned, I support removing Fuel from the official OpenStack 
projects list because the project has lost the majority of its 
contributors and Mirantis has effectively moved in a different 
direction, causing Fuel to be a wilting flower (to use Thierry's 
delightful terminology).



I would not mind picking one winner and spending effort making an
extremely easy, smooth, upgradable install that is The OneTrue
OpenStack, I do not expect us to ever agree what that will look like
so it is effectively never going to happen.  We've seen how far
single-vendor projects have gone, and none of them reached that level.


Regarding all the company efforts to invest in one deployment tool,
it's going to be super hard to find The OneTrue and convince everyone
else to work on it.


Right, as Dean said above :)


Future will tell us but it's possible that deployments tools will be
reduced to 2 or 3 projects if it continues that way (Fuel is slowly
dying, Puppet OpenStack has less and less contributors, same for Chef
afik, etc).


Not sure about that. OpenStack Ansible and Kolla have emerged over the 
last couple years as very strong communities with lots of momentum.


Sure, Chef has effectively died and yes, Puppet has become less shiny.

But the deployment and packaging space will always (IMHO) be the domain 
of the Next Shiny Thing.


Witness containers vs. VMs (as deployment targets).

Witness OS packages vs. virtualenv/pip installs vs. application 
container images.


Witness Pacemaker/OCF resource agents vs. an orchestrated level-based 
convergence system like k8s or New Heat.


Witness LTS releases vs. A/B deployments vs. continuous delivery.

Witness PostgreSQL vs. MySQL vs. NoSQL vs. NewSQL.

Witness message queue brokers vs. 0mq vs. etcd-as-system-bus.

As new tools, whether fads or long-lasting, come and go, so do 
deployment strategies and tooling. I'm afraid this won't change any time 
soon :)


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] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

[Emilien Macchi]

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Dean Troyer  wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes  wrote:
>> I'd fully support the removal of all deployment projects from the "official
>> OpenStack projects list".
>
> Nice to hear Jay! :)
>
> It was intentional from the beginning to not be in the deployment
> space, we allowed those projects in (not unanimously IIRC) and most of
> them did not evolve as expected.

Just for the record, it also happens out of the deployment space. We
allowed (not unanimously either, irrc) some projects to be part of the
Big Tent and some of them have died or are dying.

> I would not mind picking one winner and spending effort making an
> extremely easy, smooth, upgradable install that is The OneTrue
> OpenStack, I do not expect us to ever agree what that will look like
> so it is effectively never going to happen.  We've seen how far
> single-vendor projects have gone, and none of them reached that level.

Regarding all the company efforts to invest in one deployment tool,
it's going to be super hard to find The OneTrue and convince everyone
else to work on it.
Future will tell us but it's possible that deployments tools will be
reduced to 2 or 3 projects if it continues that way (Fuel is slowly
dying, Puppet OpenStack has less and less contributors, same for Chef
afik, etc).

> dt
>
> --
>
> Dean Troyer
> dtro...@gmail.com
>
> __
> 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



-- 
Emilien Macchi

__
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] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

[Vikash Kumar]

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Thierry Carrez 
wrote:

> Shake Chen wrote:
> > HI Vikash
> >
> > I think Kolla is suitable for official project for deployment
>
> Deployment tooling is, by nature, opinionated. You just can't enable
> everything and keep it manageable. As long as people will have differing
> opinions on how OpenStack pieces should be deployed, which drivers or
> components should actually be made available, or the level of
> fine-tuning that should be exposed, you will have different deployment
> tools.
>
> "Picking one" won't magically make everyone else stop working on their
> specific vision for it, and suddenly force everyone to focus on a single
> solution. It will, however, hamper open collaboration between
> organizations on alternative approaches.
>

​"Picking one" is not, but having the minimal one (core components) is
what I see in the best interest of Openstack. ​I agree that the
deployment is very opinionated but before some one go for deployment
they need to evaluate few things, get some confidence. Right now,
the only option is either turn to vendors or get the experts to do. Or Am i
missing something and Openstack can be evaluated by any organization
without any hassle ?
Having a minimal deployment software will ease this process and kind of
increase
the audience. I don't see having this will create any conflict or hinder any
collaboration.


> My personal view is that it's a space where we need to let flowers bloom
> and encourage open collaboration. We just need to clean up the garden
> when those flowers don't go anywhere.
>
> --
> 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] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

[Thierry Carrez]

Shake Chen wrote:
> HI Vikash
> 
> I think Kolla is suitable for official project for deployment 

Deployment tooling is, by nature, opinionated. You just can't enable
everything and keep it manageable. As long as people will have differing
opinions on how OpenStack pieces should be deployed, which drivers or
components should actually be made available, or the level of
fine-tuning that should be exposed, you will have different deployment
tools.

"Picking one" won't magically make everyone else stop working on their
specific vision for it, and suddenly force everyone to focus on a single
solution. It will, however, hamper open collaboration between
organizations on alternative approaches.

My personal view is that it's a space where we need to let flowers bloom
and encourage open collaboration. We just need to clean up the garden
when those flowers don't go anywhere.

-- 
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] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

[Shake Chen]

HI Vikash

I think Kolla is suitable for official project for deployment



On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Vikash Kumar <
vikash.ku...@oneconvergence.com> wrote:

> I strongly believe Openstack must have any one official project for
> deployment whether its Fuel or anything else. Cutting it short, talking to
> number of people across industry/academic/government institutions, got a
> sense that its necessary that there should be a official tool more than
> Devstack for deployment.
>
> Regards,
> Vikash
>
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Dean Troyer  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes  wrote:
>> > I'd fully support the removal of all deployment projects from the
>> "official
>> > OpenStack projects list".
>>
>> Nice to hear Jay! :)
>>
>> It was intentional from the beginning to not be in the deployment
>> space, we allowed those projects in (not unanimously IIRC) and most of
>> them did not evolve as expected.
>>
>> I would not mind picking one winner and spending effort making an
>> extremely easy, smooth, upgradable install that is The OneTrue
>> OpenStack, I do not expect us to ever agree what that will look like
>> so it is effectively never going to happen.  We've seen how far
>> single-vendor projects have gone, and none of them reached that level.
>>
>> dt
>>
>> --
>>
>> Dean Troyer
>> dtro...@gmail.com
>>
>> 
>> __
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscrib
>> e
>> 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
>
>


-- 
Shake Chen
__
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] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

[Vikash Kumar]

I strongly believe Openstack must have any one official project for
deployment whether its Fuel or anything else. Cutting it short, talking to
number of people across industry/academic/government institutions, got a
sense that its necessary that there should be a official tool more than
Devstack for deployment.

Regards,
Vikash

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Dean Troyer  wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes  wrote:
> > I'd fully support the removal of all deployment projects from the
> "official
> > OpenStack projects list".
>
> Nice to hear Jay! :)
>
> It was intentional from the beginning to not be in the deployment
> space, we allowed those projects in (not unanimously IIRC) and most of
> them did not evolve as expected.
>
> I would not mind picking one winner and spending effort making an
> extremely easy, smooth, upgradable install that is The OneTrue
> OpenStack, I do not expect us to ever agree what that will look like
> so it is effectively never going to happen.  We've seen how far
> single-vendor projects have gone, and none of them reached that level.
>
> dt
>
> --
>
> Dean Troyer
> dtro...@gmail.com
>
> __
> 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] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

[Dean Troyer]

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes  wrote:
> I'd fully support the removal of all deployment projects from the "official
> OpenStack projects list".

Nice to hear Jay! :)

It was intentional from the beginning to not be in the deployment
space, we allowed those projects in (not unanimously IIRC) and most of
them did not evolve as expected.

I would not mind picking one winner and spending effort making an
extremely easy, smooth, upgradable install that is The OneTrue
OpenStack, I do not expect us to ever agree what that will look like
so it is effectively never going to happen.  We've seen how far
single-vendor projects have gone, and none of them reached that level.

dt

-- 

Dean Troyer
dtro...@gmail.com

__
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] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

[Ben Nemec]

On 06/15/2017 11:05 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:

On 06/15/2017 11:56 AM, Ben Nemec wrote:

Full disclosure: I primarily work on TripleO so I do have a horse in
this race.

On 06/15/2017 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:

On 06/15/2017 10:35 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:

On 2017-06-15 10:48:21 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]

I think that, despite the efforts of the Fuel team, Fuel did not
become
what we hoped when we made it official: a universal installer that
would
be used across the board. It was worth a try, I'm happy that we tried,
but I think it's time to stop considering it a part of "OpenStack"
proper and make it a hosted project. It can of course continue its
existence as an unofficial project hosted on OpenStack infrastructure.

Thoughts ?


I agree, it makes sense to be more clear as to the lack of
community-wide support for that effort. Perhaps if its popularity
increases outside one vendor's customer base to the point where
contributions from a broader set of stakeholders emerge, we can once
again evaluate its governance state.


While I personally agree that Fuel should be moved out of the official
projects list, I'd like to point out that Triple-O is virtually entirely
a Red Hat project:

http://stackalytics.com/?module=tripleo-group
http://stackalytics.com/?module=tripleo-group=commits

so the fact that a project is entirely run by a single vendor or "has
popularity outside one vendor's customer base" has not been and
continues not to be a deciding factor on whether something is an
official OpenStack project or not.


I don't believe the single vendor-ness of the project is the reason
it's being proposed for removal.  It's the fact that the single vendor
has all but dropped their support for it.  If Red Hat suddenly decided
they were pulling out of TripleO I'd expect the same response, but
that is not the case.


Please see Jeremy's paragraph directly above my response. He
specifically mentions single-vendor-ness as a reason for removal.


I'd fully support the removal of all deployment projects from the
"official OpenStack projects list".


I would not.  Deployment of OpenStack remains one of the most
difficult to solve problems and I would be highly disappointed in the
community if they essentially washed their hands of it.


This right here is the perfect example of what Thierry is getting at
with the *perceived value* of the term "Big Tent" or "Official OpenStack
project". :(

What about having deployment projects be "non-official" or "ecosystem"
or "community" projects means that "the community ... essentially washed
their hands of it"? :( You are putting words in my mouth and making a
false equivalence between "community project" and "of lesser value". And
that's precisely the problem these terms: people read way too much into
them.


The problem is that no matter what you call it, as long as you have two 
groups, one that includes Nova, Neutron, etc. and one that doesn't, the 
one that does is always going to be seen as more "important".  Even if 
it's purely a perception thing (which I won't dispute), it's a 
meaningful perception thing and I think moving the deployment projects 
would send the wrong message.  Deployment tools are a critical part of 
the OpenStack ecosystem and their categorization (whatever it ends up 
being called) should reflect that.


Maybe part of the problem is the context of this discussion.  We moved 
from talking about a largely abandoned project to all the deployment 
projects, which (intentionally or not) draws some uncomfortable 
parallels.  It also appears this is a discussion we should probably 
table until the big tent terminology one is completed because until then 
we're mostly debating our individual interpretation of the governance 
model.  Once we're done redrawing the lines of demarcation in the 
OpenStack community maybe the correct place for deployment projects will 
be more obvious.  I doubt it, but one can hope :-).





There are considerably more deployment projects than just TripleO and
Fuel, and there is more collaboration going on there than a simple
commits metric would show. For example, see
http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/oslo-specs/specs/pike/machine-readable-sample-config.html

 which came out of a cross-deployment project session at the PTG as a
way to solve a problem that all deployment tools have.


Ben, I don't doubt this and as I've said publicly, I 100% support the
joint deployment efforts and collaboration.


We should be encouraging more community involvement in deployment
tools, not sending the message that deployment tools are not important
enough to be official projects.


What better way to encourage *community involvement* by saying all
deployment tools are *community projects*?

Best,
-jay

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

[Doug Hellmann]

Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2017-06-15 12:06:53 -0400:
> On 06/15/2017 11:59 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> > Jay Pipes wrote:
> >> While I personally agree that Fuel should be moved out of the official
> >> projects list, I'd like to point out that Triple-O is virtually entirely
> >> a Red Hat project:
> >>
> >> http://stackalytics.com/?module=tripleo-group
> >> http://stackalytics.com/?module=tripleo-group=commits
> >>
> >> so the fact that a project is entirely run by a single vendor or "has
> >> popularity outside one vendor's customer base" has not been and
> >> continues not to be a deciding factor on whether something is an
> >> official OpenStack project or not.
> > 
> > Right, it's certainly not sufficient reason. The main difference between
> > the two is that activity in TripleO is actually growing, so there is
> > still a chance that it may attract a more diverse base in the future.
> 
> Sure, it may very well be. My point was that team diversity isn't a 
> defining characteristic of "officialness" in OpenStack. If it was, we'd 
> have far fewer "official" projects.
> 
> Best,
> -jay
> 

Right. We said that we would not block projects from joining just
because the contributors were mostly coming from one source *because* we
wanted to let teams attract new contributors, and we were told that some
companies would only allow their employees to work on official projects.

In my mind, it is far more important that the project doesn't seem
very healthy/active right now. I would be happy to hear that I am
wrong in that impression, though.

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] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

[Emilien Macchi]

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Jay Pipes  wrote:
> On 06/15/2017 11:56 AM, Ben Nemec wrote:
>>
>> Full disclosure: I primarily work on TripleO so I do have a horse in this
>> race.
>>
>> On 06/15/2017 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/15/2017 10:35 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:

 On 2017-06-15 10:48:21 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
 [...]
>
> I think that, despite the efforts of the Fuel team, Fuel did not become
> what we hoped when we made it official: a universal installer that
> would
> be used across the board. It was worth a try, I'm happy that we tried,
> but I think it's time to stop considering it a part of "OpenStack"
> proper and make it a hosted project. It can of course continue its
> existence as an unofficial project hosted on OpenStack infrastructure.
>
> Thoughts ?


 I agree, it makes sense to be more clear as to the lack of
 community-wide support for that effort. Perhaps if its popularity
 increases outside one vendor's customer base to the point where
 contributions from a broader set of stakeholders emerge, we can once
 again evaluate its governance state.
>>>
>>>
>>> While I personally agree that Fuel should be moved out of the official
>>> projects list, I'd like to point out that Triple-O is virtually entirely
>>> a Red Hat project:
>>>
>>> http://stackalytics.com/?module=tripleo-group
>>> http://stackalytics.com/?module=tripleo-group=commits
>>>
>>> so the fact that a project is entirely run by a single vendor or "has
>>> popularity outside one vendor's customer base" has not been and
>>> continues not to be a deciding factor on whether something is an
>>> official OpenStack project or not.
>>
>>
>> I don't believe the single vendor-ness of the project is the reason it's
>> being proposed for removal.  It's the fact that the single vendor has all
>> but dropped their support for it.  If Red Hat suddenly decided they were
>> pulling out of TripleO I'd expect the same response, but that is not the
>> case.
>
>
> Please see Jeremy's paragraph directly above my response. He specifically
> mentions single-vendor-ness as a reason for removal.
>
>>> I'd fully support the removal of all deployment projects from the
>>> "official OpenStack projects list".
>>
>>
>> I would not.  Deployment of OpenStack remains one of the most difficult to
>> solve problems and I would be highly disappointed in the community if they
>> essentially washed their hands of it.
>
>
> This right here is the perfect example of what Thierry is getting at with
> the *perceived value* of the term "Big Tent" or "Official OpenStack
> project". :(
>
> What about having deployment projects be "non-official" or "ecosystem" or
> "community" projects means that "the community ... essentially washed their
> hands of it"? :( You are putting words in my mouth and making a false
> equivalence between "community project" and "of lesser value". And that's
> precisely the problem these terms: people read way too much into them.
>
>> There are considerably more deployment projects than just TripleO and
>> Fuel, and there is more collaboration going on there than a simple
>> commits metric would show. For example, see
>> http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/oslo-specs/specs/pike/machine-readable-sample-config.html
>>  which came out of a cross-deployment project session at the PTG as a
>> way to solve a problem that all deployment tools have.
>
>
> Ben, I don't doubt this and as I've said publicly, I 100% support the joint
> deployment efforts and collaboration.
>
>> We should be encouraging more community involvement in deployment tools,
>> not sending the message that deployment tools are not important enough to be
>> official projects.
>
>
> What better way to encourage *community involvement* by saying all
> deployment tools are *community projects*?

I think I understand what you're pointing out here and in the same
time I understand Ben's opinion.
We have been working hard on collaborating with other OpenStack
projects in many ways (I don't think we need to give examples here)
that folks would be scared of the fact to stop being an official
project.

I see two eventual impacts (open for discussion) that I would see if
we (deployment projects) would become unofficial:

* some Deployment projects are working harder than some others not
part of the Big Tent to collaborate with other OpenStack projects.
This collaboration gave some notoriety and we're now able to tell
which Deployment projects are mature and the ones who aren't yet (I
know it's opinionated but some Deployment tools not part of the Big
Tent haven't demonstrated yet a wide collaboration in OpenStack
community). So if we become unofficial and are all put in the same
bucket, it would be hard for newcomers in the community to understand
which projects are really collaborating and mature and the one who
aren't.

* we would need to make sure these projects 

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

[Jeremy Stanley]

On 2017-06-15 12:05:42 -0400 (-0400), Jay Pipes wrote:
[...]
> Please see Jeremy's paragraph directly above my response. He
> specifically mentions single-vendor-ness as a reason for removal.
[...]

It is, when the danger of being single-vendor becomes manifest in
that vendor ceasing their interest in continuing to support the
project and nobody else seems to step forward to continue it.
-- 
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] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

[Jay Pipes]

On 06/15/2017 11:59 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:

Jay Pipes wrote:

While I personally agree that Fuel should be moved out of the official
projects list, I'd like to point out that Triple-O is virtually entirely
a Red Hat project:

http://stackalytics.com/?module=tripleo-group
http://stackalytics.com/?module=tripleo-group=commits

so the fact that a project is entirely run by a single vendor or "has
popularity outside one vendor's customer base" has not been and
continues not to be a deciding factor on whether something is an
official OpenStack project or not.


Right, it's certainly not sufficient reason. The main difference between
the two is that activity in TripleO is actually growing, so there is
still a chance that it may attract a more diverse base in the future.


Sure, it may very well be. My point was that team diversity isn't a 
defining characteristic of "officialness" in OpenStack. If it was, we'd 
have far fewer "official" projects.


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] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

[Jay Pipes]

On 06/15/2017 11:56 AM, Ben Nemec wrote:
Full disclosure: I primarily work on TripleO so I do have a horse in 
this race.


On 06/15/2017 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:

On 06/15/2017 10:35 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:

On 2017-06-15 10:48:21 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]

I think that, despite the efforts of the Fuel team, Fuel did not become
what we hoped when we made it official: a universal installer that 
would

be used across the board. It was worth a try, I'm happy that we tried,
but I think it's time to stop considering it a part of "OpenStack"
proper and make it a hosted project. It can of course continue its
existence as an unofficial project hosted on OpenStack infrastructure.

Thoughts ?


I agree, it makes sense to be more clear as to the lack of
community-wide support for that effort. Perhaps if its popularity
increases outside one vendor's customer base to the point where
contributions from a broader set of stakeholders emerge, we can once
again evaluate its governance state.


While I personally agree that Fuel should be moved out of the official
projects list, I'd like to point out that Triple-O is virtually entirely
a Red Hat project:

http://stackalytics.com/?module=tripleo-group
http://stackalytics.com/?module=tripleo-group=commits

so the fact that a project is entirely run by a single vendor or "has
popularity outside one vendor's customer base" has not been and
continues not to be a deciding factor on whether something is an
official OpenStack project or not.


I don't believe the single vendor-ness of the project is the reason it's 
being proposed for removal.  It's the fact that the single vendor has 
all but dropped their support for it.  If Red Hat suddenly decided they 
were pulling out of TripleO I'd expect the same response, but that is 
not the case.


Please see Jeremy's paragraph directly above my response. He 
specifically mentions single-vendor-ness as a reason for removal.



I'd fully support the removal of all deployment projects from the
"official OpenStack projects list".


I would not.  Deployment of OpenStack remains one of the most difficult 
to solve problems and I would be highly disappointed in the community if 
they essentially washed their hands of it.


This right here is the perfect example of what Thierry is getting at 
with the *perceived value* of the term "Big Tent" or "Official OpenStack 
project". :(


What about having deployment projects be "non-official" or "ecosystem" 
or "community" projects means that "the community ... essentially washed 
their hands of it"? :( You are putting words in my mouth and making a 
false equivalence between "community project" and "of lesser value". And 
that's precisely the problem these terms: people read way too much into 
them.



There are considerably more deployment projects than just TripleO and
Fuel, and there is more collaboration going on there than a simple
commits metric would show. For example, see 
http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/oslo-specs/specs/pike/machine-readable-sample-config.html

 which came out of a cross-deployment project session at the PTG as a
way to solve a problem that all deployment tools have.


Ben, I don't doubt this and as I've said publicly, I 100% support the 
joint deployment efforts and collaboration.


We should be encouraging more community involvement in deployment tools, 
not sending the message that deployment tools are not important enough 
to be official projects.


What better way to encourage *community involvement* by saying all 
deployment tools are *community projects*?


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] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

[Thierry Carrez]

Jay Pipes wrote:
> While I personally agree that Fuel should be moved out of the official
> projects list, I'd like to point out that Triple-O is virtually entirely
> a Red Hat project:
> 
> http://stackalytics.com/?module=tripleo-group
> http://stackalytics.com/?module=tripleo-group=commits
> 
> so the fact that a project is entirely run by a single vendor or "has
> popularity outside one vendor's customer base" has not been and
> continues not to be a deciding factor on whether something is an
> official OpenStack project or not.

Right, it's certainly not sufficient reason. The main difference between
the two is that activity in TripleO is actually growing, so there is
still a chance that it may attract a more diverse base in the future.

-- 
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] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

[Ben Nemec]

Full disclosure: I primarily work on TripleO so I do have a horse in 
this race.


On 06/15/2017 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:

On 06/15/2017 10:35 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:

On 2017-06-15 10:48:21 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]

I think that, despite the efforts of the Fuel team, Fuel did not become
what we hoped when we made it official: a universal installer that would
be used across the board. It was worth a try, I'm happy that we tried,
but I think it's time to stop considering it a part of "OpenStack"
proper and make it a hosted project. It can of course continue its
existence as an unofficial project hosted on OpenStack infrastructure.

Thoughts ?


I agree, it makes sense to be more clear as to the lack of
community-wide support for that effort. Perhaps if its popularity
increases outside one vendor's customer base to the point where
contributions from a broader set of stakeholders emerge, we can once
again evaluate its governance state.


While I personally agree that Fuel should be moved out of the official
projects list, I'd like to point out that Triple-O is virtually entirely
a Red Hat project:

http://stackalytics.com/?module=tripleo-group
http://stackalytics.com/?module=tripleo-group=commits

so the fact that a project is entirely run by a single vendor or "has
popularity outside one vendor's customer base" has not been and
continues not to be a deciding factor on whether something is an
official OpenStack project or not.


I don't believe the single vendor-ness of the project is the reason it's 
being proposed for removal.  It's the fact that the single vendor has 
all but dropped their support for it.  If Red Hat suddenly decided they 
were pulling out of TripleO I'd expect the same response, but that is 
not the case.




I'd fully support the removal of all deployment projects from the
"official OpenStack projects list".


I would not.  Deployment of OpenStack remains one of the most difficult 
to solve problems and I would be highly disappointed in the community if 
they essentially washed their hands of it.  There are considerably more 
deployment projects than just TripleO and Fuel, and there is more 
collaboration going on there than a simple commits metric would show. 
For example, see 
http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/oslo-specs/specs/pike/machine-readable-sample-config.html 
which came out of a cross-deployment project session at the PTG as a way 
to solve a problem that all deployment tools have.


We should be encouraging more community involvement in deployment tools, 
not sending the message that deployment tools are not important enough 
to be official projects.


-Ben

__
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] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

[Jay Pipes]

On 06/15/2017 10:35 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:

On 2017-06-15 10:48:21 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]

I think that, despite the efforts of the Fuel team, Fuel did not become
what we hoped when we made it official: a universal installer that would
be used across the board. It was worth a try, I'm happy that we tried,
but I think it's time to stop considering it a part of "OpenStack"
proper and make it a hosted project. It can of course continue its
existence as an unofficial project hosted on OpenStack infrastructure.

Thoughts ?


I agree, it makes sense to be more clear as to the lack of
community-wide support for that effort. Perhaps if its popularity
increases outside one vendor's customer base to the point where
contributions from a broader set of stakeholders emerge, we can once
again evaluate its governance state.


While I personally agree that Fuel should be moved out of the official 
projects list, I'd like to point out that Triple-O is virtually entirely 
a Red Hat project:


http://stackalytics.com/?module=tripleo-group
http://stackalytics.com/?module=tripleo-group=commits

so the fact that a project is entirely run by a single vendor or "has 
popularity outside one vendor's customer base" has not been and 
continues not to be a deciding factor on whether something is an 
official OpenStack project or not.


I'd fully support the removal of all deployment projects from the 
"official OpenStack projects list".


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] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

[Jeremy Stanley]

On 2017-06-15 10:48:21 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]
> I think that, despite the efforts of the Fuel team, Fuel did not become
> what we hoped when we made it official: a universal installer that would
> be used across the board. It was worth a try, I'm happy that we tried,
> but I think it's time to stop considering it a part of "OpenStack"
> proper and make it a hosted project. It can of course continue its
> existence as an unofficial project hosted on OpenStack infrastructure.
> 
> Thoughts ?

I agree, it makes sense to be more clear as to the lack of
community-wide support for that effort. Perhaps if its popularity
increases outside one vendor's customer base to the point where
contributions from a broader set of stakeholders emerge, we can once
again evaluate its governance state.
-- 
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] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

[Flavio Percoco]

On 15/06/17 10:48 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:

Hi everyone,

Part of reducing OpenStack perceived complexity is to cull projects that
have not delivered on their initial promises. Those are always difficult
discussions, but we need to have them. In this email I'd like to discuss
whether we should no longer consider Fuel an official OpenStack project,
and turn it into a hosted (unofficial) project.

Fuel originated at Mirantis as their OpenStack installer. It was
proposed as an official OpenStack project in July 2015 and approved in
November 2015. The promise at that time was that making it official
would drive other organizations to participate in its development and
turn it into the one generic OpenStack installer that everyone wanted.
Fuel was not a small endeavor: in Mitaka and Newton it represented more
commits than Nova.

The Fuel team fully embraced open collaboration, but failed to attract
other organizations. Mitaka and Newton were still 96% the work of
Mirantis. In my view, while deployment/packaging tools sit at the
periphery of the "OpenStack" map, they make sense as official OpenStack
teams if they create an open collaboration playing field and attract
multiple organizations. Otherwise they are just another opinionated
install tool that happens to be blessed with an "official" label.

Since October 2016, Fuel's activity has dropped, following the gradual
disengagement of its main sponsor. Comparing activity in the 5 first
months of the year, there was a 68% drop between 2016 and 2017, the
largest of any official OpenStack project. The Fuel team hasn't met on
IRC for the last 3 months. Activity dropped from ~990 commits/month (Apr
2016, Aug 2016) to 52 commits in April 2017 and 25 commits in May 2017.
And there are unsolved issues around licensing that have been lingering
for the last 6 months.

I think that, despite the efforts of the Fuel team, Fuel did not become
what we hoped when we made it official: a universal installer that would
be used across the board. It was worth a try, I'm happy that we tried,
but I think it's time to stop considering it a part of "OpenStack"
proper and make it a hosted project. It can of course continue its
existence as an unofficial project hosted on OpenStack infrastructure.

Thoughts ?


+1 to change Fuel* status

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] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

[Doug Hellmann]

Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2017-06-15 10:48:21 +0200:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Part of reducing OpenStack perceived complexity is to cull projects that
> have not delivered on their initial promises. Those are always difficult
> discussions, but we need to have them. In this email I'd like to discuss
> whether we should no longer consider Fuel an official OpenStack project,
> and turn it into a hosted (unofficial) project.
> 
> Fuel originated at Mirantis as their OpenStack installer. It was
> proposed as an official OpenStack project in July 2015 and approved in
> November 2015. The promise at that time was that making it official
> would drive other organizations to participate in its development and
> turn it into the one generic OpenStack installer that everyone wanted.
> Fuel was not a small endeavor: in Mitaka and Newton it represented more
> commits than Nova.
> 
> The Fuel team fully embraced open collaboration, but failed to attract
> other organizations. Mitaka and Newton were still 96% the work of
> Mirantis. In my view, while deployment/packaging tools sit at the
> periphery of the "OpenStack" map, they make sense as official OpenStack
> teams if they create an open collaboration playing field and attract
> multiple organizations. Otherwise they are just another opinionated
> install tool that happens to be blessed with an "official" label.
> 
> Since October 2016, Fuel's activity has dropped, following the gradual
> disengagement of its main sponsor. Comparing activity in the 5 first
> months of the year, there was a 68% drop between 2016 and 2017, the
> largest of any official OpenStack project. The Fuel team hasn't met on
> IRC for the last 3 months. Activity dropped from ~990 commits/month (Apr
> 2016, Aug 2016) to 52 commits in April 2017 and 25 commits in May 2017.
> And there are unsolved issues around licensing that have been lingering
> for the last 6 months.
> 
> I think that, despite the efforts of the Fuel team, Fuel did not become
> what we hoped when we made it official: a universal installer that would
> be used across the board. It was worth a try, I'm happy that we tried,
> but I think it's time to stop considering it a part of "OpenStack"
> proper and make it a hosted project. It can of course continue its
> existence as an unofficial project hosted on OpenStack infrastructure.
> 
> Thoughts ?
> 

IIRC, they are hosting their release artifacts on a Mirantis server,
too. I agree, the project was never fully "upstreamed" in the way we
hoped.

+1 for changing the project status.

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] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

[Sean McGinnis]

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 07:39:23AM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> +1 to drop Fuel from governance
> 
> -- Dims
> 

+1 from me too.

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] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

[Davanum Srinivas]

+1 to drop Fuel from governance

-- Dims

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Thierry Carrez  wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Part of reducing OpenStack perceived complexity is to cull projects that
> have not delivered on their initial promises. Those are always difficult
> discussions, but we need to have them. In this email I'd like to discuss
> whether we should no longer consider Fuel an official OpenStack project,
> and turn it into a hosted (unofficial) project.
>
> Fuel originated at Mirantis as their OpenStack installer. It was
> proposed as an official OpenStack project in July 2015 and approved in
> November 2015. The promise at that time was that making it official
> would drive other organizations to participate in its development and
> turn it into the one generic OpenStack installer that everyone wanted.
> Fuel was not a small endeavor: in Mitaka and Newton it represented more
> commits than Nova.
>
> The Fuel team fully embraced open collaboration, but failed to attract
> other organizations. Mitaka and Newton were still 96% the work of
> Mirantis. In my view, while deployment/packaging tools sit at the
> periphery of the "OpenStack" map, they make sense as official OpenStack
> teams if they create an open collaboration playing field and attract
> multiple organizations. Otherwise they are just another opinionated
> install tool that happens to be blessed with an "official" label.
>
> Since October 2016, Fuel's activity has dropped, following the gradual
> disengagement of its main sponsor. Comparing activity in the 5 first
> months of the year, there was a 68% drop between 2016 and 2017, the
> largest of any official OpenStack project. The Fuel team hasn't met on
> IRC for the last 3 months. Activity dropped from ~990 commits/month (Apr
> 2016, Aug 2016) to 52 commits in April 2017 and 25 commits in May 2017.
> And there are unsolved issues around licensing that have been lingering
> for the last 6 months.
>
> I think that, despite the efforts of the Fuel team, Fuel did not become
> what we hoped when we made it official: a universal installer that would
> be used across the board. It was worth a try, I'm happy that we tried,
> but I think it's time to stop considering it a part of "OpenStack"
> proper and make it a hosted project. It can of course continue its
> existence as an unofficial project hosted on OpenStack infrastructure.
>
> Thoughts ?
>
> --
> 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



-- 
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-dev] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

[Thierry Carrez]

Hi everyone,

Part of reducing OpenStack perceived complexity is to cull projects that
have not delivered on their initial promises. Those are always difficult
discussions, but we need to have them. In this email I'd like to discuss
whether we should no longer consider Fuel an official OpenStack project,
and turn it into a hosted (unofficial) project.

Fuel originated at Mirantis as their OpenStack installer. It was
proposed as an official OpenStack project in July 2015 and approved in
November 2015. The promise at that time was that making it official
would drive other organizations to participate in its development and
turn it into the one generic OpenStack installer that everyone wanted.
Fuel was not a small endeavor: in Mitaka and Newton it represented more
commits than Nova.

The Fuel team fully embraced open collaboration, but failed to attract
other organizations. Mitaka and Newton were still 96% the work of
Mirantis. In my view, while deployment/packaging tools sit at the
periphery of the "OpenStack" map, they make sense as official OpenStack
teams if they create an open collaboration playing field and attract
multiple organizations. Otherwise they are just another opinionated
install tool that happens to be blessed with an "official" label.

Since October 2016, Fuel's activity has dropped, following the gradual
disengagement of its main sponsor. Comparing activity in the 5 first
months of the year, there was a 68% drop between 2016 and 2017, the
largest of any official OpenStack project. The Fuel team hasn't met on
IRC for the last 3 months. Activity dropped from ~990 commits/month (Apr
2016, Aug 2016) to 52 commits in April 2017 and 25 commits in May 2017.
And there are unsolved issues around licensing that have been lingering
for the last 6 months.

I think that, despite the efforts of the Fuel team, Fuel did not become
what we hoped when we made it official: a universal installer that would
be used across the board. It was worth a try, I'm happy that we tried,
but I think it's time to stop considering it a part of "OpenStack"
proper and make it a hosted project. It can of course continue its
existence as an unofficial project hosted on OpenStack infrastructure.

Thoughts ?

-- 
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