Part of the confusion is around what is allowed to use the term openstack and the various ways its used.
we have software such as github.com/openstack/openstack-helm, which is in the openstack namespace, has openstack in its title, but not under tc governance. http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/projects.yaml But it also also has stated its an 'openstack project'. (not trying to pick on openstack-helm here. just the most recent example I can think of that shows off the various ways something can/can't be "openstack" today) So whats really unclear to end users is that when they talk about a piece of "openstack" they may be talking about a great many things: 1. is it managed under the 4 opens 2. is it in github.com/openstack. 3. is it under openstack governance. 4. is it an 'openstack project' (what does this mean anymore. I thought that was #3, but maybe not?) 5. is "openstack" part of its title Is a project part of openstack if it meets one of those? all of them? or some subset? If we can't answer it, I'm not sure users will ever understand it. This is separate entirely from the maturity of the software and the level of integration with other openstack software issue too. :/ Thanks, Kevin ________________________________________ From: Tim Bell [tim.b...@cern.ch] Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 12:25 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] How to deal with confusion around "hosted projects" > On 29 Jun 2017, at 17:35, Chris Friesen <chris.frie...@windriver.com> wrote: > > On 06/29/2017 09:23 AM, Monty Taylor wrote: > >> We are already WELL past where we can solve the problem you are describing. >> Pandora's box has been opened - we have defined ourselves as an Open >> community. >> Our only requirement to be official is that you behave as one of us. There is >> nothing stopping those machine learning projects from becoming official. If >> they >> did become official but were still bad software - what would we have solved? >> >> We have a long-time official project that currently has staffing problems. If >> someone Googles for OpenStack DBaaS and finds Trove and then looks to see >> that >> the contribution rate has fallen off recently they could get the impression >> that >> OpenStack is a bunch of dead crap. >> >> Inclusion as an Official Project in OpenStack is not an indication that >> anyone >> thinks the project is good quality. That's a decision we actively made. This >> is >> the result. > > I wonder if it would be useful to have a separate orthogonal status as to > "level of stability/usefulness/maturity/quality" to help newcomers weed out > projects that are under TC governance but are not ready for prime time. > There is certainly a concern on the operator community as to how viable/useful a project is (and how to determine this). Adopting too early makes for a very difficult discussion with cloud users who rely on the function. Can an ‘official’ project be deprecated? The economics say yes. The consumer confidence impact would be substantial. However, home grown solutions where there is common interest implies technical debt in the long term. Tim > 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 __________________________________________________________________________ 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
