I think all the problem is caused by the definition "official OpenStack project" for one big-tent project.
I understand that each OpenStack vendor wants some differentiation in their solution, while also would like to collaborate with common core projects. If we replace the title "official OpenStack project" to "OpenStack ecosystem player", and make "big-tent" as "ecosystem play yard" ( no close roof ), TCs can put more focus on governance of core projects (current non-big-tent projects), and provide a more open place to grow abundant ecosystem. The bigger the ecosystem is, the more scenario and demand for cloud operators(public, private, hybrid) can be fulfilled with different choices, and the competition will also help to grow the best one. Best Regards Chaoyi Huang (joehuang) ________________________________________ From: Erno Kuvaja [ekuv...@redhat.com] Sent: 05 August 2016 1:15 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Duncan Thomas <duncan.tho...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1 August 2016 at 18:14, Adrian Otto <adrian.o...@rackspace.com> wrote: >> >> I am struggling to understand why we would want to remove projects from >> our big tent at all, as long as they are being actively developed under the >> principles of "four opens". It seems to me that working to disqualify such >> projects sends an alarming signal to our ecosystem. The reason we made the >> big tent to begin with was to set a tone of inclusion. This whole discussion >> seems like a step backward. What problem are we trying to solve, exactly? > > > Any project existing in the big tent sets a significant barrier (policy, > technical, mindshare) of entry to any competing project that might spring > up. The cost of entry as an individual into a single-vendor project is much > higher in general than a diverse one (back-channel communications, > differences in vision, monoculture, commercial pressures, etc), and so > having a non-diverse project in the big tent reduces the possibilities of a > better replacement appearing. > Actually I couldn't disagree more. Since big tent and stackforge move under the openstack name space the effect has been exactly the opposite. Competitors have way less needs to collaborate with each other to be part of OpenStack as anyone could just kick up their own project and do it in their way still being part of the community/ecosystem/what-ever-you-want-to-call-it. We see projects splitting more when they do not share the core concepts (which is good thing) but we do not see projects combining their efforts when they do overlapping things. Maybe we do see this lack of diversity just growing as long as we don't care about it (tag here, another there is not going to slow the company behind the project pushing it to their customers even there was more diverse or better options, it's still part of OpenStack and it's "ours"). If we start pushing the projects that are single vendor out of the big tent, we give more pressure for multiple of those to combine their efforts rather than continue competing for same thing and if they don't want to play together I don't see anything wrong to send clear message that we don't want to share the cost of it. I personally see the proposed as not limiting the competition to appear but rather the single-vendor competition might not stick around when the competing projects would be under a threat to be thrown out. If someone brings competing project into the ecosystem, 18 months is also pretty decent time to see if that approach is superior enough (to attract the diversity) and justify it's existence or if those people just should try to play with others instead of doing their own thing. I'm all for the selective inclusion based on meritocracy, not only on person level, but on project level as well. - Erno > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
