[all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
93 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

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: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

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 <[hidden email]>:
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-request@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: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

Neil Jerram-2
In reply to this post by Thierry Carrez
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 <[hidden email]> 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-request@...?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

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 <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
>     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@...?subject:unsubscribe>
>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>


__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

Shake Chen

+1000
very clearly. 

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Dmitry Tantsur <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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-request@...enstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
    <http://OpenStack-dev-request@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-request@...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-request@...enstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



--
Shake Chen


__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

Chris Dent-2
In reply to this post by Thierry Carrez
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: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

Joshua Hesketh-2
In reply to this post by Shake Chen
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

+1000
very clearly. 

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Dmitry Tantsur <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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-request@...enstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
    <http://OpenStack-dev-request@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-request@...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-request@...enstack.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-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

Chris Dent-2
In reply to this post by Chris Dent-2
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: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

Sean Dague-2
In reply to this post by Thierry Carrez
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: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

Sean McGinnis
In reply to this post by Chris Dent-2
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: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

Thierry Carrez
In reply to this post by Sean Dague-2
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: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

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 <[hidden email]> 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-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



--
-- 
Kind regards,

Melvin Hillsman
[hidden email]
mobile: (832) 264-2646

Learner | Ideation | Belief | Responsibility | Command

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

Sean McGinnis
In reply to this post by Thierry Carrez
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: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

Jeremy Stanley
In reply to this post by Thierry Carrez
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

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

signature.asc (968 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

Flavio Percoco-2
In reply to this post by Thierry Carrez
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

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

signature.asc (879 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

Flavio Percoco-2
In reply to this post by Jeremy Stanley
On 15/06/17 14:09 +0000, 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

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

signature.asc (879 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

John Griffith-2
In reply to this post by Thierry Carrez


On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:15 AM, Thierry Carrez <[hidden email]> 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-request@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: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

Jeremy Stanley
In reply to this post by Thierry Carrez
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

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

signature.asc (968 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

Thierry Carrez
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: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

gordon chung-2
In reply to this post by Chris Dent-2


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 <insert self-important marketing
jargon here>'.

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: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
12345
Loading...