[tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
25 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[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: [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: [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 <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]?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: [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: [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: [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: [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

Doug Hellmann-2
In reply to this post by Thierry Carrez
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: [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: [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

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

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

Jeremy Stanley
In reply to this post by Thierry Carrez
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

__________________________________________________________________________
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: [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&metric=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: [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: [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&metric=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: [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: [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

Thierry Carrez
In reply to this post by Jay Pipes
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&metric=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: [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: [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

Jay Pipes
In reply to this post by Ben Nemec
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&metric=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: [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: [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

Jay Pipes
In reply to this post by Thierry Carrez
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&metric=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: [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: [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

Jeremy Stanley
In reply to this post by Jay Pipes
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

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

Emilien Macchi-4
In reply to this post by Jay Pipes
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Jay Pipes <[hidden email]> 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&metric=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 would still have rooms at
PTG to continue the design discussions as it was done before.

Anyway. Back on the Fuel topic: I find the situation extremely sad
when we know what Fuel engineers did over the last years to create
this amazing project. We also acknowledge their collaboration
improvements over the last years (you'll notice I haven't complained
about Fuel since June 2015). Their involvement in Packaging efforts
but also in Puppet OpenStack (and probably more projects that I
missed, sorry) will be remembered and I'm personally happy with what
we've done together. Indeed the project is in maintenance mode now, as
far I know. I would like to hear from them and get their feedback on
the idea of pulling them out from the Big Tent. To be honest,
regarding the situation of the project I don't think they care about
this change, really. Most of our friends from Mirantis who worked on
Fuel are not out of the project or even out of the company (and some
of them now out of OpenStack :-( ).

So +1 to remove them but also get their feedback.

Thanks to the Fuel team for their awesome work and collaboration over the years.

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



--
Emilien Macchi

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

Doug Hellmann-2
In reply to this post by Jay Pipes
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&metric=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: [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: [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

Ben Nemec
In reply to this post by Jay Pipes


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&metric=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: [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: [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

Dean Troyer
In reply to this post by Jay Pipes
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]

__________________________________________________________________________
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: [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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]

__________________________________________________________________________
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: [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: [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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]

__________________________________________________________________________
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@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: [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: [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: [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: [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

Vikash Kumar

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Thierry Carrez <[hidden email]> 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-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
12
Loading...