Open Stack

2012/1/6 Stefano Maffulli <stefano at openstack.org>:
> On 01/06/2012 02:11 AM, Soren Hansen wrote:
>> Every time the process has been explained, it's gone something like
>> "RAX will publish some drafts, will accept feedback, and eventually
>> the final documents will be published". That's not a democratic
>> process. What if the feedback isn't unanimous?
> As Mark and others have said before, OpenStack is a meritocracy and its
> community is organized so that it takes decisions based on 'lazy
> consensus'.  I believe there is a strong incentive for RAX to accept
> feedback while setting up the foundation: can you imagine the project
> remaining as successful as it is now if RAX runs it by itself, without
> HP, Dell, Cisco, Nebula, Piston and the like? That would defeat the
> whole purpose of setting up a foundation.
>
> What reason do you see for RAX not to build consensus among the community?

I don't know. Hopefully none. So why not ensure that the method we apply
can actually do that? When I read scientific papers, it doesn't matter
*who* the source is. The *method* for conducting experiments and drawing
conclusions is essential to the paper's the credibility. Even the
highest ranked scientists take great care to explain the method they're
applying in a study.

>> No matter how good the intentions are inside of RAX, the best way for
>> the community to accept the end result is for the community to own the
>> process. My point is that as soon as the foundation is established,
>> all these things might be rewritten completely anyways,
> I don't see why anybody would want to spend time creating a mission, a
> structure, charters, rules, infrastructure and start over as soon as the
> ink is dry. I would expect quite the contrary, instead: once the
> foundation is setup it will have to start operating according to its
> mission immediately, without further debate.

That's *exactly* why I think it's essential that the method applied to
reach that goal is sound. To be honest, the method as explained so far,
doesn't sound very reassuring. It's of little consequence who applies
the method if the method is good, so let's make it so.

> That's why I believe there is a strong incentive for RAX to lead this
> process in the most inclusive way and with a very wide consensus from
> the community.

That's great. Do you think the process will be less inclusive if
everyone involved knows what the process actually is? What part of the
process will fall apart if everyone knows how contentious elements of
the charter(s) be handled?

> I agree with you and others that the process can be improved. Jim,
> Jonathan and Mark have already apologized for not communicating enough
> to this list and they've openly published a draft and deadlines for
> the next milestones.

We've all been asked for input. My input (at the moment) is centered
around the method and due to the vacuum of information, my input takes
the form of questions. I hope that's acceptable?

-- 
Soren Hansen        | http://linux2go.dk/
Ubuntu Developer    | http://www.ubuntu.com/
OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/