Open Stack

Before I answer some specific points, I'd like to say that I agree with
Thierry's assesssment of the goal.

I'd also like to say that I am in favor of defining what I think a cloud
should be and using the power of the brand to encourage people to
converge towards that.

I believe that even in the short time OpenStack has been here, we've
seen that every time OpenStack doesn't have a stated opinion, everyone
rushes to diverge as quickly as humanly possible, but as soon as there
is an opinion, even a vague one, convergence starts to happen. I'd like
to continue that trend, because I think it's in the best interests of
our users.

On 10/31/2013 07:29 AM, Tim Bell wrote:
>  
> 
> A reference implementation is good but, as I have explained to Rob,
> there is a need to allow a cloud which has chosen to implement an
> alternative to still be defined as ‘OpenStack API compliant’.

I think "API compliant" is a fine thing, as long as there is a
difference between saying "this IS OpenStack" and "this is compatible
with OpenStack"

> 
> A typical example would be if ceph was chosen as an object store rather
> than swift. From the outside, they’d look the same but it is an
> implementation choice.
> 
>  
> 
> Tim
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*Jim Jagielski [mailto:jimjag at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 31 October 2013 15:12
> *To:* Thierry Carrez
> *Cc:* foundation at lists.openstack.org
> *Subject:* Re: [OpenStack Foundation] OpenStack core and interoperability
> 
>  
> 
> In some ways, at least to me, the main end-goal is having OpenStack be a
> standard and reference implementation, which allows for others to extend
> and build upon. The web succeeded because the standard (HTTP) was agreed
> upon by all, and a free and open reference implementation,  which was
> developed and governed by a neutral community, (Apache httpd) was available.

I believe we've always been quite strongly against having a defined
standard and then implementing it.

> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:06 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org
> <mailto:thierry at openstack.org>> wrote:
> 
>     Mark McLoughlin posted a very interesting view at:
>     http://blogs.gnome.org/markmc/2013/10/30/openstack-core-and-interoperability/
> 
>     I agree with him. "Core" is not a goal, it's just a means to an end. A
>     "market of interoperable OpenStack clouds" is the goal. By focusing on
>     the means rather than the end goal, we face the risk of missing the
>     target.
> 
>     If you focus on the end goal, you realize there is a choice between two
>     approaches: the common denominator approach (aim for a small set to make
>     sure most current "OpenStack clouds" will stay "OpenStack clouds"), and
>     the prescriptive approach (define what would make a "complete" OpenStack
>     cloud, and use the power of the trademark to encourage everyone to
>     converge towards that). There is no way around that choice and we should
>     have the courage to tackle it early rather than late.
> 
>     I like Rob's approach to the problem because it tries to be neutral and
>     technical, however I'm concerned that it defers the hard (and political)
>     choice between those approaches, concentrates on the mechanics and hopes
>     that those will somehow tell us where the finish line is.
> 
>     --
>     Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Foundation mailing list
>     Foundation at lists.openstack.org <mailto:Foundation at lists.openstack.org>
>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>