Open Stack

On Thu, 2013-10-31 at 14:52 +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-10-31 at 07:41 -0700, Monty Taylor wrote:
> > There is a VERY specific and strong reason why this is not the approach,
> > and that's because it disincentivies people from working on OpenStack
> > itself. We already have the problem with Neutron where not enough
> > companies are working on the core of neutron because they're all only
> > working on their vendor plugins. If OpenStack all of a sudden became a
> > set of interfaces, then the goal of an Open cloud would, I'm pretty
> > certain, become lost.
> 
> Rob talks about using having three tools - our culture, our velocity and
> our trademark. The first two could be as effective at having people
> choose to use OpenStack itself rather than a compatible implementation
> of its interfaces.
> 
> I could see us having two trademark programs "OpenStack Cloud" - where
> you know that the provider is running a "faithful implementation" of
> OpenStack code - and "OpenStack Compatible Cloud" - where you just know
> the provider is compatible with the interfaces.
> 
> I'd see having "OpenStack Compatible Cloud" as the first priority.
> 
> If we can figure out how to build a sane "OpenStack Cloud" program in
> short order, then awesome. But it shouldn't hold back the first program.

Oh, and to be clear - if it did happen this way, I'd quite happily
deprecate the "OpenStack Compatible Cloud" program once we have the
"OpenStack Cloud" program in place.

Or maybe there's only one program and the "use OpenStack code"
requirement gets added in the future.

So, I agree that it is not a long-term goal for OpenStack to be a
standards organization encouraging multiple alternate implementations of
its APIs.

But we do need to get moving on encouraging interoperability between
public clouds, even if that means making a short term tactical decision
that we don't need to require they use OpenStack code for everything.

Mark.