Open Stack

Having been part of the defcore committee for a bit, I must say that
the work that is being done there has a very good intent.  It is
also great to define what type of interoperability we want to mesure
and offer is key to providing OpenStack users valuable information
they expect.

However, as part of this committee, I have failed to make myself
heard on a very key point in my mind.  The notion of core, or
interoperability, means 3 different things, because of the nature of
what we do and the population they address:

  1/ Which projects are part of core and can call themselves
     OpenStack?
  -> Interesting to developpers and distribution builders

  2/ Which distributions are based on core OpenStack and can therefore
     call themselves OpenStack?
  -> Interesting to cloud operators that want to pick an OpenStack
     distribution

  3/ Which clouds are delivering an OpenStack experience and can call
     themselves OpenStack?
  -> Interesting to cloud users and enterprises wanting to pick the
     right infrastructure to deploy their application on

The current bylaws of the foundation fails to make this distinction in
defining the term Core, and therefore the DefCore committee has failed
to distinguish those 3 aspects and is producing what seems to me a
bunch of rules which, by trying to satisfy 3 very different things with
a single set, is going to, at best, produce some lowest common
denominator set.

So, yes, we need to determine which type of interoperability we want
to achieve, but I do think that we need to define what is Core
independently for each one of the 3 cases above.  The perception of
what OpenStack is cannot be defined independently of the type of users
and what interactions they are going to have with OpenStack. and this
may very well have ties onto which body has the right to validate what
Core is.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20140205/4afe96fe/attachment.html>