Open Stack

I think the TC approach of sticking with the general structure of the original* while making substantive additions. 

With respect to Rob’s version, I think it hits the mark. I support moving forward with it. 

*Disclaimer: I helped write the original mission statement so consider myself biased :)



> On Feb 1, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> OpenStack has a mission statement that has held up pretty well for the
> life of the project so far.  That mission statement is:
> 
>> to produce the ubiquitous Open Source Cloud Computing platform that will
>> meet the needs of public and private clouds regardless of size, by being
>> simple to implement and massively scalable.
> 
> Sometime late last year, a discussion emerged about updating the mission
> statement to include some key themes that have become an important focus
> of our community.
> 
> * interoperability
> * end users
> 
> At the join board + TC meeting at the OpenStack Summit in Tokyo, the two
> groups agreed that working on an update seemed reasonable and that we
> wanted both groups to agree on those updates.
> 
> A few weeks ago, the TC came up with a proposed updated mission statement.
> 
> http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160106-mission-amendment.html
> 
> That proposal is:
> 
>> to produce the ubiquitous Open Source Cloud Computing platform that enables
>> building interoperable public and private clouds regardless of size, by being
>> simple to implement and massively scalable while serving the cloud users'
>> needs.
> 
> The board discussed this proposal during the board meeting last week.
> This spawned a good discussion.  There was a desire that we continue
> that discussion on the foundation mailing list to incorporate additional
> feedback.
> 
> One suggestion was that changing "that will meet the needs of public and
> private clouds" to "that enables building ... public and private clouds"
> was a downgrade.  The suggestion was to restore the original wording, as
> it sounded like a more firm commitment.
> 
> The second major piece of feedback was that some people wanted to
> somehow incorporate that OpenStack is not limited to a specific set of
> technologies.  Specific talk of bare metal, VMs, and containers were
> brought up as examples, but people wanted to somehow reflect that the
> platform is evolving with major technology trends.
> 
> Rob Esker provided this suggested update which incorporates that feedback:
> 
>> "To produce and progressively evolve the ubiquitous Open Source Cloud
>> Computing platform that meets the needs of public and private clouds
>> regardless of size, by being simple to implement, massively scalable,
>> interoperable, and easy to use.”
> 
> (Note: Rob's proposal didn't include the final comma.  I added it.  Feel
> free to debate the merits of the oxford comma if you wish.)
> 
> If I missed anything or if anyone would like to provide additional
> feedback, please respond on list.
> 
> 
> I'm actually pretty happy with Rob's proposal.  I'd like to hear what
> others think so we can continue moving forward.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -- 
> Russell Bryant
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation