Open Stack

I meant to say… I *like* the TC approach


> On Feb 1, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Mark Collier <mark at openstack.org> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation