Open Stack

I like Mark's version!

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 3, 2016, at 1:08 PM, Mark Collier <mark at openstack.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Feb 2, 2016, at 5:06 AM, Sean Dague <sean at dague.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 02/01/2016 04:41 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
>>>> On 02/01/2016 03:50 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> The "and progressively evolve" seems superfluous. That's part of how we
>>>> would produce OpenStack, and so I think we can trim the statement a bit
>>>> by removing it.
>>> 
>>> My understanding of the discussion was that the main point to add was
>>> "embracing a diversity of technologies", essentially making it clear
>>> that the Big Tent approach is a core part of OpenStack's mission. The
>>> "rapid evolution" part was more along the lines of expressing a desired
>>> outcome of Big Tent.
>>> 
>>> I tried working "technical diversity" in several different ways, and all
>>> seemed to make the statement obtuse and impenetrable. Better to be clear
>>> and crisp.
>> 
>> While the Big Tent is important, I don't think it's actually part of our
>> mission statement. It's our current form of execution which helps cover
>> the needs of public / private clouds.
> 
> By my recollection of the board dicsussion, the primary intend behind adding to the language drafted by the TC was not so much to address the big tent per se (which is a means to an end as you said Sean), but to acknowledge that the cloud computing landscape is ever changing and therefore to continue to be relevant to users we have to evolve as new technologies emerge.  The typical examples cited are containers and bare metal, but I think most people agreed that calling out specific technologies would actually be counterproductive in a mission statement since the whole point is that different models come and go.
> 
> So… I think that’s the reason “progressively evolve” was suggested.  
> 
> Here’s another take on an addition with similar intent:
> "To produce the ubiquitous Open Source Cloud Computing platform that integrates with relevant technologies to meet the needs of users and operators of public and private clouds of all sizes by being simple to implement, massively scalable, and interoperable."
> 
> That said, I’m fine with any of the suggested versions.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>>>> I'm not sure "that meets the needs of public and private clouds"
>>>> is targeting the right object, grammatically. Clouds don't need
>>>> things. People who deploy, operate, and use clouds need things.
>>>> 
>>>> I prefer the "serving the cloud users' needs" phrasing rather than
>>>> "easy to use", both because it actually mentions people and because
>>>> ease of use is only one of many needs a user may have.
>>>> 
>>>> So, I propose:
>>>> 
>>>>  To produce the ubiquitous Open Source Cloud Computing platform
>>>>  that meets the needs of users and operators of public and private
>>>>  clouds of all sizes by being simple to implement, massively
>>>>  scalable, and interoperable.
>> 
>> +1 this is really good. I think it's important distinction that clouds
>> don't need anything, but users and operators do.
>> 
>> 	-Sean
>> 
>> -- 
>> Sean Dague
>> http://dague.net
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20160204/e8afd661/attachment-0001.html>