[OpenStack Foundation] Updating the OpenStack Mission Statement

Sean Dague sean at dague.net
Fri Feb 5 13:32:33 UTC 2016

On 02/04/2016 11:50 PM, Esker, Robert wrote:
> Whether “progressively evolve” or “integrates with relevant
> technologies” is employed, the crux of the discussion indeed was to
> establish that the how and what of OpenStack isn’t a static thing… that
> it ought continuously evolve to attain / maintain the mantle of ubiquitous.

I feel like “progressively evolve” or “integrates with relevant
technologies” have no place in a Mission Statement.

They are statements of 'How'. They are not statements of 'What'. And
while they may be accurate most 'How' should not exist in a mission
statement. It's the same reason we don't put 'in Python' in our mission
statement. Except, they are even worse that that, because they are
filler words that are so vague as to sound important but not give anyone
in the project clarity as to what they are doing. Relevant technologies
is what exactly? And is it the same answer yesterday as today?

Breaking down Doug's version:

 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.

"ubiquitous Open Source Cloud Computing platform" - we want this
everywhere. Being everywhere is a core value.

"the ubiquitous" - we want to be the only one that's everywhere
(honestly we might want to change the -> a)

and then we have a bullet list as a complex sentence. We can actually
respin that into something like below, which is actually a top line
statement in sentence one, and a bullet list in sentence 2.

To produce a ubiquitous Open Source Cloud Computing platform. It should
be easy to use, simple to implement, work well at all scales, be
interoperable between instances, and meet the needs of both public and
private clouds.

I can see that actually turning into a pretty good slide. Also, I can
got with 'the' or 'a' and don't care a lot. But 'a' seems more
realistic, and more in the spirit of the collaboration shown in our


Sean Dague

More information about the Foundation mailing list