[OpenStack Foundation] Updating the OpenStack Mission Statement

Monty Taylor mordred at inaugust.com
Sat Feb 6 16:04:10 UTC 2016

On 02/06/2016 09:58 AM, Allison Randal wrote:
> On 02/05/2016 08:32 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>> 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?
> To carry this forward a bit, the purpose of a mission statement is to
> outline 'What' an organization is trying to achieve, the 'How' part
> belongs in some other document. There has been some discussion recently
> on OpenStack Values, and a document outlining those would be the right
> place to include things like "approach development as a continuous
> process of evolution", "integrate with established technologies as they
> gain traction", and "avoid prejudice against ideas from other
> development communities or traditions".
>> """
>> 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.
>> """
> +1 for clarity and conciseness.
> I really liked Doug's emphasis on users and operators, so I'd work that
> back in: "...meet the needs of users and operators of both public and
> private clouds".

++ - that was one of the main things that was missing before. The idea 
that OpenStack users include the end-users of the clouds being run by 
the operators rather than OpenStack's user's being the operators is an 
important thing to call out. We've actually focused very strongly on the 
Operator as the primary user so far, and it shows.

I think it's worth calling out and is not just a 'how' - because the 
shape of things would be very different if we only considered Cern and 
Vexxhost as our users and not the transitive set of their users as well.

More information about the Foundation mailing list