Open Stack

> On Feb 7, 2016, at 12:34 PM, Monty Taylor <mordred at inaugust.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 02/07/2016 11:25 AM, Tim Bell wrote:
>> 
>> Completely agree… we should have operators and users in mind as part of the mission.
Agreed as well... Sorry for jumping in a bit late... but would it make sense for the mission to include the four opens or at least mention "through open design that fosters community"?  I agree with Allison that a mission statement generally contains the "what" versus the "how".  While it shouldn't contain "how" (as in implementation/method), having a "how" that defines the path towards achieving the mission serves as a good guide post.  The four opens are at the very core of our community and the mission should indicate our core values if possible.

>> 
>> The operator side of things is now well underway (and moving well with good foundation staff assistance).
>> 
>> A board/user committee F2F topic for the future could be how to address the ‘user’ experience. While the API working group is one part, building the user/partner ecosystem is vital.
>> 
>> 
>> Can we envisage an OpenStack re:Invent about using OpenStack (and nothing else) ?
> 
> That would be fantastic!
+1
> 
>> Tim
>> 
>>> On 07/02/16 15:04, "Monty Taylor" <mordred at inaugust.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 02/06/2016 01:27 PM, Tim Bell wrote:
>>> It is for that reason that I believe that underscoring the importance of
>>> both classes of 'user' in our mission is essential. Both classes are
>>> essential to our effort, but it's easy to fall into the trap of only
>>> considering one or the other.
Thanks,
Shamail 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation