[OpenStack Foundation] Updating the OpenStack Mission Statement

Doug Hellmann doug at doughellmann.com
Mon Feb 8 15:41:50 UTC 2016

Excerpts from Shamail's message of 2016-02-07 13:58:14 -0500:
> > 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 mission statement should be concise and clear.  We should resist
the urge to throw every issue or parameter into it, make it a
paragraph instead of a sentence, or otherwise cloud it (see what I
did there?).

Boil everything you know about OpenStack down to one sentence. Be
brutal in removing superfluous or redundant words and ideas. Find
the essence of what we're doing. That's the mission. Everything
else can be covered by supporting documentation.

We have a lot of important supporting documents covering community
guidelines and policies, including the 4 opens, and we don't need
to restate their contents in the mission statement.  The 4 opens
are an elaboration of our interpretation of "open source", which
already appears in the mission statement. They're a "how".


> >> 
> >> 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

More information about the Foundation mailing list