[OpenStack Foundation] Updating the OpenStack Mission Statement

Shamail itzshamail at gmail.com
Mon Feb 8 16:02:35 UTC 2016

> On Feb 8, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com> wrote:
> 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".
Thanks Doug, this makes sense.

> Doug
>>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

More information about the Foundation mailing list