Open Stack

On 02/08/2016 10:41 AM, Doug Hellmann 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".

+1.

	-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net