Open Stack

Hi,

> On Feb 11, 2016, at 4:31 PM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 02/01/2016 02:31 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>> OpenStack has a mission statement that has held up pretty well for the
>> life of the project so far.  That mission statement is:
>> 
>>> to produce the ubiquitous Open Source Cloud Computing platform that will
>>> meet the needs of public and private clouds regardless of size, by being
>>> simple to implement and massively scalable.
>> 
>> Sometime late last year, a discussion emerged about updating the mission
>> statement to include some key themes that have become an important focus
>> of our community.
>> 
>> * interoperability
>> * end users
>> 
>> At the join board + TC meeting at the OpenStack Summit in Tokyo, the two
>> groups agreed that working on an update seemed reasonable and that we
>> wanted both groups to agree on those updates.
>> 
>> A few weeks ago, the TC came up with a proposed updated mission statement.
>> 
>> http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160106-mission-amendment.html
>> 
>> That proposal is:
>> 
>>> to produce the ubiquitous Open Source Cloud Computing platform that enables
>>> building interoperable public and private clouds regardless of size, by being
>>> simple to implement and massively scalable while serving the cloud users'
>>> needs.
>> 
>> The board discussed this proposal during the board meeting last week.
>> This spawned a good discussion.  There was a desire that we continue
>> that discussion on the foundation mailing list to incorporate additional
>> feedback.
>> 
>> One suggestion was that changing "that will meet the needs of public and
>> private clouds" to "that enables building ... public and private clouds"
>> was a downgrade.  The suggestion was to restore the original wording, as
>> it sounded like a more firm commitment.
>> 
>> The second major piece of feedback was that some people wanted to
>> somehow incorporate that OpenStack is not limited to a specific set of
>> technologies.  Specific talk of bare metal, VMs, and containers were
>> brought up as examples, but people wanted to somehow reflect that the
>> platform is evolving with major technology trends.
>> 
>> Rob Esker provided this suggested update which incorporates that feedback:
>> 
>>> "To produce and progressively evolve the ubiquitous Open Source Cloud
>>> Computing platform that meets the needs of public and private clouds
>>> regardless of size, by being simple to implement, massively scalable,
>>> interoperable, and easy to use.”
> 
> Hello, everyone!  The collaboration on this thread was great to see.
> Let me try to summarize the proposals.
> 
> First, there was a debate about whether "progressively evolve" was
> something that made sense.  Doug Hellmann proposed an alternative
> without that point, along with some other wording improvements.
> 
>> To produce the ubiquitous Open Source Cloud Computing platform
>> that meets the needs of users and operators of public and private
>> clouds of all sizes by being simple to implement, massively
>> scalable, and interoperable.
> 
> Several people liked Doug's version, but still wanted to explore
> accounting for the original intent of communicating our desire to
> integrate with emerging technologies as they come along.  Mark Collier
> proposed:
> 
>> To produce the ubiquitous Open Source Cloud Computing platform
>> that integrates with relevant technologies to meet the needs of users
>> and operators of public and private clouds of all sizes by being
>> simple to implement, massively scalable, and interoperable.
> 
> Similarly, Rocky proposed two variations:
> 
>> To produce and (advance|evolve) the ubiquitous Open Source Cloud
>> Computing platform that meets the needs of users and operators of
>> public and private clouds of all sizes by being simple to implement,
>> massively scalable, and interoperable.
> 
> Ultimately, there seemed to be more support for excluding that point as
> something that's more "how" and not "what".  Allison Randal summarized
> this well with:
> 
>> 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 that end, Sean Dague proposed:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> and finally, Allison proposed a slight addition to Sean's version,
> re-incorporating "users and operators.
> 
>> 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 users
>> and operators of both public and private clouds.
> 
> This final version sounds fantastic to me.  What do you think?

 I have a few very small changes/suggestions for consideration...

1) Change "it should be easy to use" to "That is easy to use"

2) s/work/works/

2) Someone had mentioned changing the word "instances" to something else (I can't find the exact word/phrasing).  Can we possibly consider "deployments" or "providers" instead?  (Provider doesn't necessarily have to be a service provider but can also refer to internal teams)

Thanks,
Shamail 
> 
> -- 
> Russell Bryant
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation