Open Stack

On February 11, 2016 4:35:28 PM Shamail <itzshamail at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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)

I agree that "instances" could prove confusing.

You could say between "clouds" or "deployments", I think.

>
> Thanks,
> Shamail
>>
>> --
>> Russell Bryant
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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