Open Stack

Enterprise-ready/workload does not necessary mean it is a pet.
It means it has to support/satisfy the Enterprise requirements such as compliances, regulation, security, etc, etc.

My take on the mission is, how can OpenStack be used to enable businesses to transition from existing/conventional model into a next generation "cloud-native" model. Providing developers or businesses a platform to easily build high quality and elastic application that can accelerate time-to-market (time-to-value).


From: Kyle MacDonald [mailto:kyle.macdonald at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 4:31 PM
To: Boris Renski <brenski at mirantis.com>
Cc: <foundation at lists.openstack.org> <foundation at lists.openstack.org>; AlanClark <aclark at suse.com>
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Updating the OpenStack Mission Statement

+1 - A mission statement is really the rallying cry for the organization. A rallying cry cannot and should not be superficial.



On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Boris Renski <brenski at mirantis.com<mailto:brenski at mirantis.com>> wrote:
Since we've decide to embark on this journey of changing the mission statement, we better introduce a mission change that can at least be viewed as a credible attempt to help OpenStack in a meaningful way. Alternatively, let's leave it alone. Cosmetic changes we are contemplating to broaden the mission further don't help OpenStack in my opinion.

For instance, we all know that the container ecosystems have been spinning their stories in a way that poses a threat to OpenStack. This is also a lot of valid criticism around "all things to all people". There is also AWS has won and OpenStack is just for NFV thing. How can we use this "change of mission exercise" as an opportunity to address at least some of those threats?

I want to this mission change to be a wake up call for action. I.e. change it in a way where people will turn their heads and say "ah-ha, OpenStack board sees the problems and changed the mission statement to help address them."

I am frustrated that whatever changes we are discussing here boil down to superficial semantic adjustments that won't really move the needle or be noticed.



On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Allison Randal <allison at lohutok.net<mailto:allison at lohutok.net>> wrote:
On 02/11/2016 06:04 PM, Boris Renski wrote:
> Does anybody share a concern that the current mission statement is a bit
> too generic and broad?
>
> Once this mission statement is published, I can see headlines "OpenStack
> will fail because it aims to be all things to all people. Updated
> mission statement confirms it's inevitable doom."
>
> Can we explore options to tighten it up?

The mission of OpenStack is broad, and this draft revision of the
mission statement accurately captures it.

This draft is actually substantially tighter than the current mission
statement, because it clearly restricts key aspects of the desired outcome.

Allison


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



--
----

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20160212/e0f5c0f3/attachment-0001.html>