Open Stack

Boris Renski 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.

Back to where the idea of changing it started[1], the concern was that 
the mission statement was completely ignoring two major goals we have: 
interoperability and serving the end users. Hence the suggestion of 
slightly altering it to include those goals. The idea was not to change 
it... The idea was to add the missing pieces to it.

You can't completely change a mission statement for an open source 
project in the middle of the road -- you will basically never agree on 
what it should say now. And you should certainly not change it today to 
address the PR threat of the day -- otherwise you should prepare to 
change it every year.

[1] 
http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160106-mission-amendment.html

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)