openstack-poc team mailing list archive

[Jonathan Bryce <jbryce@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> 0. Can we make this two (or three) proposals? I agree with the scoping and charter aspects, but disagree with some of the service architecture, and I think they should be addressed separately. (The third proposal would be 'how projects are evaluated for core/affiliated' status, which doesn't appear in here).

The actual process of evaluation of projects should be a separate item. We'll publish separately.

> 1. We should explicitly mention that there may be multiple implementations of some of the core components (e.g. networking components)

Added in an explicit statement.

> 2. Maybe call out that block storage and networking are *currently* part of Nova, even though we plan to factor them out?

Done.

> 3. I remember some push-back on the "C, C++ and Python" statement, but I'm personally fine with "C++ and Python".
> 4. Shouldn't this mention the Apache2 license somewhere for core components?

Added in.

> The concern over system architecture (especially the affiliated extension projects), is that if it's misunderstood, it looks like an excuse to build an open core system. 

Do you have a suggestion on how to articulate this clearly? I'm sure some companies will build an open core model around OpenStack components, but OpenStack itself (the projects) would be separate from those efforts. I can see where you're coming from but not sure how to address it or if it's actually a big enough issue to address it specifically.

> 5. Change Hudson to Jenkins ;)

Have they actually made the move yet? In any case, I don't actually see a reference to either in there.

> 6. Change "Affiliated" and "Incubation" to "Duplo".

I'd rather leave it "Affiliated" in this document and we can give it a branded name at a later point if we want.

> A final concern - why are we treating object storage as a totally separate category of component, other than for legacy reasons? E.g., when I start prototyping computable object stores, does that go under "Swift", or under "Nova"? If it's all storage, separated from all processing, then can we put volume and image management in there as well, please?

Changed the second category to "Large Scale Data Storage and Processing" which I think differentiates between swift style storage and mountable volumes for VMs. I'd add something like a computable data store into the second category.



> Thanks,
> 
> Joshua
> 
> PS - Overall, I like it.
> 
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Jonathan Bryce <jbryce@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John Purrier has submitted a proposal on the charter and scope of OpenStack for 2011. It provides a baseline for standards around project inclusion, API development, definition of "core" OpenStack projects versus "affiliated" projects and a mechanism for extending and integrated outside components. The full proposal can be viewed on the wiki:
> 
> http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Proposed/2011%20Charter%20and%20Scope
> 
> John submitted his proposal to the OpenStack mailing list on 12/30/2010 (https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack/msg00182.html). I added in the two points from Ewan's email concerning additional requirements of scale and compatibility with existing OpenStack components.
> 
> Please review the proposal and respond to the list with either approval of the proposal or concerns and requested changes.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc
> Post to     : openstack-poc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>