On 23 September 2014 10:32, Dean Troyer <dtro...@gmail.com> wrote: > tl;dr: we're not broken, but under stress...changing (outside) expectations > requires changing the expression of the model...while it's called a 'stack' > maybe it's multiple tiered stacks. MultiStack! ... > > This is one reason for multiple layers. The original 4 layer stack was > meant as a technical dependency stack but has morphed into a social/project > organizational stack. I don't think it is total coincidence that the > technical hierarchy was interpreted as a social/governance hierarchy by some > as there is a lot of similarity. The mapping between the two in my mind is > fairly easy, but those details is not what is important.
Are you familiar with Conway's law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_law - I think it works both ways. When we drive towards a particular structure be it technical or social, expect the other side to follow suit. Its very hard to to have a social structure decoupled from the technical structure. One of the reasons Launchpad has such poor cross-component (bugs/code hosting/translations) features compared to the in-component features is that for a long time there were separate teams for each thing - which resulted in great domain knowledge, but the vast amount of work being done in-component. If we want to be better at 'cross project' things, I think we need to factor Conway's law into our *social* design process. I don't doubt we need separate teams - we're way past Dunbar's number, for any estimate of it - but I think we need to seriously consider making our teams align with our user needs, not our codebases. Codebases are an implementation detail - an important one, but a detail. Our goals, our focus, *our structure* should be on meeting user needs [including those users that do deployments], rather than structured around our code. > * IaaS thing: the stuff that builds excellent clouds > * PaaS thing: the stuff that does amazing things that may or may not be > built on top of excellent clouds > * XaaS thing(s): more things I can not visualize through the fog of > antihistamines > * Non-aas developer things: what enables us s developers to make the above > things (infra, qa, etc) > * Non-aas consumer[1] things: what enables the rest of the world to enjoy > the above things (docs, SDKs, clients, etc) > > This separates the technical hierarchical from the organizational > relationships. All of the above things are still called OpenStack. But > maybe it's a 'MultiStack'. I think this would result in excellent intra-layer features/quality etc, but perhaps cross-layer would become the poor stepchild. And - I think thats ok. I think it would help overall. -Rob -- Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev