On 16/06/15 04:39 -0400, gordon chung wrote:
i won't speak to whether this confirms/refutes the usefulness of the big tent. that said, probably as a by-product of being in non-stop meetings with sales/ marketing/managers for last few days, i think there needs to be better definitions (or better publicised definitions) of what the goals of the big tent are. from my experience, they've heard of the big tent and they are, to varying degrees, critical of it. one common point is that they see it as greater fragmentation to a process that is already too slow.
Not saying this is the final answer to all the questions but at least it's a good place to start from: https://www.openstack.org/summit/vancouver-2015/summit-videos/presentation/the-big-tent-a-look-at-the-new-openstack-projects-governance That said, this is great feedback and we may indeed need to do a better job to explain the big tent. That presentation, I believe, was an attempt to do so. Flavio
just giving my fly-on-the-wall view from the other side. On 15/06/2015 6:20 AM, Joe Gordon wrote: One of the stated problems the 'big tent' is supposed to solve is: 'The binary nature of the integrated release results in projects outside the integrated release failing to get the recognition they deserve. "Non-official" projects are second- or third-class citizens which can't get development resources. Alternative solutions can't emerge in the shadow of the blessed approach. Becoming part of the integrated release, which was originally designed to be a technical decision, quickly became a life-or-death question for new projects, and a political/community minefield.' [0] Meaning projects should see an uptick in development once they drop their second-class citizenship and join OpenStack. Now that we have been living in the world of the big tent for several months now, we can see if this claim is true. Below is a list of the first few few projects to join OpenStack after the big tent, All of which have now been part of OpenStack for at least two months.[1] * Mangum - Tue Mar 24 20:17:36 2015 * Murano - Tue Mar 24 20:48:25 2015 * Congress - Tue Mar 31 20:24:04 2015 * Rally - Tue Apr 7 21:25:53 2015 When looking at stackalytics [2] for each project, we don't see any noticeably change in number of reviews, contributors, or number of commits from before and after each project joined OpenStack. So what does this mean? At least in the short term moving from Stackforge to OpenStack does not result in an increase in development resources (too early to know about the long term). One of the three reasons for the big tent appears to be unfounded, but the other two reasons hold. The only thing I think this information changes is what peoples expectations should be when applying to join OpenStack. [0] https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/resolutions/ 20141202-project-structure-reform-spec.rst [1] Ignoring OpenStackClent since the repos were always in OpenStack it just didn't have a formal home in the governance repo. [2] h http://stackalytics.com/?module=magnum-group&metric=commits__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- gord
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
-- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco
pgpSIDs5U2kZD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
