Competition is a good thing, when there are good, technical reasons for it. "The architecture of X just doesn't fit for my need Y". "Project X won't address my technical need, so I need to fork/spawn a new project Y to get a solution." I do not believe we're in this situation here.
If its just competition because developer X doesn't want to work with developer Y, thats fine too, provided that the community isn't paying for both. Our collective resource is somewhat limited. We have a relatively static pool of gate resources, and infra folks. Nearing releases, those get particularly scarce/valuable. We all notice it during those times and if we are spending resource on needlessly competing things, thats bad. Why take the pain? As I see it, right now Fuel CCP seems separate for political, not technical reasons and is consuming OpenStack community resource for what seems to be the benefit of only one company. Its fine that Fuel CCP exists. But I think either it should have its own non OpenStack infra, or commit to joining the Big Tent and we can debate if we want 2 basically identical things inside. Thanks, Kevin ________________________________ From: Michael Still [mi...@stillhq.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 5:30 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin....@pnnl.gov<mailto:kevin....@pnnl.gov>> wrote: [snip] The issue is, as I see it, a parallel activity to one of the that is currently accepted into the Big Tent, aka Containerized Deployment [snip] This seems to be the crux of the matter as best as I can tell. Is it true to say that the concern is that Kolla believes they "own" the containerized deployment space inside the Big Tent? Whether to have competing projects in the big tent was debated by the TC at the time and my recollection is that we decided that was a good thing -- if someone wanted to develop a Nova replacement, then let them do it in public with the community. It would either win or lose based on its merits. Why is this not something which can happen here as well? I guess I should also point out that there is at least one other big tent deployment tool deploying containerized openstack components now, so its not like this idea is unique or new. Perhaps using kubernetes makes it different somehow, but I don't see it. Michael -- Rackspace Australia
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
