Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project

2021-04-23 Thread Pierre-Luc Dion 
+1

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 2:06 AM Suresh Anaparti <
suresh.anapa...@shapeblue.com> wrote:

> +1 , on this new repo under Apache. Hope the community takes it forward,
> with further improvements and maintenance of this provider.
>
> Regards,
> Suresh
>
> On 15/04/21, 2:35 PM, "Rohit Yadav"  wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to
> start a vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
>
>   1.  Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on
> Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former
> terraform cloudstack provider repository:
> https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note:
> re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
>   2.  Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the
> repository
>   3.  Work with the community towards any further maintenance,
> development, and releases of the provider
>   4.  Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after
> Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members
> with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if
> they've any)
>
> The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to
> indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
>
> [ ] +1  approve
> [ ] +0  no opinion
> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>
> [1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
> [2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
>
>
> Regards.
>
> rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
>
> suresh.anapa...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>

Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project

2021-04-23 Thread Sven Vogel 
+1


Cheers,

Sven Vogel
Apache CloudStack PMC member





--- Original message follows ---
Subject: Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with
Apache CloudStack project
From: "Nicolas Vazquez" 
To: "d...@cloudstack.apache.org" , "priv...@cloudstack.apache.org" ,
"users@cloudstack.apache.org" 
Date: 04/20/2021 13:12





+1


Regards,

Nicolas Vazquez


From: Rohit Yadav 
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 6:05 AM
To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org ; priv...@cloudstack.apache.org 
Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org 
Subject: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache
CloudStack project

Hi All,

Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to
start a vote to gather consensus on the following actions:

  1.  Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository
based on Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the
archived/former terraform cloudstack provider repository:
https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note:
re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
  2.  Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on
the repository
  3.  Work with the community towards any further maintenance,
development, and releases of the provider
  4.  Publish official releases on the official registry [2]
if/after Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published
by PMC members with access to the registry, or following guidelines
from ASF infra if they've any)

The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to
indicate "(binding)" with their vote?

[ ] +1  approve
[ ] +0  no opinion
[ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)

[1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
[2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers


Regards.

rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com [1]
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1
9SGUK
@shapeblue




nicolas.vazq...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com [1]
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1
9SGUK
@shapeblue
  



Links:
--
[1] http://www.shapeblue.com

Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project

2021-04-22 Thread Rohit Yadav 
+1 (binding) - I'll add my vote as well.


Regards.


From: Nicolas Vazquez 
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 16:42
To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org ; 
priv...@cloudstack.apache.org ; 
users@cloudstack.apache.org 
Subject: Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache 
CloudStack project

+1


Regards,

Nicolas Vazquez


From: Rohit Yadav 
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 6:05 AM
To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org ; 
priv...@cloudstack.apache.org 
Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org 
Subject: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache 
CloudStack project

Hi All,

Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a vote 
to gather consensus on the following actions:

  1.  Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on Apache 
Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former terraform 
cloudstack provider repository: 
https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: re-licensing 
from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
  2.  Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the 
repository
  3.  Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, and 
releases of the provider
  4.  Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache 
CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with 
access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)

The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate 
"(binding)" with their vote?

[ ] +1  approve
[ ] +0  no opinion
[ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)

[1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
[2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers


Regards.

rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue




nicolas.vazq...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue




rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue

Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project

2021-04-20 Thread Nicolas Vazquez 
+1


Regards,

Nicolas Vazquez


From: Rohit Yadav 
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 6:05 AM
To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org ; 
priv...@cloudstack.apache.org 
Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org 
Subject: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache 
CloudStack project

Hi All,

Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a vote 
to gather consensus on the following actions:

  1.  Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on Apache 
Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former terraform 
cloudstack provider repository: 
https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: re-licensing 
from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
  2.  Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the 
repository
  3.  Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, and 
releases of the provider
  4.  Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache 
CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with 
access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)

The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate 
"(binding)" with their vote?

[ ] +1  approve
[ ] +0  no opinion
[ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)

[1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
[2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers


Regards.

rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue




nicolas.vazq...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue

Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project

2021-04-20 Thread Rohit Yadav 
Hi Rene,

Thanks for replying and confirming your vote a non-binding.

The speed and cadence around releases may be slow which depends on how much 
bandwidth contributors have; mere lack of release shouldn't be interpreted as 
the project or sub-project become a graveyard. The CloudStack Kubernetes 
provider indeed has issues and PR activities and a release being discussed -  
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16, the main 
blocker on it so far was where do you release it (since most people want 
container builds) which has been solved recently by procuring access of 
dockerhub project by some PMC members under the official apache org (with help 
from ASF infra). Until k8s v1.15, the provider was shipped with k8s upstream so 
an immediate release after migration of repository was not necessary.

Regards.


From: Rene Moser 
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 17:56
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org 
Subject: Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache 
CloudStack project

Hi Rohit

On 19.04.21 13:37, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Hi René,
>
>  From the discussion thread on the terraform provider, you can see some 
> interest and commitment (https://markmail.org/message/xultlpdihdrrg4gq) and 
> quite recently Peter/Fraunhofer and I/ShapeBlue had a meeting with 
> Chris/Hashicorp to discuss and understand the handover/fork of the archived 
> provider repository that Hashicorp is unable to maintain it and we agreed on 
> the next steps; following which I started this voting thread.
>
> I think from a project point of view when integrations are not being 
> maintained by external projects, we should have a home within the Apache 
> CloudStack community to keep them alive and it makes it easy for ACS 
> contributors to work on it. There is nothing wrong with other 
> providers/plugins being brought in by contributors if there is interest and 
> demand in the community. We've done this before already, when the Kubernetes 
> project removed providers from their codebase we created a new home for it 
> within ACS project to be maintained and used by the ACS community: 
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider
>
> Can you reconsider your vote? Or, is that a -1 binding vote (i.e. a veto)? 
> Thanks.

I am still -1 but non-binding,

My point is "we give it a home" is not the same as "we as members of ASF
care, develop and maintain it".

I would't like it when the ASF becomes a graveyard of unmaintained
Cloudstack integrations. Looking at
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider, it doesn't
look like it gets much care either, there's not even be a release yet.

Regards
René








rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue

Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project

2021-04-20 Thread Boris Stoyanov 
+1 (binding)


On 15.04.21, 12:06, "Rohit Yadav"  wrote:

Hi All,

Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a 
vote to gather consensus on the following actions:

  1.  Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on 
Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former terraform 
cloudstack provider repository: 
https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: re-licensing 
from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
  2.  Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the 
repository
  3.  Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, 
and releases of the provider
  4.  Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after 
Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members 
with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've 
any)

The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate 
"(binding)" with their vote?

[ ] +1  approve
[ ] +0  no opinion
[ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)

[1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
[2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers


Regards.

rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue





boris.stoya...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue

Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project

2021-04-20 Thread Suresh Anaparti 
+1 , on this new repo under Apache. Hope the community takes it forward, with 
further improvements and maintenance of this provider.

Regards,
Suresh

On 15/04/21, 2:35 PM, "Rohit Yadav"  wrote:

Hi All,

Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a 
vote to gather consensus on the following actions:

  1.  Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on 
Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former terraform 
cloudstack provider repository: 
https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: re-licensing 
from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
  2.  Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the 
repository
  3.  Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, 
and releases of the provider
  4.  Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after 
Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members 
with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've 
any)

The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate 
"(binding)" with their vote?

[ ] +1  approve
[ ] +0  no opinion
[ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)

[1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
[2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers


Regards.

rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue





suresh.anapa...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue

Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project

2021-04-19 Thread Harikrishna Patnala 
+1

I agree with Rohit on this.

Regards,
Harikrishna

From: Rohit Yadav 
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 5:07 PM
To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org ; 
users@cloudstack.apache.org ; m...@renemoser.net 

Subject: Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache 
CloudStack project

Hi René,

>From the discussion thread on the terraform provider, you can see some 
>interest and commitment (https://markmail.org/message/xultlpdihdrrg4gq) and 
>quite recently Peter/Fraunhofer and I/ShapeBlue had a meeting with 
>Chris/Hashicorp to discuss and understand the handover/fork of the archived 
>provider repository that Hashicorp is unable to maintain it and we agreed on 
>the next steps; following which I started this voting thread.

I think from a project point of view when integrations are not being maintained 
by external projects, we should have a home within the Apache CloudStack 
community to keep them alive and it makes it easy for ACS contributors to work 
on it. There is nothing wrong with other providers/plugins being brought in by 
contributors if there is interest and demand in the community. We've done this 
before already, when the Kubernetes project removed providers from their 
codebase we created a new home for it within ACS project to be maintained and 
used by the ACS community: 
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider

Can you reconsider your vote? Or, is that a -1 binding vote (i.e. a veto)? 
Thanks.


Regards.


From: Rene Moser 
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 15:05
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org 
Subject: Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache 
CloudStack project

-1

First, I didn't see much commitment in actively supporting and
maintaining this integration.

Second, there are many integrations, is terraform the one to pick for
using cloudstack from the view of the ASF?
A "plugin" for a software developed outside of ASF? What about puppet,
ansible, chef? The imbalance of this view results to a -1 from me.

Regards
René

On 15.04.21 11:05, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a 
> vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
>
>1.  Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on 
> Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former 
> terraform cloudstack provider repository: 
> https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: 
> re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
>2.  Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the 
> repository
>3.  Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, 
> and releases of the provider
>4.  Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache 
> CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with 
> access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)
>
> The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate 
> "(binding)" with their vote?
>
> [ ] +1  approve
> [ ] +0  no opinion
> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>
> [1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
> [2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
>
>
> Regards.
>
> rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
> 3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>

rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue




harikrishna.patn...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SG
@shapeblue

Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project

2021-04-19 Thread Abhishek Kumar 
+1

From: Rohit Yadav 
Sent: 15 April 2021 14:35
To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org ; 
priv...@cloudstack.apache.org 
Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org 
Subject: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache 
CloudStack project

Hi All,

Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a vote 
to gather consensus on the following actions:

  1.  Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on Apache 
Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former terraform 
cloudstack provider repository: 
https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: re-licensing 
from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
  2.  Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the 
repository
  3.  Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, and 
releases of the provider
  4.  Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache 
CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with 
access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)

The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate 
"(binding)" with their vote?

[ ] +1  approve
[ ] +0  no opinion
[ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)

[1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
[2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers


Regards.

rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue




abhishek.ku...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue

Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project

2021-04-19 Thread Rene Moser 

Hi Rohit

On 19.04.21 13:37, Rohit Yadav wrote:

Hi René,

 From the discussion thread on the terraform provider, you can see some 
interest and commitment (https://markmail.org/message/xultlpdihdrrg4gq) and 
quite recently Peter/Fraunhofer and I/ShapeBlue had a meeting with 
Chris/Hashicorp to discuss and understand the handover/fork of the archived 
provider repository that Hashicorp is unable to maintain it and we agreed on 
the next steps; following which I started this voting thread.

I think from a project point of view when integrations are not being maintained 
by external projects, we should have a home within the Apache CloudStack 
community to keep them alive and it makes it easy for ACS contributors to work 
on it. There is nothing wrong with other providers/plugins being brought in by 
contributors if there is interest and demand in the community. We've done this 
before already, when the Kubernetes project removed providers from their 
codebase we created a new home for it within ACS project to be maintained and 
used by the ACS community: 
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider

Can you reconsider your vote? Or, is that a -1 binding vote (i.e. a veto)? 
Thanks.


I am still -1 but non-binding,

My point is "we give it a home" is not the same as "we as members of ASF 
care, develop and maintain it".


I would't like it when the ASF becomes a graveyard of unmaintained 
Cloudstack integrations. Looking at 
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider, it doesn't 
look like it gets much care either, there's not even be a release yet.


Regards
René

Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project

2021-04-19 Thread Rohit Yadav 
Hi René,

>From the discussion thread on the terraform provider, you can see some 
>interest and commitment (https://markmail.org/message/xultlpdihdrrg4gq) and 
>quite recently Peter/Fraunhofer and I/ShapeBlue had a meeting with 
>Chris/Hashicorp to discuss and understand the handover/fork of the archived 
>provider repository that Hashicorp is unable to maintain it and we agreed on 
>the next steps; following which I started this voting thread.

I think from a project point of view when integrations are not being maintained 
by external projects, we should have a home within the Apache CloudStack 
community to keep them alive and it makes it easy for ACS contributors to work 
on it. There is nothing wrong with other providers/plugins being brought in by 
contributors if there is interest and demand in the community. We've done this 
before already, when the Kubernetes project removed providers from their 
codebase we created a new home for it within ACS project to be maintained and 
used by the ACS community: 
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider

Can you reconsider your vote? Or, is that a -1 binding vote (i.e. a veto)? 
Thanks.


Regards.


From: Rene Moser 
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 15:05
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org 
Subject: Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache 
CloudStack project

-1

First, I didn't see much commitment in actively supporting and
maintaining this integration.

Second, there are many integrations, is terraform the one to pick for
using cloudstack from the view of the ASF?
A "plugin" for a software developed outside of ASF? What about puppet,
ansible, chef? The imbalance of this view results to a -1 from me.

Regards
René

On 15.04.21 11:05, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a 
> vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
>
>1.  Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on 
> Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former 
> terraform cloudstack provider repository: 
> https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: 
> re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
>2.  Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the 
> repository
>3.  Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, 
> and releases of the provider
>4.  Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache 
> CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with 
> access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)
>
> The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate 
> "(binding)" with their vote?
>
> [ ] +1  approve
> [ ] +0  no opinion
> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>
> [1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
> [2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
>
>
> Regards.
>
> rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
> 3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>

rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue

Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project

2021-04-17 Thread Daan Hoogland 
+1


On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 5:42 PM Wido den Hollander  wrote:

> +1
>
> See the post below which I agree with
>
> On 16/04/2021 02:53, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
> > +1
> >
> >  I've yet to find something as a viable alternative to Terraform that
> > allows flexible switching between cloud providers (or even co-using)
> > without huge code rewrites. One of Cloudstack's big sellers is it's
> > relatively simple and stable for setup and maintenance (not
> > over-abstracted, low cost to entry, can be installed without direct
> > internet access for private clouds, etc.).  The downside is that, much
> > like every other cloud API, it requires a *lot* of custom code to
> > integrate for end-users/developers, so folks tend to migrate to whoever
> > has the fastest and lowest cost of adoption instead of ease of setup and
> > maintenance.
> >
> >  Many [citation needed] folks are using Terraform (brief Internet
> > research: IEEE, Whole Foods, Udemy, Uber, and many more)
> >
> >  As a potential alternative, if a an AWS/Azure/GCP/whatever
> > compatibility layer or similar was maintained to the point that you
> > could just document to use that Terraform provider, then this becomes
> > moot. (Though that is really just picking which abstraction layer to
> > maintain, so maybe not being tied to another company is good.)
> >
> >  I also keep running across people mis-understand Terraform a lot. It
> > doesn't [usually] compete with puppet/ansible/chef nor things like
> > nagios/bro/solarwinds/elastic:
> >
> >  1. Terraform is used to provision from nothing. It is an external
> > tool that interacts with the cloud APIs for everything from instance
> > provisioning, volume management, and networking, etc.
> >  2. Ansible/puppet/chef to do stateful configuration management and
> > similar operations after provisioning (in most cases).
> >  3. Elastic/nagios/bro/solarwinds/whatever for continuous monitoring
> > for things that aren't cloud-native and need stability because they
> > can't just be "re-spawned" on failure.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Nathan McGarvey
> >
> > P.s.: If voting +2 were allowed, I'd be a +3. :)
> >
> >
> > On 4/15/21 4:05 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start
> a vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
> >>
> >>1.  Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on
> Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former
> terraform cloudstack provider repository:
> https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note:
> re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
> >>2.  Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the
> repository
> >>3.  Work with the community towards any further maintenance,
> development, and releases of the provider
> >>4.  Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after
> Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members
> with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if
> they've any)
> >>
> >> The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
> >> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to
> indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
> >>
> >> [ ] +1  approve
> >> [ ] +0  no opinion
> >> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
> >>
> >> [1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
> >> [2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards.
> >>
> >> rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
> >> www.shapeblue.com
> >> 3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
> >> @shapeblue
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>


-- 
Daan

Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project

2021-04-16 Thread Wido den Hollander 

+1

See the post below which I agree with

On 16/04/2021 02:53, Nathan McGarvey wrote:

+1

 I've yet to find something as a viable alternative to Terraform that
allows flexible switching between cloud providers (or even co-using)
without huge code rewrites. One of Cloudstack's big sellers is it's
relatively simple and stable for setup and maintenance (not
over-abstracted, low cost to entry, can be installed without direct
internet access for private clouds, etc.).  The downside is that, much
like every other cloud API, it requires a *lot* of custom code to
integrate for end-users/developers, so folks tend to migrate to whoever
has the fastest and lowest cost of adoption instead of ease of setup and
maintenance.

 Many [citation needed] folks are using Terraform (brief Internet
research: IEEE, Whole Foods, Udemy, Uber, and many more)

 As a potential alternative, if a an AWS/Azure/GCP/whatever
compatibility layer or similar was maintained to the point that you
could just document to use that Terraform provider, then this becomes
moot. (Though that is really just picking which abstraction layer to
maintain, so maybe not being tied to another company is good.)

 I also keep running across people mis-understand Terraform a lot. It
doesn't [usually] compete with puppet/ansible/chef nor things like
nagios/bro/solarwinds/elastic:

 1. Terraform is used to provision from nothing. It is an external
tool that interacts with the cloud APIs for everything from instance
provisioning, volume management, and networking, etc.
 2. Ansible/puppet/chef to do stateful configuration management and
similar operations after provisioning (in most cases).
 3. Elastic/nagios/bro/solarwinds/whatever for continuous monitoring
for things that aren't cloud-native and need stability because they
can't just be "re-spawned" on failure.


Thanks,
-Nathan McGarvey

P.s.: If voting +2 were allowed, I'd be a +3. :)


On 4/15/21 4:05 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote:

Hi All,

Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a vote 
to gather consensus on the following actions:

   1.  Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on Apache 
Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former terraform cloudstack 
provider repository: https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: 
re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
   2.  Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the 
repository
   3.  Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, 
and releases of the provider
   4.  Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache 
CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with 
access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)

The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate 
"(binding)" with their vote?

[ ] +1  approve
[ ] +0  no opinion
[ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)

[1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
[2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers


Regards.

rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue

Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project

2021-04-15 Thread Nathan McGarvey 
+1

I've yet to find something as a viable alternative to Terraform that
allows flexible switching between cloud providers (or even co-using)
without huge code rewrites. One of Cloudstack's big sellers is it's
relatively simple and stable for setup and maintenance (not
over-abstracted, low cost to entry, can be installed without direct
internet access for private clouds, etc.).  The downside is that, much
like every other cloud API, it requires a *lot* of custom code to
integrate for end-users/developers, so folks tend to migrate to whoever
has the fastest and lowest cost of adoption instead of ease of setup and
maintenance.

Many [citation needed] folks are using Terraform (brief Internet
research: IEEE, Whole Foods, Udemy, Uber, and many more)

As a potential alternative, if a an AWS/Azure/GCP/whatever
compatibility layer or similar was maintained to the point that you
could just document to use that Terraform provider, then this becomes
moot. (Though that is really just picking which abstraction layer to
maintain, so maybe not being tied to another company is good.)

I also keep running across people mis-understand Terraform a lot. It
doesn't [usually] compete with puppet/ansible/chef nor things like
nagios/bro/solarwinds/elastic:

1. Terraform is used to provision from nothing. It is an external
tool that interacts with the cloud APIs for everything from instance
provisioning, volume management, and networking, etc.
2. Ansible/puppet/chef to do stateful configuration management and
similar operations after provisioning (in most cases).
3. Elastic/nagios/bro/solarwinds/whatever for continuous monitoring
for things that aren't cloud-native and need stability because they
can't just be "re-spawned" on failure.


Thanks,
-Nathan McGarvey

P.s.: If voting +2 were allowed, I'd be a +3. :)


On 4/15/21 4:05 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a 
> vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
> 
>   1.  Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on Apache 
> Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former terraform 
> cloudstack provider repository: 
> https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: 
> re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
>   2.  Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the 
> repository
>   3.  Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, 
> and releases of the provider
>   4.  Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache 
> CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with 
> access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)
> 
> The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate 
> "(binding)" with their vote?
> 
> [ ] +1  approve
> [ ] +0  no opinion
> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
> 
> [1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
> [2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
> 
> 
> Regards.
> 
> rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com 
> www.shapeblue.com
> 3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
> @shapeblue
>   
>  
> 
>

Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project

2021-04-15 Thread Rene Moser 

-1

First, I didn't see much commitment in actively supporting and 
maintaining this integration.


Second, there are many integrations, is terraform the one to pick for 
using cloudstack from the view of the ASF?
A "plugin" for a software developed outside of ASF? What about puppet, 
ansible, chef? The imbalance of this view results to a -1 from me.


Regards
René

On 15.04.21 11:05, Rohit Yadav wrote:

Hi All,

Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a vote 
to gather consensus on the following actions:

   1.  Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on Apache 
Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former terraform cloudstack 
provider repository: https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: 
re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
   2.  Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the 
repository
   3.  Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, 
and releases of the provider
   4.  Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache 
CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with 
access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)

The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate 
"(binding)" with their vote?

[ ] +1  approve
[ ] +0  no opinion
[ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)

[1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
[2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers


Regards.

rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue