settingsLogin | Registersettings

[openstack-dev] stackforge projects are not second class citizens

0 votes

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=openstackclient-group&metric=commitshttp://stackalytics.com/?module=magnum-group&metric=commits
http://stackalytics.com/?module=magnum-group&metric=commits


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
asked Jun 15, 2015 in openstack-dev by Joe_Gordon (24,620 points)   2 5 8

16 Responses

0 votes

On 06/15/2015 06:20 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.

You have not given enough time to see the effects of the Big Tent, IMHO.
Lots of folks in the corporate world just found out about it at the
design summit, frankly.

The only thing I think this information changes is what
peoples expectations should be when applying to join OpenStack.

What is your assumption of what people's expectations are when applying
to join OpenStack?

Best,
-jay


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Jun 15, 2015 by Jay_Pipes (59,760 points)   3 10 14
0 votes

Joe,

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.

I can't agree on this.

) Rally is facing core-reviewers bottleneck currently.
We have about 130 (40 at the begging on kilo) patches on review.
*) In IRC +15 online members in average
*) We merged about x2 if we compare to kilo-1 vs liberty-1
*) I see a lot of interest from various companies to use Rally (because it
is *official
now)

Best regards,
Boris Pavlovic

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Jay Pipes jaypipes@gmail.com wrote:

On 06/15/2015 06:20 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.

You have not given enough time to see the effects of the Big Tent, IMHO.
Lots of folks in the corporate world just found out about it at the design
summit, frankly.

The only thing I think this information changes is what

peoples expectations should be when applying to join OpenStack.

What is your assumption of what people's expectations are when applying to
join OpenStack?

Best,
-jay


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Jun 15, 2015 by boris_at_pavlovic.me (6,900 points)   1 4 7
0 votes

On 06/15/2015 07:30 AM, Boris Pavlovic wrote:
Joe,

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.

I can't agree on this.

) Rally is facing core-reviewers bottleneck currently.
We have about 130 (40 at the begging on kilo) patches on review.
*) In IRC +15 online members in average
*) We merged about x2 if we compare to kilo-1 vs liberty-1
*) I see a lot of interest from various companies to use Rally (because
it is *official
now)

I'd also like to note that Rally is the only project in openstack/ that
has independent, non-affiliated contributors in the top 5 contributors
to the project. I think that is an excellent sign that the Rally
contributor community is growing slowly but surely in ways that we (as a
community) want to encourage.

What degree the Big Tent has to do with this is, of course, up for
debate. Just wanted to point out something that differentiates the Rally
contributor team from other openstack/ project teams.

Best,
-jay


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Jun 15, 2015 by Jay_Pipes (59,760 points)   3 10 14
0 votes

On 15/06/15 19:20 +0900, 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 

We should also add Zaqar to this list. It was incubated when the Big
Tent came in and that's the only (?) reason why the project was not
requested to go through the Big Tent request process.

Zaqar has gotten more contributors - most of them at the end of Kilo -
from the OpenStack community. Some of them without affiliation.

I don't believe it's completely related to the Big Tent change but I
do think not having that "integrated" tag helped the project to gain
more attention from the rest of the community.

Cheers,
Flavio

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] hhttp://stackalytics.com/?module=magnum-group&metric=commits


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

responded Jun 15, 2015 by Flavio_Percoco (36,960 points)   3 7 11
0 votes

Joe Gordon wrote:
[...]
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.

Also note that release and summit months are traditionally less active
(some would say "totally dead"), so comparing April-May to anything else
is likely to not mean much. I'd wait for a complete cycle before
answering this question. Or at the very least compare it to
October-November from the previous cycle.

If we do so for the few projects that existed in October 2014, that
would point to a rather steep increase:

Look at Oct/Nov in:
http://stackalytics.com/?module=murano-group&metric=commits&release=kilo

And compare to April/May in:
http://stackalytics.com/?module=murano-group&metric=commits&release=liberty

Same for Rally:
http://stackalytics.com/?module=rally-group&metric=commits&release=kilo
http://stackalytics.com/?module=rally-group&metric=commits&release=liberty

Only Congress was slightly more active in the first months of Kilo than
in the first months of Liberty.

--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Jun 15, 2015 by Thierry_Carrez (57,480 points)   3 8 13
0 votes

I'd also like to point out that if the state of the projects has encouraged new contributors to OpenStack, then their contributions will likely take a couple to a few months to become visible in a significant way in the statistics. Two to three months to get your first merge is extremely common among the subgroup developers new to OpenStack.

--Rocky

Thierry Carrez wrote:

Joe Gordon wrote:
[...]
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.

Also note that release and summit months are traditionally less active
(some would say "totally dead"), so comparing April-May to anything else
is likely to not mean much. I'd wait for a complete cycle before
answering this question. Or at the very least compare it to
October-November from the previous cycle.

If we do so for the few projects that existed in October 2014, that
would point to a rather steep increase:

Look at Oct/Nov in:
http://stackalytics.com/?module=murano-group&metric=commits&release=kilo

And compare to April/May in:
http://stackalytics.com/?module=murano-group&metric=commits&release=liberty

Same for Rally:
http://stackalytics.com/?module=rally-group&metric=commits&release=kilo
http://stackalytics.com/?module=rally-group&metric=commits&release=liberty

Only Congress was slightly more active in the first months of Kilo than
in the first months of Liberty.

--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Jun 15, 2015 by Rochelle_Grober (7,040 points)   1 3 3
0 votes

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.

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-request@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-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Jun 16, 2015 by gordon_chung (19,300 points)   2 3 8
0 votes

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-request@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-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

responded Jun 16, 2015 by Flavio_Percoco (36,960 points)   3 7 11
0 votes

You may also find my explanation about the Big Tent helpful in this
interview with Niki Acosta and Jeff Dickey:

http://blogs.cisco.com/cloud/ospod-29-jay-pipes

Best,
-jay

On 06/16/2015 06:09 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
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-request@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-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Jun 16, 2015 by Jay_Pipes (59,760 points)   3 10 14
0 votes

In Murano project we do see a positive impact of BigTent model. Since
Murano was accepted as a part of BigTent community we had a lot of
conversations with potential users. They were driven exactly by the fact
that Murano is now "officially" recognized in OpenStack community. It might
be a wrong perception, but this is a perception they have.
Most of the guys we met are enterprises for whom catalog functionality is
interesting. The problem with enterprises is that their thinking periods
are often more than 6-9 months. They are not individuals who can start
contributing over a night. They need some time to create proper org
structure changes to organize development process. The benefits of that is
more stable and predictable development over time as soon as they start
contributing.

Thanks
Gosha

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Jay Pipes jaypipes@gmail.com wrote:

You may also find my explanation about the Big Tent helpful in this
interview with Niki Acosta and Jeff Dickey:

http://blogs.cisco.com/cloud/ospod-29-jay-pipes

Best,
-jay

On 06/16/2015 06:09 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:

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-request@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-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

--
Georgy Okrokvertskhov
Architect,
OpenStack Platform Products,
Mirantis
http://www.mirantis.com
Tel. +1 650 963 9828
Mob. +1 650 996 3284


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Jun 16, 2015 by Georgy_Okrokvertskho (3,820 points)   2 4
...