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 06/16/2015 08:16 PM, Georgy Okrokvertskhov wrote:
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.

+1, the same experience as we had with ironic-inspector (former
ironic-discoverd)

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
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


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 18, 2015 by Dmitry_Tantsur (18,080 points)   2 3 7
0 votes

Joe,

I must respectfully disagree. The statistics you used to indicate that Magnum did not benefit from joining the tent are not telling the whole story. Facts:

1) When we had our Midcycle just before joining OpenStack in March we had 24 contributors from 13 affiliations when we joined. You were there, remember? We now have 55 contributors from 22 affiliations.

2) There is a ramp time in the number of reviews and commits that newcomers offer. You don't just show up and drop 10 new commits a day. Most of our new contributors have just joined the effort. I can tell by their behavior that they are gearing up to participate in a more meaningful way. They are showing up at team meetings, discussing blueprints, discussing issues on the ML, and just staring to work on a few bugs. I am sure that commits are are trailing indicator of engagement, not a leading one.

3) Contributors who participated the most in the last cycle are not producing as many reviews this time around. Several of them are working on productization strategy and execution to bring related next generation cloud services to market. This focus happens downstream, not upstream. The top commit contributors this cycle are from HP and Intel, who were only minimally involved before we joined OpenStack.

4) As a project proceeds through maturation, commit velocity decreases as the complexity of new features increases. We picked the low hanging fruit for Magnum, and now we are focusing on harder work that requires more planning and collaboration, and less blasting out of "try this" code. Our quality expectations are higher now.

Joining worked for Magnum.

When you stay in Stackforge, you have a limited window of time to build community, and then it fades. You don't need to look far to find examples of that. Our community certainly does treat Stackforge projects as second class. The process of starting Magnum reaffirmed that fact for me. I even have reviews where I was explicitly told in -1 vote comments that Stackforge was a second class and that was the point of it. Unfortunately Stackforge's reputation has been fouled because of the way we have treated it. I don't think that can be fixed. Once you are labeled a tramp, you don't recover from that socially. Stackforge is our tramp now, like it or not. Big Tent is our opportunity to build an inclusive community right. Let's not go changing it before we have given it a fair chance first.

Thanks,

Adrian

On Jun 15, 2015, at 3:25 AM, Joe Gordon joe.gordon0@gmail.com 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] 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

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 18, 2015 by Adrian_Otto (11,060 points)   2 3 6
0 votes

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Joe Gordon joe.gordon0@gmail.com 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.

Looks like my previous analysis was a bit off. Stackalytics is less useful
for gathering statistics on contributons then I originally thought. Both
the UX and REST APIs are very limited.

Instead I looked at the number of commits and contributors directly from
git (looking only the main repo for each project, ignoring clients etc).

Of the projects listed above, all of them have the most contribuors after
joining OpenStack. In comparison projects already in OpenStack saw the most
number of contributors in the two months before the first big tent
additions. I think this is due to the Kilo release. So it looks like there
is a measurable bump in the number of contributors once a project joins
OpenStack (although I am finding it diffucult to draw any conclusion about
the number of commits). But when looking further into the data we see a
different story.

  • Magnums large spike on contributors (10 additional contributors) but when
    looking at the contributor diff, the number should really be closer to 5.
  • The 5 additional contributors in Murano can be attributed to new
    developers from an existing company plus single patches from from two
    developers about sql driver and oslo.

It is hard to read into the jump in contributors after joining the big
tent. But there is definitly something going on, just unclear what it means
over a longer period of time.

data: http://paste.openstack.org/show/310710
code: http://paste.openstack.org/show/310711

What really matters should be diversity, it is easy to see a bump in
development as compaines already involved in a project add more resources
too it. IMHO one of the hopes for a project joining the big tent is to get
new companies to join. Thankfully this is where stackalytics is very
useful. We can compare contributions by company from kilo and liberty.

From the little data we have so far, here are my revised conclusions:

  • Joining the big tent doesn't automatically mean new companies will
    contribute
  • Projects that were fairly diverse when in stackforge get new contributing
    companies after joining the big tent.
  • At this point it is unclear to me if the inverse (projects that weren't
    very diverse before, don't gain new contributors) is true as well.

So it looks like joining 'OpenStack' sometimes has a clearly measurable
correlation with a projects corporate diversity.

It will be very interesting to re-analyize the numbers once Liberty is
released.

So what does this mean? At least in the short term moving from
Stackfokeystonerge 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
responded Jun 21, 2015 by Joe_Gordon (24,620 points)   2 5 8
0 votes

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.

As I responded in a different email, I tend to agree with you. Although
there are some clear trends towards new contributing companies already.

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?

That joining OpenStack will result in more companies contributing to a
given project.

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 21, 2015 by Joe_Gordon (24,620 points)   2 5 8
0 votes

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Adrian Otto adrian.otto@rackspace.com
wrote:

Joe,

I must respectfully disagree. The statistics you used to indicate that
Magnum did not benefit from joining the tent are not telling the whole
story. Facts:

Agreed, after looking at the numbers some more, I don't know if i would
call stackforge second class, but it is definitely not 100% first class.

1) When we had our Midcycle just before joining OpenStack in March we
had 24 contributors from 13 affiliations when we joined. You were there,
remember? We now have 55 contributors from 22 affiliations.

2) There is a ramp time in the number of reviews and commits that
newcomers offer. You don't just show up and drop 10 new commits a day. Most
of our new contributors have just joined the effort. I can tell by their
behavior that they are gearing up to participate in a more meaningful way.
They are showing up at team meetings, discussing blueprints, discussing
issues on the ML, and just staring to work on a few bugs. I am sure that
commits are are trailing indicator of engagement, not a leading one.

Agreed, we only have very preliminary numbers right now.

3) Contributors who participated the most in the last cycle are not
producing as many reviews this time around. Several of them are working on
productization strategy and execution to bring related next generation
cloud services to market. This focus happens downstream, not upstream. The
top commit contributors this cycle are from HP and Intel, who were only
minimally involved before we joined OpenStack.

Yup, the new contributions from HP and Intel appear to have a strong
correlation with joining OpenStack.

4) As a project proceeds through maturation, commit velocity decreases
as the complexity of new features increases. We picked the low hanging
fruit for Magnum, and now we are focusing on harder work that requires more
planning and collaboration, and less blasting out of "try this" code. Our
quality expectations are higher now.

Joining worked for Magnum.

after revisiting this issue, I tend to agree. But I am still struggling to
go beyond correlation and reach causality. Since this could simply be
attributed to Magnum's growth (it already attracted 13 companies in
stackforge. Furthermore why do you think joining worked for Magnum? Joining
doesn't appear to work for every project.

When you stay in Stackforge, you have a limited window of time to build
community, and then it fades. You don't need to look far to find examples
of that. Our community certainly

I don't think this is unique to stackforge, I think this is true in
OpenStack as well. OpenStack is littered with projects that lack a diverse
set of contributors.

does treat Stackforge projects as second class. The process of starting
Magnum reaffirmed that fact for me. I even have reviews where I was
explicitly told in -1 vote comments that Stackforge was a second class and
that was the point of it. Unfortunately Stackforge's reputation has been
fouled because of the way we have treated it. I don't think that can be
fixed. Once you are labeled a tramp, you don't recover from that socially.
Stackforge is our tramp now, like it or not. Big Tent is our opportunity to
build an inclusive community right. Let's not go changing it before we have
given it a fair chance first.

I never intended this email to call for change. I was simply trying to
evaluate one of the big tent motivations, now that we have preliminary
numbers on it. And my initial analysis was wrong.

Thanks,

Adrian

On Jun 15, 2015, at 3:25 AM, Joe Gordon joe.gordon0@gmail.com 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


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 21, 2015 by Joe_Gordon (24,620 points)   2 5 8
0 votes

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Georgy Okrokvertskhov <
gokrokvertskhov@mirantis.com> wrote:

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.

Sure, I was ignoring the question about potential users, and only looking
at 'development resources'. Although I am interested in seeing how the
user's view of being official changes now that it means something very
different (governance wise) in the big tent.

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


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 21, 2015 by Joe_Gordon (24,620 points)   2 5 8
...