Hi Gil,
On 03/16/2012 04:43 PM, Gil Yehuda wrote:
> Let me make a suggestion. There are many participants here who
> represent a variety of interests, some are in large companies, some in
> small, some academics, some purist technologists, etc. Rackspace
> perceived and articulated the need to create a legal entity because of
> feedback from the community that OpenStack will do better if it is
> disconnected from one vendor. They listened and are in middle of the
> lengthy and complex process of doing this. We should appreciate their
> investment in this activity.
>
> The community can help. Let's focus on forward progress. We all have
> concerns that we hope the foundation will address. Let's articulate
> them explicitly as risks (in a list, on a wiki).
Wise words. I agree that we need to start cataloguing the various
concerns and risks people have, as well as alternative proposals that
have been articulated. A logical step after that, IMHO, is for Mark and
Jonathan to synthesise the results of that into a new draft for the
foundation scope and relationship with the developer and contributor
community.
It definitely feels like the conversation is getting circular at this
point, with the same points being made multiple times. The time has come
to condense all that and modify the initial proposal (or go back to the
drawing board) based on all the feedback.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Neary
Neary Consulting - http://www.neary-consulting.com
Tel: +33 982 382 735
Cell: +33 677 019 213
On 03/16/2012 04:43 PM, Gil Yehuda wrote:
> Let me make a suggestion. There are many participants here who
> represent a variety of interests, some are in large companies, some in
> small, some academics, some purist technologists, etc. Rackspace
> perceived and articulated the need to create a legal entity because of
> feedback from the community that OpenStack will do better if it is
> disconnected from one vendor. They listened and are in middle of the
> lengthy and complex process of doing this. We should appreciate their
> investment in this activity.
>
> The community can help. Let's focus on forward progress. We all have
> concerns that we hope the foundation will address. Let's articulate
> them explicitly as risks (in a list, on a wiki).
Wise words. I agree that we need to start cataloguing the various
concerns and risks people have, as well as alternative proposals that
have been articulated. A logical step after that, IMHO, is for Mark and
Jonathan to synthesise the results of that into a new draft for the
foundation scope and relationship with the developer and contributor
community.
It definitely feels like the conversation is getting circular at this
point, with the same points being made multiple times. The time has come
to condense all that and modify the initial proposal (or go back to the
drawing board) based on all the feedback.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Neary
Neary Consulting - http://www.neary-consulting.com
Tel: +33 982 382 735
Cell: +33 677 019 213