On 11 August 2016 at 11:53, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 08/11/2016 11:02 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> On 08/11/2016 02:14 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>>> > Tying this to single CM be it Ansible, Puppet or Chief will immediately
exclude
>>> > participation from administrators that are using the other two popularly
used CM
>>> > that's a fact and as obvious as it can be so in the end of the day
the
>>> > discussion is about implementing and supporting all three of them or
none, not
>>> > just single one be it Ansible, Puppet or Chief it does not matter.
>>> >
>> Using Ansible to solve a set of constrained, specific problems does not preclude
>> using other tools. However, we have finite resources and so it makes the most
>> sense to focus on doing one thing well *first*. We have available resources and
>> expertise among the Ansible crowd, which makes it a great place to start.
>>
>> I think that's where our disconnect has always been, Jóhann. You are an
idealist
>> (which I respect), but we don't live in an idealistic world. In a perfect
world,
>> yes we would support every possible technology out there, it would all work
>> without conflicting and everyone would have a pet unicorn. It's good to have
>> idealistic goals (and I share them), but it's also important to have
realistic
>> milestones. This is an attempt to get closer to that ideal by taking smaller
steps.
>
> I do believe my perception of the world is far greater than yours, and this is
> not about ideals, this is about maximizing community participation which in the
> long run will help the community to grow and to sustain itself, in which failure
> to exactly that can be directly seen here otherwise we would not be having this
> discussion in the first place. ( those finite resources you refer to are self
> inflicting wounds. )
>
The thing I'm missing from your statement is *how* you think splitting our
attention to a variety of different tools somehow leads to a maximized community
participation. You're skipping an important intermediate step and I can't make
that same leap.
I don't know if anyone else can either. Because if they did we
wouldn't have 'this problem'.
The way I look at it, there's an old saying that fits: "The
fox that chases two
rabbits will catch neither." Interacting with an upstream community requires a
lot of domain-specific knowledge and focus; it really means that someone has to
be dedicated to doing so. Asking that person to also become an expert on two
other similar ways of doing something leads to confusion and being spread too thin.
So show me how you would do it. I'm not trying to be antagonistic; if you have
ideas on *how* such a thing could be accomplished with the resources available,
I'm certainly willing to listen.
Or even without the resources available. Just having a 'these are the
steps to the promised land' would be useful. Because if it can't be
done here, then where can it be done?
--
Stephen J Smoogen.