Changing our mission (was Mission statement (was Re: Aeolus Developer Conference Report. ACKS REQUIRED BY NOV 13.))

Mo Morsi mmorsi at redhat.com
Thu Nov 15 03:53:10 UTC 2012


On 11/14/2012 03:24 PM, Scott Seago wrote:
>
>>> We took the approach a while back to focus more on multi-instance
>>> deployments as one of the differentiating factors here. Lots of people
>>> handle single instances.
>> Why aren't they as pervasive as they can be? There is no single defacto
>> open source standard for simply directly deploying to a single generic
>> cloud infrastructure provider from the command line yet.
>>
>> We have the capability, the man (and woman!) power, and are in the
>> perfect position to become that solution. Once that is in place and
>> widely used, there are a million things that can be done ontop of it.
>>
>> But we have to take it one step at a time and the current monolithic
>> conductor-based approach isn't working. So I'm suggesting we cut our
>> losses, trim the project, and try some different things.
>
> Ahh, but that's a different discussion entirely. The 'mission
> statement' discussion is an attempt to summarize _what we're doing now
> (and intending to do)_ i.e. lets get our current mission written down
> for others to understand.
>
> It appears that you're suggesting something at a different level --
> actually changing our mission (regardless of whether it's written
> down) -- i.e. the suggestion that we stop focusing on multi-instance
> deployments and go back to supporting single instances better. That's
> a discussion that will probably get lost in the details of an existing
> discussion whose goal is to "write down what we're all about" -- so it
> probably warrants a separate discussion.

I don't see the difference between changing the mission statement and
changing the mission. In any case the single versus multi ordeal is just
a part of what is being discussing here.


>
> That said, we'd need really compelling reason to redefine our mission
> to exclude something that we currently support, since it would
> essentially require Red Hat to, in future product releases, either
> abandon support of Deployments, or take on that bit of functionality
> without the community. I agree with the need to separate out the
> deployments bit from the  single-instance bit -- to allow users to use
> one or the other, or both -- but I don't see any obvious reasons to
> abandon it entirely.
>
>

The obvious compelling reason is this far into the project, we have no
publically visible users. Migration scripts can always be written to
convert the old to the new if people demand it.

  -Mo




More information about the aeolus-devel mailing list