54 lines
2.6 KiB
Plaintext
54 lines
2.6 KiB
Plaintext
Let's make OpenStack great again.
|
|
|
|
If you don't know me, I'm very good. The code and designs I make
|
|
are tremendous, and I intend to contribute to the TC bigly. The other
|
|
candidates are sad, and they want OpenStack to be a third world project,
|
|
no good.
|
|
|
|
OpenStack, could be the greatest cloud in the history of clouds, but to
|
|
get there, you need me, to make sure our clouds are the greatest. We
|
|
need to test the clouds, I'm talking about EXTREME cloud vetting,
|
|
EXTREME cloud vetting. You know the other TC's are laughing at us,
|
|
because we don't have such a great TC.
|
|
|
|
The biggest problem we have is people rewriting parts of OpenStack in Go.
|
|
They're bringing threads, they're compiled, with errors handled at the
|
|
point of return, and some of them, I assume, are good programmers. So
|
|
when I'm elected to the TC, I will build a wall, and make Go pay for it.
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
Ok if you're still reading and you don't take things too seriously,
|
|
then hello. I'm Clint Byrum, known as "SpamapS" on IRC, and I want to
|
|
serve you on the OpenStack Technical Committee. You may recognize me
|
|
from various scalability and deployment discussions.
|
|
|
|
OpenStack has a number of challenges that face it in the immediate. There
|
|
is a crisis of identity that we're only just now wrapping our arms
|
|
around, and a question about whether or not this should be something
|
|
decided at a centralized level by the TC or not. Are we a toobox? Are
|
|
we a product? Can we be both? These are real things, and the TC should
|
|
debate them. However, I don't think the TC should force the community to
|
|
do anything it doesn't want to do as a whole. If the community really
|
|
wants to end the big tent, we should listen, inform, and debate, and
|
|
decide whether or not we think it is in the best interest to do so based
|
|
on our own expertise, the experience thus far, and a plan to go forward.
|
|
|
|
It is my personal belief that the big tent has largely been a success
|
|
for OpenStack project teams, but created a problem of confusion that we
|
|
should resolve. The recent efforts to more clearly define OpenStack have
|
|
been positive, and I would like to help the TC continue down that road.
|
|
|
|
In fact, I have recently started an Architecture Working Group to help
|
|
define and shape what OpenStack is at a technical design level. Whether
|
|
pieces have been evolved apart from one another, or specifically designed
|
|
and built to spec, OpenStack hasn't done a good job of writing some
|
|
of those things down. I believe the Architecture Working Group will
|
|
be capable of improving that, and I want the TC to have some of that
|
|
influence built in.
|
|
|
|
So, if you want to see more design, consensus building, and an eye for
|
|
scaling on the TC, then please consider casting a vote for me.
|
|
|
|
Thank you.
|