7 Open Source lessons from your English Composition class

We often act as if coding, and especially open source coding, is a unique activity and that’s hubris.   Most human activities follow common social patterns that should inform how we organize open source projects.  For example, research papers are very social and community connected activities.  Especially when published, written compositions are highly interconnected activities.  Even the most basic writing builds off other people’s work with due credit and tries create something worth being used by later authors.

Here are seven principles to good writing that translate directly to good open source development:

  1. Research before writing – take some time to understand the background and goals of the project otherwise you re-invent or draw bad conclusions.
  2. Give credit where due – your work has more credibility when you acknowledge and cross-reference the work you are building on. It also shows readers that you are not re-inventing.
  3. Follow the top authors – many topics have widely known authors who act as “super nodes” in the relationship graph. Recognizing these people will help guide your work, leads to better research and builds community.
  4. Find proof readers – All writers need someone with perspective to review their work before it’s finished. Since we all need reviewers, we all also need to do reviews.
  5. Rework to get clarity – Simplicity and clarity take extra effort but they pay huge dividends for your audience.
  6. Don’t surprise your reader – Readers expect patterns and are distracted when you don’t follow them.
  7. Socialize your ideas – the purpose of writing/code is to make ideas durable. If it’s worth writing then it’s worth sharing.  Your artifact does not announce itself – you need to invest time in explaining it to people and making it accessible.

Thanks to Sean Roberts (a Hidden Influences collaborator) for his contributions to this post.  At OSCON, Sean Roberts said “companies should count open source as research [and development investment]” and I thought he’s said “…as research [papers].”  The misunderstanding was quickly resolved and we were happy to discover that both interpretations were useful.

The Upstream Imperative: paving the way for content creators is required for platform success

Since content is king, platform companies (like Google, Microsoft, Twitter, Facebook and Amazon) win by attracting developers to build on their services.  Open source tooling and frameworks are the critical interfaces for these adopters; consequently, they must invest in building communities around those platforms even if it means open sourcing previously internal only tools.

This post expands on one of my OSCON observations: companies who write lots of code have discovered an imperative to upstream their internal projects.   For background, review my thoughts about open source and supply chain management.

Huh?  What is an “upstream imperative?”  It sounds like what salmon do during spawning then read the post-script!

Historically, companies with a lot of internal development tools had no inventive to open those projects.  In fact, the “collaboration tax” of open source discouraged companies from sharing code for essential operations.   Historically, open source was considered less featured and slower than commercial or internal projects; however, this perception has been totally shattered.  So companies are faced with a balance between the overhead of supporting external needs (aka collaboration) and the innovation those users bring into the effort.

Until recently, this balance usually tipped towards opening a project but under-investing in the community to keep the collaboration costs low.  The change I saw at OSCON is that companies understand that making open projects successful bring communities closer to their products and services.

That’s a huge boon to the overall technology community.

Being able to leverage and extend tools that have been proven by these internal teams strengthens and accelerates everyone. These communities act as free laboratories that breed new platforms and build deep relationships with critical influencers.  The upstream savvy companies see returns from both innovation around their tools and more content that’s well matched to their platforms.

Oh, and companies that fail to upstream will find it increasingly hard to attract critical mind share.  Thinking the alternatives gives us a Windows into how open source impacts past incumbents.

That leads to a future post about how XaaS dog fooding and “pure-play” aaS projects like OpenStack and CloudFoundry.

Post Script about Upstreaming:

Continue reading

4 item OSCON report: no buzz winner, OpenStack is DownStack?, Free vs Open & the upstream imperative

Now that my PDX Trimet pass expired, it’s time to reflect on OSCON 2014.   Unfortunately, I did not ride my unicorn home on a rainbow; this year’s event seemed to be about raising red flags.

My four key observations:

  1. No superstar. Past OSCONs had at least one buzzy community super star.  2013 was Docker and 2011 was OpenStack.  This was not just my hallway track perception, I asked around about this specifically.  There was no buzz winner in 2014.
  2. People were down on OpenStack (“DownStack”). Yes, we did have a dedicated “Open Cloud Day” event but there was something missing.  OpenSack did not sponsor and there were no major parties or releases (compared to previous years) and little OpenStack buzz.  Many people I talked to were worried about the direction of the community, fragmentation of the project and operational readiness.  I would be more concerned about “DownStack” except that no open infrastructure was a superstar either (e.g.: Mesos, Kubernetes and CoreOS).  Perhaps, OSCON is simply not a good venue open infrastructure projects compared to GlueCon or Velocity?  Considering the rapid raise of container-friendly OpenStack alternatives; I think the answer may be that the battle lines for open infrastructure are being redrawn.
  3. Free vs. Open. Perhaps my perspective is more nuanced now (many in open source communities don’t distinguish between Free and Open source) but there’s a real tension between Free (do what you want) and Open (shared but governed) source.  Now that open source is a commercial darling, there is a lot of grumbling in the Free community about corporate influence and heavy handedness.   I suspect this will get louder as companies try to find ways to maintain control of their projects.
  4. Corporate upstreaming becomes Imperative. There’s an accelerating upstreaming trend for companies that write lots of code to support their primary business (Google is a primary example) to ensure that code becomes used outside their company.   They open their code and start efforts to ensure its adoption.  This requires a dedicated post to really explain.

There’s a clear theme here: Open source is going mainstream corporate.

We’ve been building amazing software in the open that create real value for companies.  Much of that value has been created organically by well-intentioned individuals; unfortunately, that model will not scale with the arrival for corporate interests.

Open source is thriving not dying: these companies value the transparency, collaboration and innovation of open development.  Instead, open source is transforming to fit within corporate investment and governance needs.  It’s our job to help with that metamorphosis.

DefCore Advances at the Core > My take on the OSCON’14 OpenStack Board Meeting

Last week’s day-long Board Meeting (Jonathan’s summary) focused on three major topics: DefCore, Contribute Licenses (CLA/DCO) and the “Win the Enterprise” initiative. In some ways, these three topics are three views into OpenStack’s top issue: commercial vs. individual interests.

But first, let’s talk about DefCore!

DefCore took a major step with the passing of the advisory Havana Capabilities (the green items are required). That means that vendors in the community now have a Board approved minimum requirements.  These are not enforced for Havana so that the community has time to review and evaluate.

Designated Sections (1)For all that progress, we only have half of the Havana core definition complete. Designated Sections, the other component of Core, will be defined by the DefCore committee for Board approval in September. Originally, we expected the TC to own this part of the process; however, they felt it was related to commercial interested (not technical) and asked for the Board to manage it.

The coming meetings will resolve the “is Swift code required” question and that topic will require a dedicated post.  In many ways, this question has been the challenge for core definition from the start.  If you want to join the discussion, please subscribe to the DefCore list.

The majority of the board meeting was spent discussion other weighty topics that are work a brief review.

Contribution Licenses revolve around developer vs broader community challenge. This issue is surprisingly high stakes for many in the community. I see two primary issues

  1. Tension between corporate (CLA) vs. individual (DCO) control and approval
  2. Concern over barriers to contribution (sadly, there are many but this one is in the board’s controls)

Win the Enterprise was born from product management frustration and a fragmented user base. My read on this topic is that we’re pushing on the donkey. I’m hearing serious rumbling about OpenStack operability, upgrade and scale.  This group is doing a surprisingly good job of documenting these requirements so that we will have an official “we need this” statement. It’s not clear how we are going to turn that statement into either carrots or sticks for the donkey.

Overall, there was a very strong existential theme for OpenStack at this meeting: are we a companies collaborating or individuals contributing?  Clearly, OpenStack is both but the proportions remain unclear.

Answering this question is ultimately at the heart of all three primary topics. I expect DefCore will be on the front line of this discussion over the next few weeks (meeting 1, 2, and 3). Now is the time to get involved if you want to play along.

OpenStack DefCore Review [interview by Jason Baker]

I was interviewed about DefCore by Jason Baker of Red Hat as part of my participation in OSCON Open Cloud Day (speaking Monday 11:30am).  This is just one of fifteen in a series of speaker interviews covering everything from Docker to Girls in Tech.

This interview serves as a good review of DefCore so I’m reposting it here:

Without giving away too much, what are you discussing at OSCON? What drove the need for DefCore?

I’m going to walk through the impact of the OpenStack DefCore process in real terms for users and operators. I’ll talk about how the process works and how we hope it will make OpenStack users’ lives better. Our goal is to take steps towards interoperability between clouds.

DefCore grew out of a need to answer hard and high stakes questions around OpenStack. Questions like “is Swift required?” and “which parts of OpenStack do I have to ship?” have very serious implications for the OpenStack ecosystem.

It was impossible to reach consensus about these questions in regular board meetings so DefCore stepped back to base principles. We’ve been building up a process that helps us make decisions in a transparent way. That’s very important in an open source community because contributors and users want ground rules for engagement.

It seems like there has been a lot of discussion over the OpenStack listservs over what DefCore is and what it isn’t. What’s your definition?

First, DefCore applies only to commercial uses of the OpenStack name. There are different rules for the integrated code base and community activity. That’s the place of most confusion.

Basically, DefCore establishes the required minimum feature set for OpenStack products.

The longer version includes that it’s a board managed process that’s designed to be very transparent and objective. The long-term objective is to ensure that OpenStack clouds are interoperable in a measurable way and that we also encourage our vendor ecosystem to keep participating in upstream development and creation of tests.

A final important component of DefCore is that we are defending the OpenStack brand. While we want a vibrant ecosystem of vendors, we must first have a community that knows what OpenStack is and trusts that companies using our brand comply with a meaningful baseline.

Are there other open source projects out there using “designated sections” of code to define their product, or is this concept unique to OpenStack? What lessons do you think can be learned from other projects’ control (or lack thereof) of what must be included to retain the use of the project’s name?

I’m not aware of other projects using those exact words. We picked up ‘designated sections’ because the community felt that ‘plug-ins’ and ‘modules’ were too limited and generic. I think the term can be confusing, but it was the best we found.

If you consider designated sections to be plug-ins or modules, then there are other projects with similar concepts. Many successful open source projects (Eclipse, Linux, Samba) are functionally frameworks that have very robust extensibility. These projects encourage people to use their code base creatively and then give back some (not all) of their lessons learned in the form of code contributes. If the scope returning value to upstream is too broad then sharing back can become onerous and forking ensues.

All projects must work to find the right balance between collaborative areas (which have community overhead to join) and independent modules (which allow small teams to move quickly). From that perspective, I think the concept is very aligned with good engineering design principles.

The key goal is to help the technical and vendor communities know where it’s safe to offer alternatives and where they are expected to work in the upstream. In my opinion, designated sections foster innovation because they allow people to try new ideas and to target specialized use cases without having to fight about which parts get upstreamed.

What is it like to serve as a community elected OpenStack board member? Are there interests you hope to serve that are difference from the corporate board spots, or is that distinction even noticeable in practice?

It’s been like trying to row a dragon boat down class III rapids. There are a lot of people with oars in the water but we’re neither all rowing together nor able to fight the current. I do think the community members represent different interests than the sponsored seats but I also think the TC/board seats are different too. Each board member brings a distinct perspective based on their experience and interests. While those perspectives are shaped by their employment, I’m very happy to say that I do not see their corporate affiliation as a factor in their actions or decisions. I can think of specific cases where I’ve seen the opposite: board members have acted outside of their affiliation.

When you look back at how OpenStack has grown and developed over the past four years, what has been your biggest surprise?

Honestly, I’m surprised about how many wheels we’ve had to re-invent. I don’t know if it’s cultural or truly a need created by the size and scope of the project, but it seems like we’ve had to (re)create things that we could have leveraged.

What are you most excited about for the “K” release of OpenStack?

The addition of platform services like database as a Service, DNS as a Service, Firewall as a Service. I think these IaaS “adjacent” services are essential to completing the cloud infrastructure story.

Any final thoughts?

In DefCore, we’ve moved slowly and deliberately to ensure people have a chance to participate. We’ve also pushed some problems into the future so that we could resolve the central issues first. We need to community to speak up (either for or against) in order for us to accelerate: silence means we must pause for more input.

OpenStack DefCore Update & 7/16 Community Reviews

The OpenStack Board effort to define “what is core” for commercial use (aka DefCore).  I have blogged extensively about this topic and rely on you to review that material because this post focuses on updates from recent activity.

First, Please Join Our Community DefCore Reviews on 7/16!

We’re reviewing the current DefCore process & timeline then talking about the Advisory Havana Capabilities Matrix (decoder).

To support global access, there are TWO meetings (both will also be recorded):

  1. July 16, 8 am PDT / 1500 UTC
  2. July 16, 6 pm PDT / 0100 UTC July 17

Note: I’m presenting about DefCore at OSCON on 7/21 at 11:30!

We want community input!  The Board is going discuss and, hopefully, approve the matrix at our next meeting on 7/22.  After that, the Board will be focused on defining Designated Sections for Havana and Ice House (the TC is not owning that as previously expected).

The DefCore process is gaining momentum.  We’ve reached the point where there are tangible (yet still non-binding) results to review.  The Refstack efforts to collect community test results from running clouds is underway: the Core Matrix will be fed into Refstack to validate against the DefCore required capabilities.

Now is the time to make adjustments and corrections!  

In the next few months, we’re going to be locking in more and more of the process as we get ready to make it part of the OpenStack by-laws (see bottom of minutes).

If you cannot make these meetings, we still want to hear from you!  The most direct way to engage is via the DefCore mailing list but 1×1 email works too!  Your input is import to us!

OpenCrowbar.Anvil released – hammering out a gold standard in open bare metal provisioning

OpenCrowbarI’m excited to be announcing OpenCrowbar’s first release, Anvil, for the community.  Looking back on our original design from June 2012, we’ve accomplished all of our original objectives and more.
Now that we’ve got the foundation ready, our next release (OpenCrowbar Broom) focuses on workload development on top of the stable Anvil base.  This means that we’re ready to start working on OpenStack, Ceph and Hadoop.  So far, we’ve limited engagement on workloads to ensure that those developers would not also be trying to keep up with core changes.  We follow emergent design so I’m certain we’ll continue to evolve the core; however, we believe the Anvil release represents a solid foundation for workload development.
There is no more comprehensive open bare metal provisioning framework than OpenCrowbar.  The project’s focus on a complete operations model that comprehends hardware and network configuration with just enough orchestration delivers on a system vision that sets it apart from any other tool.  Yet, Crowbar also plays nicely with others by embracing, not replacing, DevOps tools like Chef and Puppet.
Now that the core is proven, we’re porting the Crowbar v1 RAID and BIOS configuration into OpenCrowbar.  By design, we’ve kept hardware support separate from the core because we’ve learned that hardware generation cycles need to be independent from the operations control infrastructure.  Decoupling them eliminates release disruptions that we experienced in Crowbar v1 and­ makes it much easier to use to incorporate hardware from a broad range of vendors.
Here are some key components of Anvil
  • UI, CLI and API stable and functional
  • Boot and discovery process working PLUS ability to handle pre-populating and configuration
  • Chef and Puppet capabilities including Birk Shelf v3 support to pull in community upstream DevOps scripts
  • Docker, VMs and Physical Servers
  • Crowbar’s famous “late-bound” approach to configuration and, critically, networking setup
  • IPv6 native, Ruby 2, Rails 4, preliminary scale tuning
  • Remarkably flexible and transparent orchestration (the Annealer)
  • Multi-OS Deployment capability, Ubuntu, CentOS, or Different versions of the same OS
Getting the workloads ported is still a tremendous amount of work but the rewards are tremendous.  With OpenCrowbar, the community has a new way to collaborate and integration this work.  It’s important to understand that while our goal is to start a quarterly release cycle for OpenCrowbar, the workload release cycles (including hardware) are NOT tied to OpenCrowbar.  The workloads choose which OpenCrowbar release they target.  From Crowbar v1, we’ve learned that Crowbar needed to be independent of the workload releases and so we want OpenCrowbar to focus on maintaining a strong ops platform.
This release marks four years of hard-earned Crowbar v1 deployment experience and two years of v2 design, redesign and implementation.  I’ve talked with DevOps teams from all over the world and listened to their pains and needs.  We have a long way to go before we’re deploying 1000 node OpenStack and Hadoop clusters, OpenCrowbar Anvil significantly moves the needle in that direction.
Thanks to the Crowbar community (Dell and SUSE especially) for nurturing the project, and congratulations to the OpenCrowbar team getting us this to this amazing place.

 

OpenCrowbar reaches critical milestone – boot, discover and forge on!

OpenCrowbarWe started the Crowbar project because we needed to make OpenStack deployments to be fast, repeatable and sharable.  We wanted a tool that looked at deployments as a system and integrated with our customers’ operations environment.  Crowbar was born as an MVP and quickly grew into a more dynamic tool that could deploy OpenStack, Hadoop, Ceph and other applications, but most critically we recognized that our knowledge gaps where substantial and we wanted to collaborate with others on the learning.  The result of that learning was a rearchitecture effort that we started at OSCON in 2012.

After nearly two years, I’m proud to show off the framework that we’ve built: OpenCrowbar addresses the limitations of Crowbar 1.x and adds critical new capabilities.

So what’s in OpenCrowbar?  Pretty much what we targeted at the launch and we’ve added some wonderful surprises too:

  • Heterogeneous Operating Systems – chose which operating system you want to install on the target servers.
  • CMDB Flexibility – don’t be locked in to a devops toolset.  Attribute injection allows clean abstraction boundaries so you can use multiple tools (Chef and Puppet, playing together).
  • Ops Annealer –the orchestration at Crowbar’s heart combines the best of directed graphs with late binding and parallel execution.  We believe annealing is the key ingredient for repeatable and OpenOps shared code upgrades
  • Upstream Friendly – infrastructure as code works best as a community practice and Crowbar use upstream code without injecting “crowbarisms” that were previously required.  So you can share your learning with the broader DevOps community even if they don’t use Crowbar.
  • Node Discovery (or not) – Crowbar maintains the same proven discovery image based approach that we used before, but we’ve streamlined and expanded it.  You can use Crowbar’s API outside of the PXE discovery system to accommodate Docker containers, existing systems and VMs.
  • Hardware Configuration – Crowbar maintains the same optional hardware neutral approach to RAID and BIOS configuration.  Configuring hardware with repeatability is difficult and requires much iterative testing.  While our approach is open and generic, my team at Dell works hard to validate a on specific set of gear: it’s impossible to make statements beyond that test matrix.
  • Network Abstraction – Crowbar dramatically extended our DevOps network abstraction.  We’ve learned that a networking is the key to success for deployment and upgrade so we’ve made Crowbar networking flexible and concise.  Crowbar networking works with attribute injection so that you can avoid hardwiring networking into DevOps scripts.
  • Out of band control – when the Annealer hands off work, Crowbar gives the worker implementation flexibility to do it on the node (using SSH) or remotely (using an API).  Making agents optional means allows operators and developers make the best choices for the actions that they need to take.
  • Technical Debt Paydown – We’ve also updated the Crowbar infrastructure to use the latest libraries like Ruby 2, Rails 4, Chef 11.  Even more importantly, we’re dramatically simplified the code structure including in repo documentation and a Docker based developer environment that makes building a working Crowbar environment fast and repeatable.

Why change to OpenCrowbar?  This new generation of Crowbar is structurally different from Crowbar 1 and we’ve investing substantially in refactoring the tooling, paying down technical debt and cleanup up documentation.  Since Crowbar 1 is still being actively developed, splitting the repositories allow both versions to progress with less confusion.  The majority of the principles and deployment code is very similar, I think of Crowbar as a single community.

Interested?  Our new Docker Admin node is quick to setup and can boot and manage both virtual and physical nodes.

Community dialogue around “What is Core” positions

THIS POST IS #5 IN A SERIES ABOUT “WHAT IS CORE.”

by Rob Hirschfeld (cc) w/ attribution

The OpenStack Foundation Board has been having a broadening conservation about this topic.  Feeling left out?  Please don’t be!  Now is the time to start getting involved: we had to start very narrowly focused to avoid having the discussion continue to go in circles.  As we’ve expanding the dialog, we have incorporated significant feedback to drive consensus.

No matter where I go, people are passionate about the subject of OpenStack Core.

Overall, there is confusion of scope covered by “what is core” because people bring in their perspective from public, private solution, ecosystem or internal deployment objectives.  In discussion, everyone sees that we have to deal with issues around the OpenStack mark and projects first, but they are impatient to get into the deep issues.  Personally, we can get consensus on core and will always have a degree of healthy tension between user types.

The following are my notes, not my opinions.  I strive to faithfully represent a wide range of positions here.  Clarifications, comments and feedback are welcome!

Consensus Topics:

  • Reference/Alternate Implementation (not plug-in): Not using “plug-ins” to describe the idea that OpenStack projects should have a shared API with required code and clearly specified areas where code is replaceable.  It is the Technical Committee (TC) that makes these decisions.  The most meaningful language around this point is to say that OpenStack will have an open reference implementation with allowable alternate implementations.
  • Alternate implementations are useful:  We want to ensure upstream contribution and collaboration on the code base.  Reference implementations ensure that there’s a reason to keep open source OpenStack strong.  Alternate Implementations are important to innovation.
  • Small vs. Large Core: This is an ongoing debate about if OpenStack should have a lot of projects as part of core.  We don’t have an answer but people feel like we’re heading in a direction that resolves this question.
  • Everyone likes tests: We’re heading towards a definition of core that relies heavily on tests.  Everyone expresses concerns that this will place a lot of stress on Tempest (or another framework) and that needs to be addressed as we move forward.

Open Topics:

  • Monolithic vs. Granular Trademark:  We did not discuss if vendors will be able to claim OpenStack trademarks on subcomponents of the whole.  This is related to core but wide considered secondary.
  • API vs. implementation tension:  We accept that OpenStack will lead with implementation.   There’s no official policy that “we are not a standards body” but we may also have to state that tests are not a specification.  There’s a danger that tests will be considered more than they are.  What are they?  “They are an implementation and a source of information.  They are not the definition.”   We expect to have a working model that drives the API not vice versa.
  • Brouhaha about EC2 APIs:  It’s not clear if defining core helps address the OpenStack API discussion.  I hope it will but have not tested it.
  • Usability as core: I had many people insist that usability and ease of use should be as requirements for core because it supports adoption.  Our current positions do not have any statements to support this view.
  • Toxic neighbors: We have not discussed if use of the mark and criteria could be limited by what else you put in your product.  Are there implementation options that we’d consider toxic and automatically violate the mark?  Right now, the positions are worded that if you pass then you play even if you otherwise stink.
  • Which tests are required?  It appears that we’re moving towards using must-pass tests to define the core.  Moving towards tests determining core, we want actual field data to drive which tests are required. That will allow actual user experience to shape which tests are important rather than having it be a theoretical decision.  There’s some interest in asking the User Committee (UC) to recommend which tests are required.  This would be an added responsibility for the UC and needs more discussion.
  • Need visualization:  With 12 positions so far, it’s getting hard to keep it all together.  I’ve taken on an action item to create a diagram that shows which statements apply to which projects against the roles of ownership.

I’ve had some great discussions about core and am looking forward to many more.  I hope these notes help bring you up to speed.   As always, comments and discussion are welcome!

READ POST #6: VISUALIZING CORE

What makes OpenStack meaningful to the market?

THIS POST IS #2 IN A SERIES ABOUT “WHAT IS CORE.”

What gives a project a strong core? 

A strong project has utility, community, and longevity.

TelescopeUtility, community and longevity are the fundamental objectives of any project or product.  It must do something that people find useful (utility).  It’s not enough for one person to like the project, there must be a market (community).  And that useful and popular work must be sustainable over multiple “generations” (longevity).

These goals are basic.  The challenge is finding the right rules to keep OpenStack in the sustainable project zone.  Unfortunately, as an open source project, the OpenStack Foundation ultimately has very little real power (like hiring flocks of developers) to enforce use or maintenance of the code base.

The Foundation’s tools are velocity, culture, and brand.  Understanding “what is core” hones these tools to ensure they are effective.

Velocity – the rate of progress and quality of the code base.  A project at sufficient velocity is not worth forking or duplicating.  The fact that >1000 developers companies are contributing and 100s of companies are deploying OpenStack makes it profitable to remain in our community.   Make no mistake: being part of a community takes effort so there must be a return on that investment.  The foundation must ensure that commercial entities find an ROI from their participation.

Culture – open source culture strongly encourages sharing and collaboration.  I have seen that culture as a more potent force than the legalese and licenses.  While a strong culture reinforces itself, a toxic culture will rot a project like ice cream in the summerCulture maintenance is a chief foundation objective and includes fostering new users, documentation, orderly interactions and co-opetitive collaboration.

Brand – when all else fails, OpenStack can use legal means to define our brand.  This is the weakest of all the tools because the strength of the defense is only as good as the brand.  If we allow the OpenStack brand (sometimes we say it’s mark) to become weak or diluted then people have little reason to support velocity or culture.

An important insight when looking at these three control levers is that they are very different between individuals and corporations.  While individuals may highly motivated by culture they are not as motivated by brand; conversely, corporations are highly motivated by brand and compliance and minimally by culture.

As the OpenStack Foundation Board takes up the “what is core” question, we must be cognizant of the duality between individual and corporate interests.  OpenStack must be both meaningful culturally to individuals and strong brand-wise to corporations.   Both are needed to sustain OpenStack’s velocity.

READ POST IS #2: SPIDER CHART