Help OpenStack build more Open Infrastructure communities

Note: OpenStack voting is limited to community members – if you registered by the deadline, you will receive your unique ballot by email.  You have 8 votes to distribute as you see fit.

Vote Now!I believe open infrastructure software is essential for our IT future.  

Open source has been a critical platform for innovation and creating commercial value for our entire industry; however, we have to deliberately foster communities for open source activities that connect creators, users and sponsors.  OpenStack has built exactly that for people interested in infrastructure and that is why I am excited to run for the Foundation Board again.

OpenStack is at a critical juncture in transitioning from a code focus to a community focus.  

We must allow the OpenStack code to consolidate around a simple mission while the community explores adjacent spaces.  It will be a confusing and challenging transition because we’ll have to create new spaces that leave part of the code behind – what we’d call the Innovator’s Dilemma inside of a single company.  And, I don’t think OpenStack has a lot of time to figure this out.

That change requires both strong and collaborative leadership by people who know the community but are not too immersed in the code.

I am seeking community support for my return to the OpenStack Foundation Board.  In the two years since I was on the board, I’ve worked in the Kubernetes community to support operators.  While on the board, I fought hard to deliver testable interoperability (DefCore) and against expanding the project focus (Big Tent).  As a start-up and open source founder, I bring a critical commercial balance to a community that is too easily dominated by large vendor interests.

Re-elected or not, I’m a committed member of the OpenStack community who is enthusiastically supporting the new initiatives by the Foundation.  I believe strongly that our industry needs to sponsor and support open infrastructure.  I also believe that dominate place for OpenStack IaaS code has changed and we also need to focus those efforts to be highly collaborative.

OpenStack cannot keep starting with “use our code” – we have to start with “let’s understand the challenges.”  That’s how we’ll keep building an strong open infrastructure community.

If these ideas resonate with you, then please consider supporting me for the OpenStack board.  If they don’t, please vote anyway!  There are great candidates on the ballot again and voting supports the community.

Tweaking DefCore to subdivide OpenStack platform

The following material will be a major part of the discussion for The OpenStack Board meeting on Monday 10/20.  Comments and suggest welcome!

OpenStack in PartsAuthor’s 2/26/2015 Note:  This proposal was approved by the Board in October 2014.

For nearly two years, the OpenStack Board has been moving towards creating a common platform definition that can help drive interoperability.  At the last meeting, the Board paused to further review one of the core tenants of the DefCore process (Item #3: Core definition can be applied equally to all usage models).

Outside of my role as DefCore chair, I see the OpenStack community asking itself an existential question: “are we one platform or a suite of projects?”  I’m having trouble believing “we are both” is an acceptable answer.

During the post-meeting review, Mark Collier drafted a Foundation supported recommendation that basically creates an additional core tier without changing the fundamental capabilities & designated code concepts.  This proposal has been reviewed by the DefCore committee (but not formally approved in a meeting).

The original DefCore proposed capabilities set becomes the “platform” level while capability subsets are called “components.”  We are considering two initial components, Compute & Object, and both are included in the platform (see illustration below).  The approach leaves the door open for new core component to exist both under and outside of the platform umbrella.

In the proposal, OpenStack vendors who meet either component or platform requirements can qualify for the “OpenStack Powered” logo; however, vendors using the only a component (instead of the full platform) will have more restrictive marks and limitations about how they can use the term OpenStack.

This approach addresses the “is Swift required?” question.  For platform, Swift capabilities will be required; however, vendors will be able to implement the Compute component without Swift and implement the Object component without Nova/Glance/Cinder.

It’s important to note that there is only one yard stick for components or the platform: the capabilities groups and designed code defined by the DefCore process.  From that perspective, OpenStack is one consistent thing.  This change allows vendors to choose sub-components if that serves their business objectives.

It’s up to the community to prove the platform value of all those sub-components working together.