Future of the Ansible Community package

[russoz]

(Disclaimer: I am aware the way I write sometimes seems a bit aggressive - trying to improve on that but still a long way to go - please do not read it as an aggression, I promise it is not, it is just the way eloquence comes out when writing in what is my second language)

@briantist

@russoz

every time I mention this, I get a rebuke that this was already discussed many times before, that there are good reasons for this (that were discussed then), and that topic usually dies. It feels like this is turning into one of those things that we do because we always did before, and it is a bit of a taboo to question it.

I’m definitely someone who has given this response before, but I don’t agree with this framing.

The discussion does not “die”, the discussion happens, and so far, consensus has been to maintain the package.

It’s not that it’s a taboo question, after all we are here discussing it again, but when the discussion comes up again, it is by and large with the same arguments as previously from everyone participating.

Well, I certainly agree we are here discussing it again this time around. In previous occasions there was not really a discussion, and as @sivel mentions in one of the responses here, referring to something that is hard to find is hard to find. I would not really call that discussing.

I think that’s to be expected when the conditions around this have just not changed all that much since all of those previous discussions and their outcomes.

Well, I cannot compare to what was before (when?) because I wasn’t there and I don’t have the time to search the entire history of this community to find the actual conditions.

That being said, though, I would be extremely surprised if conditions had not changed between then (whenever it was) and now. Ansible has been in a steady adoption curve all over the world, it is becoming or already is the de-facto standard in automation. The size of the package has increased a lot, the invention of collections, the publishing of galaxy_ng, the creation of a Steering Committee, the establishing of a process (which is manual, ironically), all those things and more have happened between then and now.

Again, I am making this claim on the blind, I do not have the previous state to compare to, so I am inferring that all these developments changed conditions by a lot. However you claim the conditions did not change. If I may suggest, I think we should try and go through the exercise of actually listing the conditions/reasons thought of before, and analysing them again. We do have a lot of new people (myself included) in the community, it would be interesting to see what all of us have to say about those conditions.

@"briantist

@russoz

I think the first think we need to understand here is the WHY. Why is that something we would want?

A question like this is also why it is mentioned that we have previously discussed it. The reasons why have been brought up many times, they have not changed much, but bringing this up again is asking for them to be repeated, but it’s not clear why they need to be repeated.

What has changed materially since the last discussion that warrants this?

Well, I think I already addressed that, but basically: I don’t think we had actual discussions before, and the fact that past conditions are always referred to but no one seems to be able to list them (now and before) is unsettling to me. If I am to agree to those reasons/conditions, I need to know what they are.