There seems to be some consensus in various different threads that what we need is a single consolidated Cloud SIG effort, and decide, over time, if it's sensible to split into project-specific SIGs. Easier to start consolidated than try to figure out how to merge later. For those of you not following all of the various threads, here's some high points: Dave Neary says: What I would like to see is a CentOS stack which allows all of the cloud storage, networking, virt management and IaaS projects to show themselves in a good light - we will need newer stuff that isn't available in RHEL 6 to do so (and the sam will doubtless happen during the RHEL 7 release cycle), and it makes sense for us to talk & share the burden of supporting those newer components on top of core CentOS. Karanbir says, in response to me: On 01/10/2014 02:36 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: > I'd love to see a "choose your own cloud adventure" LiveCD variant, > where one could easily compare, OpenStack, Eucalyptus, CloudStack, > OpenNebula, etc., either side-by-side, or as options during the startup. > That would be quite cool. Technically, if we can get nested virt going, the livecd need only be a bare min CentOS6 install, with VM's that run complete cloud instances inside it. That would also sort out the massive pain of network setup, since we could make some levels of predictions on what the state is on the host. In a few days time, we should have the live media churn process going, this might be an interesting PoC to start with. Sebastien Gosaquen says: My personal view is that it would seem strange to have one SIG per project, a single cloud SIG will require coordination efforts amongst project to agree on a somewhat common framework for build. We could probably start with a single cloud SIG to discuss and identify requirements/issues and then see if a split is necessary. Does this seem a reasonable approach to everyone as a way forward? -- Rich Bowen - rbowen at redhat.com OpenStack Community Liaison http://openstack.redhat.com/