proposal: stop using servergroups in puppet

[Adam M. Dutko]

>  1. the distinction between servergroups and services is..... blurry.

So if we wanted to spin up several load balancers we'd have first
create a node definition for each balancer then add the proper
services to the node definitions. This seems to be the reverse of what
is done now with the host being assigned a servergroup which has
services defined for what the "group" does. Am I incorrect in my
understanding? If not, then there will probably be slightly more work
involved to setup multiple hosts doing the "same" thing, no?

> alternative proposal:

It does help make things clearer and much more "granular" but let's
say one host has a minor difference in how the service is configured,
we would have to accomodate the tweak somehow either by cloning a
service definition and making the new definition specific to the host
or by adding in extra modifications using another specification file.

I guess both seem equal to me but the enhanced granularity/readability
of your proposal would probably help with self-documentation and
managability. That is of course if my understanding of the setup is
correct. :-)