On Sep 19, 2014, at 10:37 PM, Monty Taylor <mord...@inaugust.com> wrote:

> On 09/19/2014 03:29 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Monty Taylor wrote:
>>> I've recently been thinking a lot about Sean's Layers stuff. So I wrote
>>> a blog post which Jim Blair and Devananda were kind enough to help me edit.
>>> http://inaugust.com/post/108
>> Hey Monty,
>> As you can imagine, I read that post with great attention. I generally
>> like the concept of a tightly integrated, limited-by-design layer #1
>> (I'd personally call it "Ring 0") and a large collection of "OpenStack"
>> things gravitating around it. That would at least solve the attraction
>> of the integrated release, suppress the need for incubation, foster
>> competition/innovation within our community, and generally address the
>> problem of community scaling. There are a few details on the
>> consequences though, and in those as always the devil lurks.
>> ## The Technical Committee
>> The Technical Committee is defined in the OpenStack bylaws, and is the
>> representation of the contributors to "the project". Teams work on code
>> repositories, and at some point ask their work to be recognized as part
>> of "OpenStack". In doing so, they place their work under the oversight
>> of the Technical Committee. In return, team members get to participate
>> in electing the technical committee members (they become "ATC"). It's a
>> balanced system, where both parties need to agree: the TC can't force
>> itself as overseer of a random project, and a random project can't just
>> decide by itself it is "OpenStack".
>> I don't see your proposal breaking that balanced system, but it changes
>> its dynamics a bit. The big tent would contain a lot more members. And
>> while the TC would arguably bring a significant share of its attention
>> to Ring 0, its voters constituency would mostly consist of developers
>> who do not participate in Ring 0 development. I don't really see it as
>> changing dramatically the membership of the TC, but it's a consequence
>> worth mentioning.
> Agree. I'm willing to bet it'll be better not worse to have a large
> constituency - but it's also problem that it's a giant disaster. I'm
> still on board with going for it.
>> ## Programs
>> Programs were created relatively recently as a way to describe which
>> teams are "in OpenStack" vs. which ones aren't. They directly tie into
>> the ATC system: if you contribute to code repositories under a blessed
>> program, then you're an ATC, you vote in TC elections and the TC has
>> some oversight over your code repositories. Previously, this was granted
>> at a code repository level, but that failed to give flexibility for
>> teams to organize their code in the most convenient manner for them. So
>> we started to bless teams rather than specific code repositories.
>> Now, that didn't work out so well. Some programs were a 'theme', like
>> Infrastructure, or Docs. For those, competing efforts do not really make
>> sense: there can only be one, and competition should happen inside those
>> efforts rather than outside. Some programs were a 'team', like
>> Orchestration/Heat or Deployment/TripleO. And that's where the model
>> started to break: some new orchestration things need space, but the
>> current Heat team is not really interested in maintaining them. What's
>> the point of being under the same program then ? And TripleO is not the
>> only way to deploy OpenStack, but its mere existence (and name)
>> prevented other flowers to bloom in our community.
>> You don't talk much about programs in your proposal. In particular, you
>> only mention layer 1, "Cloud Native" applications, "User Interface"
>> applications, and "Operator" applications. So I'm unsure of where, if
>> anywhere, would "Infrastructure" or "Docs" repositories live.
>> Here is how I see it could work. We could keep 'theme' programs (think
>> Infra, Release cycle management, Docs, QA) with their current structure
>> (collection of code repositories under a single team/PTL). We would get
>> rid of 'team' programs completely, and just have a registry of
>> "OpenStack" code repositories (openstack*/*, big tent). Each of those
>> could have a specific PTL, or explicitely inherit its PTL from another
>> code repository. Under that PTL, they could have separate or same core
>> review team, whatever maps reality and how they want to work (so we
>> could say that openstack/python-novaclient inherits its PTL from
>> openstack/nova and doesn't need a specific one). That would allow us to
>> map anything that may come in. Oslo falls a bit in between, could be
>> considered a 'theme' program or several repos sharing PTL.
> I think we can do what you're saying and generalize a little bit. What
> if we declared programs, as needed, when we think there is a need to
> "pick a winner". (I think we can all agree that early winner picking is
> an unintended but very real side effect of the current system)
> And when I say "need to" - I mean it in the same sense as "Production
> Ready"  The themes you listed are excellent ones - it makes no sense to
> have two Infras, two QAs or two Docs teams. On the other hand, maybe
> someone else wants to take a stab at the general problem space that
> congress and manilla and heat are all playing in. Do we need to bless
> that yet? No. Are those people all honestly trying to solve problems for
> OpenStack? Absolutely!
> It's a judgement call for sure - but I like the idea of keeping the
> programs for some things and not for others.
>> ## The release and the development cycle
>> You touch briefly on the consequences of your model for the "common
>> release" and our development cycle. Obviously we would release the ring
>> 0 projects in an integrated manner on a time-based schedule.
>> For the other projects, we have a choice:
>> - the "ring 0" model (development milestones, coordinated final release)
>> - the "Swift" model (release as-needed, coordinated final release)
>> - the "Oslo" model (release as-needed, try to have one final one before
>> end of cycle)
>> - the "Client libraries" model (release as-needed)
>> If possible, I would like to avoid the "Swift" model, which is the most
>> costly from a release management standpoint. All projects following the
>> ring 0 model are easy to keep track of, using common freezes etc. So
>> it's easy to make sure they will be ready in time for the coordinated
>> release. Each project following the Swift model would be a special case,
>> and that adds up to a lot of load on the release management team.
>> Keeping track of one project doing that is OK. 5 or 20, not so much. So
>> I'd advise we only keep ring0, Oslo and client lib models as options.
>> Release management would just care about ring 0, and provide tools and
>> advice for all the others, but not being responsible for them.
> I'm in.
>> What about the development cycle ? I think it's part of our "identity":
>> being "OpenStack" is also about having the same notion of passing time,
>> the same reference points. So I think it would probably be a good idea,
>> even for projects that purely release "as-needed", to organize their
>> development at least vaguely around the notion of a common cycle.
> For what it's worth, Infra even tries to do freezes around release (this
> concept is known as "don't land any of Monty's patches for a week around
> major freezes)
> I think it's worth having a more expansive discussion around the release
> cycle overall, but this is enough massive change for me for now.
>> ## The design summit
>> I'm not a big fan of your #11 suggestion. I guess I just don't want to
>> defer all in-project alignment and work to mid-cycle meetups, and force
>> all contributors to travel all the time. I think the right time to reach
>> alignment on the goals is at the start of a development cycle, not in
>> the middle of it. The middle of a cycle is a good time to get things
>> done. So I would still like teams to be able to discuss their goals at
>> the Design Summit, at the start of a cycle.
>> Now I realize this creates a pretty significant issue, since Design
>> Summit space is one resource which can't really support the "infinite
>> tent" model. My proposal to solve it would be to give ample space to
>> cross-project issues, ring 0 projects, and 'theme' programs. Everyone
>> else gets limited space, which may boil down to a pod. Then we work on
>> options, so that whoever who wants to organize a large meetup in
>> parallel with the summit may find space to do so in neighboring hotels.
>> The main value in that proposal is that it makes the "Design Summit"
>> space needs more predictable. I've been visiting spaces for the 2016 and
>> 2018 summits recently -- it's really difficult to make plans when you
>> don't know how many projects you'll have to host. And it's really
>> difficult to get good locations and times (and prices) if you don't book
>> at least 2 years in advance.
> ++
> My main point was that we should optimize summit time for things that we
> can only do then - gnarly cross-project issues being one of the biggest
> examples. The other was that it would be great to add a bit more topic
> malleability to be able to respond to things we hear in the operator
> feedback sessions - especially in the heavily-contested cross-project
> time. (saying "just use pods" for those emergent issues isn't a workable
> thing because we likely need people who are double booked)
> But in general, yeah.
>> ## The Foundation bylaws
>> There are a number of terms used in the bylaws, and we may need to map
>> our new structure to it, make sure it doesn't require a bylaws change.
>> I didn't spot any showstopper yet. The "integrated release" could be the
>> ring 0 (that would mean that defcore would only get to pick between
>> Nova/Neutron/Cinder/Keystone/Designate for the trademark programs). The
>> "OpenStack project" could be the big tent. We keep the TC, the ATCs
>> concepts the same.
> I don't think ring 0 -> bylaws "Integrated" is the right mapping. I just
> spent a board meeting yelling about how I'm pretty sure that any logical
> system that somehow winds up leaving swift out has a flaw, and I think
> that applies here too.
> I don't have a great answer - but you're right - we need a name mapping.
> OTOH, the board was considering a bylaws change for defcore - perhaps we
> should take a quick pass at proposing a bylaws change to make the
> language a little bit more general and get us to the point of the
> _intent_ of that - which is that defcore can pick from at most a list of
> projects suggested by the TC.
> OR - we could go massively the other way WRT the bylaws, and we could
> consider _every_ crazy big-tent thing under our care "in the integrated
> release" - and count on the fact that _probably_ defcore is not even
> going to think about including something in their definition until we've
> blessed something as production ready …

The matrix the defcore committee used to pick capabilities included a couple of 
inputs related to quality and existing deployments. If we start giving projects 
a quality designation (whether it’s binary or on some sort of scale), that 
designation could feed into the existing process.

>> That was a long answer, but then so was your original post :P
> We should do this more often ... ;)
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to