confirmed On 23/09/14 05:10 AM, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > > Folks, > > I'd like to continue serving as Telemetry PTL for a second cycle. > > When I took on the role for Juno, I saw some challenges facing the > project that would take multi-cycle efforts to resolve, so I'd like to > have the opportunity to see that move closer to completion. > > Over Juno, our focus as a project has necessarily been on addressing > the TC gap analysis. We've been successful in ensuring that the agreed > gap coverage tasks were completed. The team made great strides in > making the sql-alchemy driver a viable option for PoCs and small > deployments, getting meaningful Tempest & Grenade coverage in place, > and writing quality user- and operator-oriented documentation. This > has addressed a portion of our usability debt, but as always we need > to continue chipping away at that. > > In parallel, an arms-length effort was kicked off to look at paying > down accumulated architectural debt in Ceilometer via a new approach > to more lightweight timeseries data storage via the Gnocchi project. > This was approached in such a way as to minimize the disruption to > the core project. > > My vision for Kilo would be to shift our focus a bit more onto such > longer-terms strategic efforts. Clearly we need to complete the work > on Gnocchi and figure out the migration and co-existence issues. > > In addition, we started a conversation with the Monasca folks at the > Juno summit on the commonality between the two projects. Over Kilo I > would like to broaden and deepen the collaboration that was first > mooted in Atlanta, by figuring out specific incremental steps around > converging some common functional areas such as alarming. We can also > learn from the experience of the Monasca project in getting the best > possible performance out of TSD storage in InfluxDB, or achieving very > high throughput messaging via Apache Kafka. > > There are also cross-project debts facing our community that we need > to bring some of our focus to IME. In particular, I'm thinking here > about the move towards taking integration test coverage back out of > Tempest and into new project-specific functional test suites. Also the > oft-proposed, but never yet delivered-upon, notion of "contractizing" > cross-project interactions mediated by notifications. > > Finally, it's worth noting that our entire community has a big > challenge ahead of it in terms of the proposed move towards a new > layering structure. If re-elected, I would see myself as an active > participant in that discussion, ensuring the interests of the project > are positively represented. > > Cheers, > Eoghan > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
