I am not involved in Glance, however this was well worth reading for the experiences during the cycle, not just as a PTL but as a team and the communication of improving the software development process.
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:47 PM, Bhandaru, Malini K < malini.k.bhand...@intel.com> wrote: > Flavio, Glance and OpenStack benefited during your reign or period of > humble service. > Will miss you at the helm. Also thank you for anointing/attracting two new > solid cores: Brian and Sabari > Malini > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Fifield [mailto:t...@openstack.org] > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 7:55 PM > To: firstname.lastname@example.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Glance Mitaka: Passing the torch > > A beautiful post, sir. Thank you for everything! > > On 09/03/16 22:15, Flavio Percoco wrote: > > > > Greetings, > > > > I'm not going to run for Glance's PTL position for the Newton timeframe. > > > > There are many motivations behind this choice. Some of them I'm > > willing to discuss in private if people are interested but I'll go as > > far as saying there are personal and professional reasons for me to > > not run again. > > > > As I've always done in my past cycles as PTL, I'd like to take some > > time to summarize what's happened in the past cycle not only for the > > new PTL to know what's coming up but for the community to know how > > things went. > > > > Before I even start, I'd like to thank everyone in the Glance community. > > I truly > > believe this was a great cycle for the project and the community has > > gotten stronger. None of this would have been possible without the > > help of all of you and for that, I'm deeply in debt with you all. It > > does not just take an employer to get someone to contribute to a > > project. Being paid, for those who are, to do Open Source is not > > enough. It takes passion, motivation and a lot of patience to analyze > > a technology, think out of the box and look for ways it can be > > improved either by fixing bugs or by implementing new features. The > > amount of time and dedication this process requires is probably worth > > way more than what we get back from it. > > > > Now, with all that being said, here's Glance Mitaka for all of you: > > > > Completed Features > > ================== > > > > I think I've mentioned this already but I'm proud of it so I'll say it > > again. > > The prioritization and scheduling of Glance Mitaka went so well that > > we managed to release M-3 without any feature freeze exception (FFE) > > request. This doesn't mean all the features were implemented. In fact, > > at least 4 were pushed back to Newton. However, the team communicated, > > reviewed, sprinted and coded in such a way that we were able to > > re-organize the schedule to avoid wasting time on things we new > > weren't going to make it. This required transparency and hard > > decisions but that's part of the job, right? > > > > *  CIM Namespace Metadata > > *  Support download from and upload to Cinder volumes > > *  Glance db purge utility > > *  Deprecate Glance v3 API > > *  Implement trusts for Glance > > *  Migrate the HTTP Store to Use Requests > > *  Glance Image Signing and Verification > > *  Supporting OVF Single Disk Image Upload > > *  Prevention of Unauthorized errors during upload/download in > > Swift driver > > *  Add filters using an ‘in’ operator > > > >  > > http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/glance-specs/specs/mitaka/impleme > > nted/cim-namespace-metadata-definitions.html > > > >  > > http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/glance-specs/specs/mitaka/impleme > > nted/cinder-store-upload-download.html > > > >  > > http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/glance-specs/specs/mitaka/impleme > > nted/database-purge.html > > > >  > > http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/glance-specs/specs/mitaka/impleme > > nted/deprecate-v3-api.html > > > >  > > http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/glance-specs/specs/mitaka/impleme > > nted/glance-trusts.html > > > >  > > http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/glance-specs/specs/mitaka/impleme > > nted/http-store-on-requests.html > > > >  > > http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/glance-specs/specs/mitaka/impleme > > nted/image-signing-and-verification-support.html > > > >  > > http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/glance-specs/specs/mitaka/impleme > > nted/ovf-lite.html > > > >  > > http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/glance-specs/specs/mitaka/impleme > > nted/prevention-of-401-in-swift-driver.html > > > >  > > http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/glance-specs/specs/mitaka/impleme > > nted/v2-add-filters-with-in-operator.html > > > > > > If the above doesn't sound impressive to you, let me fill you in with > > some extra info about Glance's community. > > > > Community > > ========= > > > > Glance's community currently has 12 core members, 3 of which joined > > during Mitaka and 2 of those 3 members joined at the end of the cycle. > > That means the team ran on 9 reviewers for most of the cycle except > > that out of those 9, 1 left the team and joined later in the cycle and > > 3 folks weren't super active this cycle. That left the team with 5 > > constant reviewers throughout the cycle. > > > > Now, the above is *NOT* to say that the success of the cycle is thanks > > to those > > 5 constant reviewers. On the contrary, it's to say that we've managed > > to build a community capable of working together with other non-core > > reviewers. > > This was a > > key thing for this cycle. > > > > I don't think it's a secret to anyone that, at the beginning of the > > cycle, the community was fragile and somewhat split. There were > > different opinions on what Glance should (or shouldn't) look like, > > what new features Glance should (or > > shouldn't) have and where the project should be headed in the next 6 > > months. > > > > The team sat down, the team talked and the team agreed on what the > > project should be and that's what the team did in the Mitaka cycle. > > Sharing one message with the rest of the OpenStack community (and > > especially new Glance > > contributors) was a key for the community to become stronger. > > > > What changed? What did the community do differently? > > > > Priorities and Goals > > -------------------- > > > > Mitaka was the first cycle that Glance strictly followed a list of > > priorities . Funny enough, 2 of those priorities didn't make it in > > Mitaka but we'll get to that in a bit. > > > > The list of priorities didn't do it all by itself. The list of > > priorities gave us a target, a goal. It helped us to remain focused. > > It kept us on track. > > However, it did way more than that. The list of priorities allowed us > for: > > > > * Sending a clear message of what the community has agreed on and where > the > > community is headed > > * Selecting a narrow list of features that we would be able to work on > and > > review throughout the cycle > > * Scheduling and splitting reviews to accommodate the priorities > > > > Of those points, I believe the second one is the one that really did > > it for us. > > We kept the set of new features small so that we could focus on what > > was important. We had more proposals than we approved and we rejected > > the rest based on our priorities. This is something I'd like to see > > happening again in Glance and I'd like to encourage the next PTL to do > > the same and be *strict* about it. > > > >  > > http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/glance-specs/priorities/mitaka-pr > > iorities.html > > > > > > Reduce the review backlog > > ------------------------- > > > > We abandoned patches ! We removed from the review queue all the > > patches that, for 2 or more months, had been in merge conflict, had > > had -1/-2 from cores or had had -1 from jenkins (hope I'm not missing > > something here). We did that and we made the backlog shorter, we kept > > in the review list what was really relevant at that moment. > > > > Something important about the above is that we didn't abandon patches > > that had stalled for lack of reviews. We prioritized those, we bumped > > those to the top of our review list and we provided the reviews those > > patches deserved. Some of them landed, some didn't but the important > > bit is that those patches were reviewed. > > Glance's current backlog (verified patches, Workflow 0 and no -2s) is > > less than > > 90 patches across all projects (likely way less than that but I just > > did a rough > > count) and the most important thing is that *ALL* these patches have > > received reviews in 2016. Now, if you don't think this is great, you > > should have seen our backlog before. > > > > Now, there's no point in cleaning up the review queue if we're going > > to let it fill up again. Right? This is where the community > > awesomeness comes to light. We created a review dashboard, which > > some folks used to organize their reviews. I found it super useful, I > > used it to prioritize my reviews and help other folks to prioritize > > theirs. When you're given an organized list of reviews rather than > > just a list of random reviews, it's *way* easier for you to know what > > to review. > > That right there is the key. To know what to review. I believe, in > > Mitaka, the team knew what to focus on and the team also knew someone > > in the community was ready to provide a fresher, cleaner, list of > > reviews they could focus on. Some folks would prefer to go and make up > > a list themselves, others will prefer to have one ready. Either way, > > having a clear story of where the focus should go is the key to help > > reviews move faster. Remove the noise, it distracts from people from > > what's really important. > > > >  http://stackalytics.com/?user_id=glance...@mailinator.com > >  http://bit.ly/glance-dashboard > > > > Review Days > > ----------- > > > > Not really a new thing. This has happened before and we just kept > > doing it. The difference, perhaps, is that we increased the number of > > review days in the cycle. We tried to do at least 1 review day per > > milestone and we're now doing a Review Monday until the end of the > > cycle to get as many bug fixes as possible in before the release. RC1 > > is looking good already! > > > > So, if you'd ask me, I believe what changed was the community. The > > community got together, polished some things, and focused on what's > > important *the project*. > > If you read between lines, the above shows one constant pattern, the > > community matured and it found what its placed in the OpenStack > > community. > > > > Single Team > > ----------- > > > > The Glance team is now back to being a single reviewing machine rather > > than several, isolated, teams with specific tasks, which sometimes > > ended up duplicated. The Glance Driver's team has been merged into the > > Glance Core team and the Glare team (Artifacts) is not using the Fast > > Track anymore. > > > > Having smaller teams has resulted in a very useful thing to do for > > other projects. Depending on the size of the project, it'd be possible > > to map tasks to smaller teams and then reduce them once the job is > > done ;). > > Unfortunately, given > > Glance's team size, this ended up adding *more* things to do to > > members of those smaller teams that were also part of the other teams > > as well. > > > > One reason to mention this is because we'll have the temptation to do > > this again in the future but, as it's been proven thus far, Glance's > > community is not big enough to make such splits worth it and those end > > up causing more harm to the community than good. > > > > Spec Freeze > > ----------- > > > > The team incorporated a spec freeze in this cycle. The dates that were > > picked were not the most ideal ones but the freeze helped a lot to > > bring back focus on code reviews and coding. This freeze put a > > timeline on folks to get their proposals ready, hence forcing them to > > have enough time to implement such proposals. Having open milestones > > distracts the community from the schedule. > > Announcing such milestones in advance and providing constant reminders > > helped with making sure folks were prepared and ready to react. > > > > > > Was it all rainbows? > > ==================== > > > > No, it was not. There were and there are *many* things we need to work > > on and improve. For instance, 2 of the priorities didn't make it this > > cycle. > > One of > > them (Nova's adoption of Glance's v2) simply requires a bit of more > > work and it specifically requires a better alignment with the Nova > > community's priorities. > > In other words, Nova needs to make this a priority for them. > > > > The second priority that missed the deadline is the refactor of the > > image import workflow. Some of you might be thinking "Guys, you had 1 > > job, *ONE* job and it was to discuss and implement that refactor". > > Well, turns out that such refactor has an impact on *every* cloud and > > it's not something the team can afford to change a third time (yes, > > this is the second time the image import workflow is refactored). I'm > > actually happy it didn't make it in Mitaka because that gave the team > > more time to evaluate the proposal that had been discussed at the > > summit, the issues around it and the different alternatives. > > Nonetheless, I am a > > bit sad about how things evolved with this proposal because at the > > very beginning of the cycle we were a bit naive in our planning of this > work. > > That is > > to say, that we should've probably known from the beginning that we > > wouldn't have had the time to implement this spec and that it would > > have taken us the whole cycle to discuss it. The problem is not that > > we didn't know it to begin with but the fact that we weren't able to > > communicate that to the community from the beginning. I don't think > > this is a big deal, though. We realized soon enough that we shouldn't > > rush this and that dedicating the cycle to discuss this spec was more > > better than rushing it and then have a poor implementation of it. > > > > We also experimented with a new process for lite specs and it was not > > a huge success. This impacted some of the lite specs that had been > > proposed but we did our best to come out of that situation without > > impacting other's people work. In fact, that situation not just > > highlighted the issues we had with the process but the team > > responsible for it (the glance-drivers team), which ended up being > > merged into the glance core team (as I mentioned in the previous > > section). This process is being refactored and you can learn a bit > > more about it in this review. > > > > There's one more thing I wish we would have dedicated more time on. > > That's tempest. Unfortunately, given the time available, size of the > > team and the priorities we had, tempest did not receive as much love > > as we'd have loved to. > > There are several tempest tests that need to be cleaned up a bit, > > especially on the V2 side. > > > >  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/282516/ > > > > To the Glance Community > > ======================= > > > > All the credits for the above goes to you! As a PTL I don't think I > > can take > > *any* credit for what I consider a successful cycle brought by the > > community itself. I instead recognize that it was all possible because > > the community decided to go back to being awesome. I'm a believer that > > the PTL's role is all about enabling the community to be awesome. > > Planning, prioritization, scheduling, etc. it all serves a single > > goal, which is to allow the community for doing what they know best > > and focus on that. > > > > I've enjoyed every single of my stages in this community. Rushing > > through reviews, coding like crazy, ranting like crazy, leading the > > community and back to reviewing like crazy. These years as a member of > > Glance's community have taught me a lot about this project and how > > critical it is for the rest of the community. As I always say, it's > > one of those projects that can take your whole cloud down without you > > even noticing but I do hope you notice it. > > > > Glance is often referred to as a simple project (true), as a small > > project (kinda true) and sometimes as not super cool (false). I'd like > > to remind you that not only Glance is a "cool" project to work on but > > it's also super critical for OpenStack. As I remind you this, I'd like > > to urge you to help the project stay on track across the cycles. > > Glance (as every other projects) depends on the ability of its > > community to dictate what's best for it. > > > > Glance's interoperability has been compromised and there's a plan to > > help bringing it back. Let's get that done. Glance's v1 is not > > considered secure and it must be deprecated. Let's do that as well. > > Glance's stability and security has shown some weaknesses. Let's not > > ignore that. Working on new features is always sexy. Working on the > > new cool stuff that other projects are doing might seem like a must do > > task. I'd argue and say there's a time for everything and, while > > Glance shares OpenStack's priorities, there are times where the > > project needs to take a step back, put itself together again and start > > again. I don't believe Glance has left that self-healing period and > > I'd like to urge the whole community to keep this in mind. > > > > To the new PTL > > ============== > > > > Listen! Listen to the things the OpenStack community has to say. > > Listen to the things external folks have to say. Most importantly, > > listen to what the Glance community has to say. Glance is not a > > playground for making random decisions. If you listen to what the > > community has to say, it'll be easy enough to know what to do and what > > the next steps are. However, you should be ready for making hard > > decisions and you need to have the courage to do so. During the last > > elections, I wrote a post about what being a PTL means and I'd like > > to encourage you to read it, even if you've done so already. > > > > If you look at the goals we set for Glance during Mitaka and the > > results we achieved, you'll soon notice what the priorities for the > > next cycle should be. > > The community will help shaping those priorities but the baseline is > > there already. > > > > A great cycle is not measured on how many features the community is > > able to implement. Therefore, I encourage you to not fall under the > > temptation of approving as many specs as possible. It is *perfectly > > fine* to say no to specs because they conflict with the project's > > priorities. The more specs the team approves, the more code there will > > be, the more people the project will need to complete the feature > > (code wise and review wise). Keep the release small, keep it concise, > > keep it focused. It's extremely important to communicate the intent of > > the release to the rest of the community. Do not forget Glance *is* a > > critical piece of every cloud. > > > > Glance's community is not formed by the core team. It's formed by > > every person willing to dedicate time to the project either on reviews > > or code. Work with them, encourage them. They *are* helping the > > project. Some folks simply don't want to do reviews, that's fine. They > > are still helping with code and bug fixes. > > Recognize that and make sure they feel part of the community because > > they are. > > Expanding the core team is great as long as you can ensure folks in > > the team are aligned with the team's priorities. Welcome new members > > and do it gradually. > > > > One more thing, learn to delegate. During my time as a PTL, I relied > > on other members as much as possible for keeping up with some tasks. > > For instance, Erno Kuvaja helped immensely with releases and stable > > maintenance, Nikhil Komawar kept the team updated about the > > cross-project initiatives, Stuart Mclaren, Hemanth Makkapati and Brian > > Rosmaita worked with the vulnerability team on security issues, etc. > > Thanks to all of them for their immense help and I do hope you'll keep > > up at what you're doing :). In other words, burnout is real and you > > gotta take care of yourself too. Work with the community, there's no > > need to take everything on your shoulders as you might end up dropping > > some balls. When folks don't show up on reviews and they don't share > > their opinions, do not give those as granted. Find them and ask for > > it. > > > > And please, I beg you, let's get rid of v1! > > > >  http://blog.flaper87.com/post/something-about-being-a-ptl/ > > > > Thanks for reading this long email (or to at least have bothered to > > skip till the end of it ;) Flavio > > > > P.S: I've posted this in my blog too: > > http://blog.flaper87.com/post/glance-mitaka-passing-the-torch > > / > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > ____ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Unsubscribe: > > openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev