Mike Perez wrote:
On 11:31 Jun 20, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Joshua Harlow's message of 2016-06-17 15:33:25 -0700:
Thanks for getting this started Clint,
I'm happy and excited to be involved in helping try to guide the whole
ecosystem together (it's also why I like being in oslo) to a
architecture that is more cohesive (and is more of something that we can
say to our current or future children that we were all involved and
proud to be involved in creating/maturing...).
At a start, for said first meeting, any kind of agenda come to mind, or
will it be more a informal gathering to start (either is fine with me)?
I've been hesitant to fill this in too much as I'm still forming the
idea, but here are the items I think are most compelling to begin with:
* DLM's across OpenStack -- This is already under way[1], but it seems to
have fizzled out. IMO that is because there's no working group who
owns it. We need to actually write some plans.
Not meaning to nitpick, but I don't think this is a compelling reason for the
architecture working group. We need a group that wants to spend time on
reviewing the drivers being proposed. This is like saying we need the
architecture working group because no working group is actively reshaping quotas
cross-project.
With that said, I can see the architecture working group providing information
on to a group actually reviewing/writing drivers for DLM and saying "Doing
mutexes with the mysql driver is crazy, I brought it in a environment and have
such information to support that it is not reliable". THAT is useful and I
don't feel like people do enough of.
My point is call your working group whatever you want (The Purple Parrots), and
just go spearhead DLM, but don't make it about one of the most compelling
reasons for the existence of this group.
Sadly I feel if such a group formed it wouldn't be addressing the larger
issue that this type of group is trying to address; the purple parrots
would be a tactical team that could go do what u said, but that doesn't
address the larger strategic goal of trying to improve the full
situation (technical and architectural inconsistencies and 'fizzling
out' solutions) that IMHO needs to be worked through.
So yes, the tactical group needs to exist, and overall it likely will,
but there also needs to be a strategic group that is being proactive
about the issues and not just tactically reacting to things (which isn't
imho healthy).
-Josh
__________________________________________________________________________
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
