I believe this is one of the goal of Product WG, providing a common platform for users/operators and WG to aggregrate requirements by creating common "User Story Requirements" which can be implemented cross-project, cross-releases. https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ProductTeam#Objectives https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ProductTeam/User_Stories#User_Story_Workflow
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Tim Bell <tim.b...@cern.ch> wrote: > +1 for the WG summary and sharing priorities. > > Equally, exploring how we can make use of common collaboration tools for > all WG would be beneficial. > > There is much work to do to get the needs translated to code/doc/tools and > it would be a pity if we are not sharing to the full across WGs due to > different technology choices. > > Tim > > On 03.02.17, 19:16, "Jonathan Proulx" <j...@csail.mit.edu> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 04:34:20PM +0100, lebre.adr...@free.fr wrote: > :Hi, > : > :I don't know whether there is already a concrete/effective way to > identify overlapping between WGs. > :But if not, one way can be to arrange one general session in each > summit where all WG chairs could come and discuss about major actions that > have been done for the past cycle and what are the plans for the next one. > > > That's a really good idea. I think that woudl be a good use of the UC > Forum session. In the past those had mostly been about what is the UC > and how shoudl it be structured going forward. With recent by laws > change and upcoming ellection that's pretty settled. > > Having a (very) brief report back from working groups and teams > followed by cross group discussion could be a valuable way forward for > that session IMO. > > -Jon > > : > :Being involved in several WGs allows us to identify collaboration > opportunities (done for instance between the NFV and Massively Distributed > WGs/Teams during this cycle) but to be honest it is costly and sometimes > not still feasible to be involved in every action. > :Offering the opportunity to get an up-to-date overview every 6 months > can be valuable for all of us. > : > :My two cents, > :ad_rien_ > : > :----- Mail original ----- > :> De: "Jay Pipes" <jaypi...@gmail.com> > :> À: "Yih Leong Sun" <yih.leong....@intel.com>, "Edgar Magana" < > edgar.mag...@workday.com>, > :> openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org, user-committee@lists. > openstack.org > :> Cc: "JAMEY A MCCABE" <jm6...@att.com>, "ANDREW UKASICK" < > au3...@att.com> > :> Envoyé: Vendredi 3 Février 2017 16:14:26 > :> Objet: Re: [User-committee] [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] > Large Contributing OpenStack Operators working > :> group? > :> > :> Leong, thanks so much for responding. Comments/followup questions > :> inline. > :> > :> On 02/02/2017 09:07 PM, Sun, Yih Leong wrote: > :> > LCOO was initiated by a group of large telco who contributes/uses > :> > OpenStack, such as AT&T, NTT, Reliance Jio, Orange, etc [1]. > :> > :> ack. > :> > :> > The co-chair has reached out to Product WG for collaboration > (refer > :> > IRC meeting logs). The team is working on plans to > :> > structure/define LCOO use cases. > :> > :> My question here is what makes the LCOO use cases different from, > :> say, > :> the Telco Operator working group's use cases? Or the Massively > :> Distributed working group's use cases? Or the Enterprise working > :> group's > :> use cases? > :> > :> Is the difference that the LCOO's use cases are stories that are > :> important for the LCOO member companies? > :> > :> > Use case requirements (while still work-in-progress) can span > :> > across multiple areas which might/might-not covered by existing > :> > Team/WG. > :> > :> Understood. Is the plan of the LCOO to identify use cases that are > :> covered by other working groups, contribute resources to develop > that > :> use case, but have that existing working group handle the product > :> management (spec/blueprint/communication/roadmap) stuff? > :> > :> > I'm sure LCOO will reach out to various projects for > collaboration, > :> > stay tuned... > :> > :> My questions seem to have been taken as an attack on the LCOO. I was > :> hoping to avoid that. I'm sincerely hoping to see the outreach to > :> various projects and am eager to collaborate with developers and > :> operators from the LCOO companies. I'm just confused what the > :> relationship between the LCOO and the existing working groups is. > :> > :> Best, > :> -jay > :> > :> > [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/LCOO_Participants > :> > > :> > Thanks! > :> > > :> > --- > :> > Yih Leong Sun, PhD > :> > Senior Software Cloud Architect | Open Source Technology Center | > :> > Intel Corporation > :> > yih.leong....@intel.com | +1 503 264 0610 > :> > > :> > > :> > -----Original Message----- > :> > From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com] > :> > Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 5:23 PM > :> > To: Edgar Magana <edgar.mag...@workday.com>; > :> > openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org; > :> > user-commit...@lists.openstack.org > :> > Cc: MCCABE, JAMEY A <jm6...@att.com>; UKASICK, ANDREW > :> > <au3...@att.com> > :> > Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] Large > :> > Contributing OpenStack Operators working group? > :> > > :> > On 02/02/2017 05:02 PM, Edgar Magana wrote: > :> >> Jay, > :> >> > :> >> I am including the WG chairs to make sure they answers your > :> >> questions and addresses your concerns. > :> >> In Barcelona the UC asked exactly the same questions and > :> >> recommended to the co-chairs of the LCOO WG to work with the > :> >> existing WG to identify overlapping activities and either to work > :> >> together or go ahead with the WG if there were not overlapping on > :> >> goals and deliverables. > :> > > :> > Was there any follow-on from that request from the UC? > :> > > :> >> I will let the co-chairs to follow up yours questions. BTW. I do > :> >> not think this topic should be posted in the openstack-dev > :> >> mailing list. So, I will BCC it. > :> > > :> > Sure, no problem. > :> > > :> >> Andrew and Jamey, > :> >> > :> >> Please, address these questions. Let’s work all together to make > :> >> sure that we have all groups aligned and coordinated. > :> > > :> > Thanks, Edgar, appreciated. Andrew and Jamey, please do let me > know > :> > if you would like me to rephrase or elaborate on any questions. > :> > Happy to do so. I genuinely want to see alignment with other > :> > groups in this effort. > :> > > :> > Best, > :> > -jay > :> > > :> >> Thanks, > :> >> > :> >> Edgar > :> >> > :> >> On 2/2/17, 12:14 PM, "Jay Pipes" <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote: > :> >> > :> >> Hi, > :> >> > :> >> I was told about this group today. I have a few questions. > :> >> Hopefully > :> >> someone from this team can illuminate me with some answers. > :> >> > :> >> 1) What is the purpose of this group? The wiki states that > the > :> >> team > :> >> "aims to define the use cases and identify and prioritise the > :> >> requirements which are needed to deploy, manage, and run > :> >> services on top > :> >> of OpenStack. This work includes identifying functional gaps, > :> >> creating > :> >> blueprints, submitting and reviewing patches to the relevant > :> >> OpenStack > :> >> projects, contributing to working those items, tracking their > :> >> completion." > :> >> > :> >> What is the difference between the LCOO and the following > :> >> existing > :> >> working groups? > :> >> > :> >> * Large Deployment Team > :> >> * Massively Distributed Team > :> >> * Product Working Group > :> >> * Telco/NFV Working Group > :> >> > :> >> 2) According to the wiki page, only companies that are > :> >> "Multi-Cloud > :> >> Operator[s] and/or Network Service Provider[s]" are welcome > in > :> >> this > :> >> team. Why is the team called "Large Contributing OpenStack > :> >> Operators" if > :> >> it's only for Telcos? Further, if this is truly only for > :> >> Telcos, why > :> >> isn't the Telco/NFV working group appropriate? > :> >> > :> >> 3) Under the "Guiding principles" section of the above wiki, > :> >> the top > :> >> principle is "Align with the OpenStack Foundation". If this > is > :> >> the case, > :> >> why did the group move its content to the closed Atlassian > :> >> Confuence > :> >> platform? Why does the group have a set of separate Slack > :> >> channels > :> >> instead of using the OpenStack mailing lists and IRC > channels? > :> >> Why is > :> >> the OPNFV Jira used for tracking work items for the LCOO > :> >> agenda? > :> >> > :> >> See > :> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki. > openstack.org_wiki_Gluon_Tasks-2DOcata&d=DwICAg&c=DS6PUFBBr_ > KiLo7Sjt3ljp5jaW5k2i9ijVXllEdOozc&r=G0XRJfDQsuBvqa_ > wpWyDAUlSpeMV4W1qfWqBfctlWwQ&m=haOSpIhsa6KyDvuhRFigFVTLrTJxJ1 > Zv3kfm0JwTTtY&s=kntt00JEwpizTxQus4U9FhnwF_7WicJ7oRncGmkYPGc&e= > :> >> for examples. > :> >> > :> >> 4) I see a lot of agenda items around projects like Gluon, > :> >> Craton, > :> >> Watcher, and Blazar. I don't see any concrete ideas about > :> >> talking with > :> >> the developers of the key infrastructure services that > :> >> OpenStack is > :> >> built around. How does the LCOO plan on reaching out to the > :> >> developers > :> >> of the long-standing OpenStack projects like Nova, Neutron, > :> >> Cinder, and > :> >> Keystone to drive their shared agenda? > :> >> > :> >> Thanks for reading and (hopefully) answering. > :> >> > :> >> -jay > :> >> > :> >> ____________________________________________________________ > ______________ > :> >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > :> >> Unsubscribe: > :> >> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject: > unsubscribe > :> >> > :> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists. > openstack.or > :> >> g_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_openstack-2Ddev&d=DwICAg&c= > DS6PUFBBr_KiLo > :> >> 7Sjt3ljp5jaW5k2i9ijVXllEdOozc&r=G0XRJfDQsuBvqa_ > wpWyDAUlSpeMV4W1qfWqBfc > :> >> tlWwQ&m=haOSpIhsa6KyDvuhRFigFVTLrTJxJ1Zv3kfm0JwTTtY&s= > RzyOgrwm1BfJXW8S > :> >> deBdAOpYEAXsisGKWvj_Lk3iEec&e= > :> >> > :> >> > :> >> _______________________________________________ > :> >> OpenStack-operators mailing list > :> >> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org > :> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ > openstack-operator > :> >> s > :> >> > :> > > :> > _______________________________________________ > :> > OpenStack-operators mailing list > :> > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org > :> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ > openstack-operators > :> > > :> > :> _______________________________________________ > :> User-committee mailing list > :> user-commit...@lists.openstack.org > :> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee > :> > : > :_______________________________________________ > :User-committee mailing list > :user-commit...@lists.openstack.org > :http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee > > -- > > _______________________________________________ > User-committee mailing list > user-commit...@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee > > > _______________________________________________ > User-committee mailing list > user-commit...@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators