Dear all:
The release of openstack on my server is D3. I tred to run ' qemu-kvm
-hda /root/free.img -m 512 -vga qxl -spice port=5930,disable-ticketing '
without openstack , it worked well.
However,I have tried to modify the
'/opt/stack/nova/nova/virt/libvirt.xml.template' in order to let the spice
work with the openstack. Then it failed.
Is there anyone tried this? Could you give me some help? Thanks.
Yours.
Suyi
发件人: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Devin
Carlen
发送时间: 2012年3月10日 7:00
收件人: Mark Collier
抄送: [email protected]; OpenStack
主题: Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative
Mark, one thing that I am curious about - there doesn't seem to be language in
the foundation structure document that would prevent "individual" members from
organizations that are also "strategic" members from also being on the board.
Is there any language that prevents board stacking?
Devin
On Friday, March 9, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Mark Collier wrote:
Josh,
Thanks for taking the time to consider the proposed structure and provide your
thoughts on it. I don't think your concerns are very far off from what we are
wanting to address with the Associate Member category, which allows more
companies to be represented at a lower price point. The current funding
proposal is on the wiki for reference:
http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/Funding
Let me address a few of your points regarding the proposed plan:
Accessibility: Associate Member fees start at $50k/year which is substantially
lower than a $200k/year flat fee model. The members will elect resprenstatives
as a class to the Board. Those Board members will have the same roles and
responsibilities as any other Board member. Additionally, companies who wish to
show their support for OpenStack may also become a sponsor without paying the
full Associate Member fee. Sponsor levels have not been worked out, but I
suspect they will start in the 20k/year range.
Board Size: My sense is that with a flat fee of 200k/year, we would still get
many more than 15-20 interested parties, which would quickly overwhelm the
board, making it unmanageable. The Associate Member concept mitigates this
issue by allowing the class to grow (for accessibility), without the seats
balooning, by having elected representatives. It also reduces the risk of
shaking up the board makeup and size through acquisition.
Strategic Member fees: One small clarification: the proposal calls for
Strategic Members to make a commitment of $500k/year for 5 years, paid annually
(not up front). This figure was driven primarily by the need to arrive at a
reasonable board size, while also raising substantial funds for foundation
operations.
Strategic Member dominance: Board members who are appointed by Strategic
Members will make up only 1/3 of the board, and will have the same roles and
responsibilties as the other board members.
Requirement for Strategic Members to have full time staff: The current
structure proposal states that Strategic Members must "Provide dedicated
resources (e.g. developers, legal resources)" and the funding proposal states
that "...the general expectation is a resource commitment that is consistent
with staffing two full time equivalents" so it looks like we are on the same
page re: 2 FTE requirement.
I hope many other folks take the opporunity to weigh in, both on this mailing
list as well as in the webinars we'll be holding next week and in any other
forum that suits your fancy. I'll also try to keep up with all of the blogging
and tweeting, as if that's possible!
Mark
From: Joshua McKenty <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 11:20:17 -0800
To: OpenStack <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Subject: [OpenStack Foundation] Foundation Structure: An Alternative
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a diplomatic person. When we were
launching OpenStack, this was a bit of an advantage (if we had waited for
permission before releasing the Nova source code, we'd still be waiting) - but
since the first summit, the community has grown so quickly, and become so
diverse, that I have tried to leave discussions of governance, foundation
structure, dispute resolution, and most particularly monetary corporate
contributions, to others with more... tact.
But now I feel I have no choice but to speak up; I'm deeply concerned.
The biggest, splashiest openstack stories of the past two years have all had
the names of huge, multi-national corporations in them - names like IBM, AT&T,
Dell, HP, and CISCO. And while their participation has been tremendously
positive for the project (with Quantum and Crowbar standing as examples of
this), I see things trending in a direction that makes me nervous for the
smaller players - for the startups who will live or die on the strength of the
OpenStack project. Like Piston Cloud.
The current official proposal for the foundation creates a new class of
super-members - with a sticker price of $2.5M (due up front) that puts it out
of reach of all but a small handful of organizations.
This is not a new idea - it was the first structural proposal for the
foundation that I heard from the organizing team, and I have argued against it
(at times seemingly successfully) continuously since last fall.
I understand why it is appealing; it creates a small and manageable board of
directors, with a large pool of resources, who shouldn't have too much trouble
guiding and directing the outcomes of OpenStack. But it's not a structure that
represents or embodies the principles that OpenStack was founded upon, and I
think that while it may offer some short-term benefits, it may be damaging to
the long-term health of the project because it strangles the ecosystem of
contributing companies we've worked so hard to create.
The "right" structure is a much harder thing to organize:
- It recognizes and requires project contribution (code, tests, docs, bugs and
evangelism) along with cash
- It has a single class of corporate member, a level playing field
- It has room for non-corporate members in the meaningful governance bodies
(not tucked away in 'advisory' boards)
- It aggressively and publicly resolves the conflict-of-interest between the
'company hat' and the 'project hat'
My understanding of the key challenges of this foundation board are the
following:
- Keep it small enough to be manageable (21 directors or less)
- Supply enough funding to carry on with most of the current project support
activities
- Ensure representation of the diversity of the OpenStack community
- Provide a mechanism for "industry luminaries" as well as OpenStack users and
consumers to provide input and feedback
The target budget of the Foundation is around $3M per year. Without getting
into a discussion about whether that's reasonable or not, I'd like to
brainstorm how we could reach that goal in a way that better reflects our goals
for an open and democratic community. How's this for a proposal:
- One class of corporate member
- Provide reasonable evidence of 2 FTE (full time equivalents) working on
OpenStack in some capacity
- Commit to 2 years of sponsorship, on an evergreen basis, but paid annually
- Individual members, if there are any, cannot be employed by a corporate
member
My rough calculation, having a reasonably good grasp of the interests and level
of engagement of the various corporations in the OpenStack ecosystem, is that
we could expect around 15 of the 150 companies involved to meet these
requirements. $3M divided by 15 = $200,000.
It's a high playing field, but at least it's a level one. It doesn't change the
structure or composition of the technical committee, and it doesn't limit the
ability of the foundation to raise money in other ways (sell sponsorships for
events, charge admission for conferences, even license the use of the trademark
for training or certification).
If we have a simple pay-to-play model, then we can trust market economics and
enforce transparency of spending. If we have a simple "meritocracy", then we
can expect the most skilled and dedicated to rise to the top, provided we're
extremely careful about how we measure skill and dedication. If we blend the
two, I'm deeply concerned that we'll see the worst of both systems play out
over time - the selfishness of market-driven economics dominating our decisions
with the petulant moralism of the meritocracy. Hoping for any other outcome is,
in my opinion, foolish optimism.
At the core of OpenStack is the idea that a single project could address the
needs of ALL of our organizations - large, small, producers, consumers,
non-profits and tool makers. We need to guard that vision, and protect it from
our best intentions. No one in the community, whether individual contributor or
corporate sponsor, can claim to speak for (or even understand the perspective
of) the majority of us. We're simply too numerous, and too diverse. If you
believe, as I do, that *your* company should have a stake in OpenStack's
future, then now is the time to speak up in favor of the level playing field we
originally set out to create.
With (attempted) diplomacy,
Joshua
--
Joshua McKenty
Co-Founder, OpenStack
CEO, Piston Cloud Computing, Inc.
w: (650) 24-CLOUD
m: (650) 283-6846
http://www.pistoncloud.com
"Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!"
"Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."
_______________________________________________ Foundation mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
