Re: Follow up on OKD 4

[Gleidson Nascimento]

I'm with Daniel, I believe it is easier to attract help by using Slack instead 
of IRC.

From: dev-boun...@lists.openshift.redhat.com 
 on behalf of Daniel Comnea 

Sent: 20 July 2019 1:02 PM
To: Christian Glombek 
Cc: users ; dev 

Subject: Re: Follow up on OKD 4

Hi Christian,

Welcome and thanks for volunteering on kicking off this effort.

My vote goes to #openshift-dev slack too, OpenShift Commons Slack scope was/is 
a bit different geared towards ISVs.

IRC -  personally have no problem, however the chances to attract more folks 
(especially non RH employees) who might be willing to help growing OKD 
community are higher on slack.

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 9:33 PM Christian Glombek 
mailto:cglom...@redhat.com>> wrote:
+1 for using kubernetes #openshift-dev slack for the OKD WG meetings


On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 6:49 PM Clayton Coleman 
mailto:ccole...@redhat.com>> wrote:
The kube #openshift-dev slack might also make sense, since we have 518 people 
there right now

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:46 PM Christian Glombek 
mailto:cglom...@redhat.com>> wrote:
Hi everyone,

first of all, I'd like to thank Clayton for kicking this off!

As I only just joined this ML, let me quickly introduce myself:

I am an Associate Software Engineer on the OpenShift machine-config-operator 
(mco) team and I'm based out of Berlin, Germany.
Last year, I participated in Google Summer of Code as a student with Fedora IoT 
and joined Red Hat shortly thereafter to work on the Fedora CoreOS (FCOS) team.
I joined the MCO team when it was established earlier this year.

Having been a Fedora/Atomic community member for some years, I'm a strong 
proponent of using FCOS as base OS for OKD and would like to see it enabled :)
As I work on the team that looks after the MCO, which is one of the parts of 
OpenShift that will need some adaptation in order to support another base OS, I 
am confident I can help with contributions there
(of course I don't want to shut the door for other OSes to be used as base if 
people are interested in that :).

Proposal: Create WG and hold regular meetings

I'd like to propose the creation of the OKD Working Group that will hold 
bi-weekly meetings.
(or should we call it a SIG? Also open to suggestions to find the right venue: 
IRC?, OpenShift Commons Slack?).

I'll survey some people in the coming days to find a suitable meeting time.

If you have any feedback or suggestions, please feel free to reach out, either 
via this list or personally!
I can be found as lorbus on IRC/Fedora, @lorbus42 on Twitter, or simply via 
email :)

I'll send out more info here ASAP. Stay tuned!


With kind regards

CHRISTIAN GLOMBEK
Associate Software Engineer

Red Hat GmbH, registred seat: Grassbrunn
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243
Managing directors: Charles Cachera, Michael O'Neill, Thomas Savage, Eric 
Shander


On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 10:45 PM Clayton Coleman 
mailto:ccole...@redhat.com>> wrote:
Thanks for everyone who provided feedback over the last few weeks.  There's 
been a lot of good feedback, including some things I'll try to capture here:

* More structured working groups would be good
* Better public roadmap
* Concrete schedule for OKD 4
* Concrete proposal for OKD 4

I've heard generally positive comments about the suggestions and philosophy in 
the last email, with a desire for more details around what the actual steps 
might look like, so I think it's safe to say that the idea of "continuously up 
to date Kubernetes distribution" resonated.  We'll continue to take feedback 
along this direction (private or public).

Since 4 was the kickoff for this discussion, and with the recent release of the 
Fedora CoreOS beta 
(https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora-coreos/getting-started/) figuring 
prominently in the discussions so far, I got some volunteers from that team to 
take point on setting up a working group (SIG?) around the initial level of 
integration and drafting a proposal.

Steve and Christian have both been working on Fedora CoreOS and graciously 
agreed to help drive the next steps on Fedora CoreOS and OKD potential 
integration into a proposal.  There's a rough level draft doc they plan to 
share - but for now I will turn this over to them and they'll help organize 
time / forum / process for kicking off this effort.  As that continues, we'll 
identify new SIGs to spawn off as necessary to cover other topics, including 
initial CI and release automation to deliver any necessary changes.

Thanks to everyone who gave feedback, and stay tuned here for more!
___
users mailing list
us...@lists.openshift.redhat.com
http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/users
___
dev mailing list
dev@lists.openshift.redhat.com
http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev
_

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

[Daniel Comnea]

On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 5:27 PM Clayton Coleman  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 12:40 PM Justin Cook  wrote:
>
>> Once upon a time Freenode #openshift-dev was vibrant with loads of
>> activity and publicly available logs. I jumped in asked questions and Red
>> Hatters came from the woodwork and some amazing work was done.
>>
>> Perfect.
>>
>> Slack not so much. Since Monday there have been three comments with two
>> reply threads. All this with 524 people. Crickets.
>>
>> Please explain how this is better. I’d really love to know why IRC
>> ceased. It worked and worked brilliantly.
>>
>
> Is your concern about volume or location (irc vs slack)?
>
> Re volume: It should be relatively easy to move some common discussion
> types into the #openshift-dev slack channel (especially triage / general
> QA) that might be distributed to other various slack channels today (both
> private and public), and I can take the follow up to look into that.  Some
> of the volume that was previously in IRC moved to these slack channels, but
> they're not anything private (just convenient).
>
> Re location:  I don't know how many people want to go back to IRC from
> slack, but that's a fairly easy survey to do here if someone can volunteer
> to drive that, and I can run the same one internally.  Some of it is
> inertia - people have to be in slack sig-* channels - and some of it is
> preference (in that IRC is an inferior experience for long running
> communication).
>
[DC]: i've already reached out to Christian over the weekend and we are
going to have a 1:1 early next week to sort out some logistics and
hopefully we'll have something to share more mid next week in terms of
survey comms and process moving forward.


>
>>
>> There are mentions of sigs and bits and pieces, but absolutely no
>> progress. I fail to see why anyone would want to regress. OCP4 maybe
>> brilliant, but as I said in a private email, without upstream there is no
>> culture or insurance we’ve come to love from decades of heart and soul.
>>
>> Ladies and gentlemen, this is essentially getting to the point the
>> community is being abandoned. Man years of work acknowledged with the
>> roadmap pulled out from under us.
>>
>
> I don't think that's a fair characterization, but I understand why you
> feel that way and we are working to get the 4.x work moving.  The FCoS team
> as mentioned just released their first preview last week, I've been working
> with Diane and others to identify who on the team is going to take point on
> the design work, and there's a draft in flight that I saw yesterday.  Every
> component of OKD4 *besides* the FCoS integration is public and has been
> public for months.
>
> [DC]: Clayton, was that drat you mentioned circulated internally or is
public available?


> I do want to make sure we can get a basic preview up as quickly as
> possible - one option I was working on with the legal side was whether we
> could offer a short term preview of OKD4 based on top of RHCoS.  That is
> possible if folks are willing to accept the terms on try.openshift.com in
> order to access it in the very short term (and then once FCoS is available
> that would not be necessary).  If that's an option you or anyone on this
> thread are interested in please let me know, just as something we can do to
> speed up.
>
>
[DC]: my suggestion is that we should hold on this at least until we get
the SIG and the meeting going to at least have an open debate with the
folks who are willing to stick around and help out. Once we've get a quorum
we can then ask for a waiver on OKDv4 with RHCoS



>> I completely understand the disruption caused by the acquisition. But,
>> after kicking the tyres and our meeting a few weeks back, it’s been pretty
>> quiet. The clock is ticking on corporate long-term strategies. Some of
>> those corporates spent plenty of dosh on licensing OCP and hiring
>> consultants to implement.
>>
>
>> Red Hat need to lead from the front. Get IRC revived, throw us a bone,
>> and have us put our money where our mouth is — we’ll get involved. We’re
>> begging for it.
>>
>> Until then we’re running out of patience via clientele and will need to
>> start a community effort perhaps by forking OKD3 and integrating upstream.
>> I am not interested in doing that. We shouldn’t have to.
>>
>
> In the spirit of full transparency, FCoS integrated into OKD is going to
> take several months to get to the point where it meets the quality bar I'd
> expect for OKD4.  If that timeframe doesn't work for folks, we can
> definitely consider other options like having RHCoS availability behind a
> terms agreement, a franken-OKD without host integration (which might take
> just as long to get and not really be a step forward for folks vs 3), or
> other, more dramatic options.  Have folks given FCoS a try this week?
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora-coreos/getting-started/.
> That's a great place to get started
>
> As always PRs and fixes to 3.x will contin

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

[Clayton Coleman]

On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 12:40 PM Justin Cook  wrote:

> Once upon a time Freenode #openshift-dev was vibrant with loads of
> activity and publicly available logs. I jumped in asked questions and Red
> Hatters came from the woodwork and some amazing work was done.
>
> Perfect.
>
> Slack not so much. Since Monday there have been three comments with two
> reply threads. All this with 524 people. Crickets.
>
> Please explain how this is better. I’d really love to know why IRC ceased.
> It worked and worked brilliantly.
>

Is your concern about volume or location (irc vs slack)?

Re volume: It should be relatively easy to move some common discussion
types into the #openshift-dev slack channel (especially triage / general
QA) that might be distributed to other various slack channels today (both
private and public), and I can take the follow up to look into that.  Some
of the volume that was previously in IRC moved to these slack channels, but
they're not anything private (just convenient).

Re location:  I don't know how many people want to go back to IRC from
slack, but that's a fairly easy survey to do here if someone can volunteer
to drive that, and I can run the same one internally.  Some of it is
inertia - people have to be in slack sig-* channels - and some of it is
preference (in that IRC is an inferior experience for long running
communication).


>
> There are mentions of sigs and bits and pieces, but absolutely no
> progress. I fail to see why anyone would want to regress. OCP4 maybe
> brilliant, but as I said in a private email, without upstream there is no
> culture or insurance we’ve come to love from decades of heart and soul.
>
> Ladies and gentlemen, this is essentially getting to the point the
> community is being abandoned. Man years of work acknowledged with the
> roadmap pulled out from under us.
>

I don't think that's a fair characterization, but I understand why you feel
that way and we are working to get the 4.x work moving.  The FCoS team as
mentioned just released their first preview last week, I've been working
with Diane and others to identify who on the team is going to take point on
the design work, and there's a draft in flight that I saw yesterday.  Every
component of OKD4 *besides* the FCoS integration is public and has been
public for months.

I do want to make sure we can get a basic preview up as quickly as possible
- one option I was working on with the legal side was whether we could
offer a short term preview of OKD4 based on top of RHCoS.  That is possible
if folks are willing to accept the terms on try.openshift.com in order to
access it in the very short term (and then once FCoS is available that
would not be necessary).  If that's an option you or anyone on this thread
are interested in please let me know, just as something we can do to speed
up.


>
> I completely understand the disruption caused by the acquisition. But,
> after kicking the tyres and our meeting a few weeks back, it’s been pretty
> quiet. The clock is ticking on corporate long-term strategies. Some of
> those corporates spent plenty of dosh on licensing OCP and hiring
> consultants to implement.
>

> Red Hat need to lead from the front. Get IRC revived, throw us a bone, and
> have us put our money where our mouth is — we’ll get involved. We’re
> begging for it.
>
> Until then we’re running out of patience via clientele and will need to
> start a community effort perhaps by forking OKD3 and integrating upstream.
> I am not interested in doing that. We shouldn’t have to.
>

In the spirit of full transparency, FCoS integrated into OKD is going to
take several months to get to the point where it meets the quality bar I'd
expect for OKD4.  If that timeframe doesn't work for folks, we can
definitely consider other options like having RHCoS availability behind a
terms agreement, a franken-OKD without host integration (which might take
just as long to get and not really be a step forward for folks vs 3), or
other, more dramatic options.  Have folks given FCoS a try this week?
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora-coreos/getting-started/.
That's a great place to get started

As always PRs and fixes to 3.x will continue to be welcomed and that effort
continues unabated.
___
dev mailing list
dev@lists.openshift.redhat.com
http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev