Re: Call for Agreement: OKD Roadmap
The community is interested in dates. Surely enough time has passed there’s a decent indication. On 25 Oct 2019, 14:09 +0100, Vadim Rutkovsky , wrote: > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 2:57 PM Justin Cook wrote: > > Are there any dates associated with milestones? I can’t find any. > > No, not yet. We'll present the existing progress on the next OKD WG meeting > > -- > Cheers, > Vadim ___ dev mailing list dev@lists.openshift.redhat.com http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev
Re: Call for Agreement: OKD Roadmap
Are there any dates associated with milestones? I can’t find any.
On 25 Oct 2019, 13:12 +0100, Christian Glombek , wrote:
>
> The Roadmap for OKD 4 has been accepted!
>
>
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 3:00 PM Christian Glombek
> > wrote:
> > > Dear OKD Community,
> > > this is a Call for Agreement on the topic of the OKD Roadmap, per the
> > > terms of the Charter.
> > > The proposed Roadmap can be found here:
> > > https://github.com/openshift/community/pull/55
> > > Question:
> > > Do you accept or reject the proposed roadmap as the official roadmap
> > > document for OKD?
> > > Please comment on the pull request to indicate your vote ("accept" or
> > > "reject").
> > > The voting period will conclude on October 23, 2019, at 00:00 UTC.
> > > The outcome of the Call for Agreement will be published here as well as
> > > on the Mailing List.
> > > Thank you for your participation.
> > > Christian Glombek
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "okd-wg" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to okd-wg+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/okd-wg/CAABn9-_rM1B%3DtNN4uZYLavtHEhVvQ1d7NTC3XU9x%2BySXeaWDCQ%40mail.gmail.com.
___
dev mailing list
dev@lists.openshift.redhat.com
http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev
Re: Follow up on OKD 4
On 24 Jul 2019, 04:57 -0500, Daniel Comnea , wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All i'm trying to say with the above is: > > > > > > > > > > Should we go with IRC as a form of communication we should then be > > > > > ready to have bodies lined up to: > > > > > > > > > > • look after and admin the IRC channels. > > > > > • enable the IRC log channels and also filter out the noise to be > > > > > consumable (not just stream the logs somewhere and tick the box) > > > > > > > > > > > Easy enough. It’s been done time and again. Let’s give it a whirl. Since > > > I’m the one complaining perhaps I can put my name in for consideration. > > > > > [DC]: i understood not everyone is okay with logging any activity due to > > GDPR so i think this goes off the table GDPR has very little to do with this and can be easily mitigated. Your communication on IRC is logged via handles and IP addresses, and the right to be forgotten only applies to personal identifiable information and is not absolute. As for the public domain, when someone enters a public channel, there can be an explicit statement they consent to their information they have provided entering the public domain. Their continuing use of the channel implies they consent. If someone want’s the handle, let’s say an email address scrubbed, then so be it. Otherwise, there’s nothing of interest. But, yet again, if they used the channel with explicit notification, their use is consent. Using GDPR as an excuse is fear mongering by people who don’t understand it. Justin Cook > > > > > > > > > > ___ dev mailing list dev@lists.openshift.redhat.com http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev
Re: Follow up on OKD 4
On 22 Jul 2019, 00:07 +0100, Gleidson Nascimento , wrote: > I'm with Daniel, I believe it is easier to attract help by using Slack > instead of IRC. My experience over many years — especially with OCP3 — IRC with public logs smashes Slack. It’s not comparable. The proof is in the pudding. Compare the public IRC logs with the Slack channel. The way I see it is we should practice openness in everything. Slack is proprietary. Google does not index the logs. That’s a full stop for me. As a matter of fact, many others agree. Just search it. The most disappointing thing is for over two decades open IRC has been used with open mailing lists and open documentation with a new trend of using fancy (arguably not) things that own the data we produce and we have to pay them to index it for us and in the end it’s not publicly available — see a theme emerging? So go ahead and have your Slack with three threads per week and we’ll see if your belief stays the same. The wide open searchable public IRC is the heavyweight champion that’s never let us down. As a matter of fact, being completely open helped build OCP3 and we all know how that worked out. Justin ___ dev mailing list dev@lists.openshift.redhat.com http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev
Re: Follow up on OKD 4
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. 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 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. Cheers, Justin Cook On 20 Jul 2019, 06:34 +0530, Daniel Comnea , wrote: > 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 > > wrote: > > > +1 for using kubernetes #openshift-dev slack for the OKD WG meetings > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 6:49 PM Clayton Coleman > > > > 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 > > > > > > 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?). > > > > > >
Re: Proposal: Deploy and switch to Discourse
On 12 Jul 2019, 15:52 +0100, Neal Gompa , wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 10:48 AM Michael Gugino wrote: > > > > I propose we keep the mailing list, and get back on Freenode for > > support instead of slack. In fact, I think we should move all > > openshift discussions that are not confidential to freenode. > > > > +1. It'd be nice if the IRC channel wasn't a dead zone. Pretty please? ___ dev mailing list dev@lists.openshift.redhat.com http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev
Re: Proposal: Deploy and switch to Discourse
Freenode+++ On 12 Jul 2019, 15:48 +0100, Michael Gugino , wrote: > I propose we keep the mailing list, and get back on Freenode for > support instead of slack. In fact, I think we should move all > openshift discussions that are not confidential to freenode. > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 10:12 AM Colin Walters wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I think the Common's use of Slack is not a good match for "support". > > Requiring an invitation is also an impediment to quickly asking questions. > > Further Slack is proprietary, and also any discussion there won't be easily > > found by Google. > > > > On the other hand we have these mailing lists, which are fine but they're > > traditional mailing lists with all the tradeoffs there. > > > > I propose we shut down the user@ and dev@ lists and deploy a Discourse > > instance, which is what the cool kids ;) are doing: > > https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/ > > http://internals.rust-lang.org/ > > etc. > > > > Discourse is IMO really nice because for people who want a mailing list it > > can act like that, but for people who both want a modern web UI and most > > importantly just want to drop in occasionally and not be committed to > > receiving a stream of email, it works a lot better. Also importantly to me > > it's FOSS. > > > > I would also personally lean towards not using Slack too but I see that as > > a separate discussion - it's real time, and that's a distinct thing from > > discourse. If we get a lot of momentum in our Discourse though over Slack > > we can consider what to do later. > > > > ___ > > dev mailing list > > dev@lists.openshift.redhat.com > > http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev > > > > -- > Michael Gugino > Senior Software Engineer - OpenShift > mgug...@redhat.com > 540-846-0304 > > ___ > dev mailing list > dev@lists.openshift.redhat.com > http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev ___ dev mailing list dev@lists.openshift.redhat.com http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev
