[Openstack] Openstack+Quantum+OVS Internals - Doubts

2012-07-29 Thread Trinath Somanchi
Hi-

I'm now viewing the code of Openstack from a top level to understand the
process flow of the commands and messages in the system.

I have the following doubts.

[1] What is the role of Quantum-Agent in Controller and Node. How will the
"gw-" and "tap-" interface and ports are created in Controller and Host
integration bridge of ovs.

This is how I understand from my study.

*[Trinath] *The flow as follows


   1. Upon receiving an REST call from Horizon, Nova API collected the
   Networking information from the nova_network and prepares an JSON formatted
   request and update the AMQP Queue.
   2. AMQP sends an Async cast to Nova Compute. Upon receiving the cast,
   Nova Compute issues _create_instance and updates the AMQP queue. AMQP queue
   sends an Async cast to Scheduler.
   3. Upon receiving the cast, Scheduler selects the Compute Node and send
   an async cast to the node. Node using the info in the queue using libvirt
   brings up the instance.
   4. Quantum-Agent at NODE updates the DB at controller with the Vlan
   tagged Port-Vif details.
   5. Quantum-Agent at Controller upon reading the DB on Vlan tagged
   Port-Vif details creates Gateway interfaces in the OVS integration bridge
   so that controller can access the VM's present in remote host.

Please update/correct with the pitfalls in my understanding outlined above.


[2] How AMQP (using RabbitMQ server) work, mean to say. How Controller
communicates with the Node for creating an Virtual instance in view of
AMQP. Wanted to be more clear on what Messages do Controller and Node
exchange to create an Virtual Instance.

*[Trinath]* I'm not good at AMQP. Can you kindly describe on how this works.

[3] I have created a Public and Tenant specific network using "nova-manage
network " command.

For each Virtual Instance, I have seen a Public IP addr, and Tenant
Specific IP Addr. For both IP addrs I'm unable to ping from NODE machine.

Rather for the Tenant specific IP Addrs I'm able to ping from Controller
but not the Public IP Addrs..

Can any one guide me on what has happened in the way...

Thanking you...

-- 
Regards,
--
Trinath Somanchi,
+91 9866 235 130
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp


Re: [Openstack] qpid_heartbeat...doesn't?

2012-07-29 Thread Lars Kellogg-Stedman
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 09:49:25PM -0400, Lars Kellogg-Stedman wrote:
> And indeed, if I run a packet trace on this connection, I can verify
> that packets are only showing up at five-minute intervals.

Horrors!  It may be that nova-volume didn't get restarted when I
restarted everything else.  After explicitly restarting nova-volume it
now seems to be emitting heartbeat traffic that correspond with what
the other processes are doing.

-- 
Lars Kellogg-Stedman|
Senior Technologist| http://ac.seas.harvard.edu/
Academic Computing | 
http://code.seas.harvard.edu/
Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences |

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp


Re: [Openstack] qpid_heartbeat...doesn't?

2012-07-29 Thread Lars Kellogg-Stedman
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 01:41:20AM +0100, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> Perhaps there is another issue with the scheduling of this?

That's likely. While I verified that the patch successfully fixed our
connection timeout issue, I didn't look closely to see exactly where
the behavior changed...and the connection that is standing out now
belongs to nova-volume, whereas the timouts were happening with
nova-compute.

> How are you monitoring the connection?

Our firewall is a Cisco ASDM (6.1).  I'm monitoring the connection by
running:

  show conn lport 5672

Which gets me:

  TCP compute-hosts:630 10.243.16.151:39756 controllers:621 
openstack-controller:5672 idle 0:00:00 Bytes 6410148 FLAGS - UBOI
  TCP compute-hosts:630 10.243.16.151:39881 controllers:621 
openstack-controller:5672 idle 0:00:04 Bytes 10470 FLAGS - UBOI
  TCP compute-hosts:630 10.243.16.151:39755 controllers:621 
openstack-controller:5672 idle 0:00:02 Bytes 9717108 FLAGS - UBOI
  TCP compute-hosts:630 10.243.16.151:39736 controllers:621 
openstack-controller:5672 idle 0:03:59 Bytes 36206 FLAGS - UBOI
  TCP compute-hosts:630 10.243.16.151:39752 controllers:621 
openstack-controller:5672 idle 0:00:03 Bytes 4313246 FLAGS - UBOI

Where the fields are:

   idle  ...
 
The connection from port 39736 on the compute host (which is the
nova-volume process) regularly cycles up to 5 minutes of idle time
before resetting to 0 (and the firewall sets the idle time to zero
whenever any traffic passes across the connection).

And indeed, if I run a packet trace on this connection, I can verify
that packets are only showing up at five-minute intervals.

-- 
Lars Kellogg-Stedman|
Senior Technologist| http://ac.seas.harvard.edu/
Academic Computing | 
http://code.seas.harvard.edu/
Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences |


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp


[Openstack] Hiding complexity of paste config files from operators

2012-07-29 Thread Lorin Hochstein
All:

I wanted to discuss the usability of the paste config files from an operator's 
point of view. The paste config files are opaque to administrators who are 
trying to stand an OpenStack cloud for the first time, since they expose a lot 
of implementation details about the middleware. I can follow the instructions 
in the Install and Deploy guide, but I have no idea what the options I don't 
edit are, and if the documentation has deviated from the implementation, I'm 
pretty much stuck.

As an example, the install and deploy guide says to add authtoken to the 
pipeline:glance-api section in glance-api-paste.ini 
,
 the example in the docs looks like this:

[pipeline:glance-api]
pipeline = versionnegotiation authtoken auth-context apiv1app

If I install from packages on precise, there's also some lines that look like 
this:

[pipeline:glance-api-keystone]
pipeline = versionnegotiation authtoken context apiv1app


It looks similar, and it has "keystone" in there, so maybe that's intended to 
be used for keystone? And it looks pretty similar, but there's a "auth-context" 
instead of "context". Maybe the pipeline:glance-api-keystone is used for 
something else in glance? In the end, I'm just going to slavishly follow the 
documentation, and I have no mental model of what these options do. 

On the other hand, the traditional configuration files (e.g., nova.conf) are 
(relatively) well-documented, have default values, and everything that's 
exposed is something that could potentially be changed by an administrator. In 
particular, there's generally a one-to-one correspondence between changing a 
configuration setting and changing the behavior of the system in a way that's 
meaningful for the operator. For example, enabling FlatDHCP in nova.conf is 
just setting a config option to one value:

network_manager=nova.network.manager.FlatDHCPManager


Assuming that the *-paste.ini files always need to be there, is there some way 
we could avoid requiring admins to edit these files, and instead make it more 
like editing the .conf files? For example, could the paste.ini files be 
generated from the corresponding .conf file as needed?


Take care,

Lorin
--
Lorin Hochstein
Lead Architect - Cloud Services
Nimbis Services, Inc.
www.nimbisservices.com





___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp


Re: [Openstack] [Bug 1030646] [NEW] Devstack vs. Horizon client versions

2012-07-29 Thread Monty Taylor
Hey!

This might be fairly tricky to fix properly given the design of the
devstack gate. I could be wrong, it might not be terrible now that we
can release new client lib versions to PyPI more quickly. The devstack
gate explicitly tests proposed change to trunk of one project against
tip of trunk across all the other projects. That's great for the dev
purpose, and can solidify through sequencing during the
milestone-proposed period, but if we have people with standalone horizon
installations that are tracking trunk more closely, we might need to do
some more thinking.

Could I request that you drop by the CI meeting on Tuesday so we can
chat about it interactively? I think this is important and that we
should do everything we can to get this right.

Monty

On 07/29/2012 06:34 PM, Gabriel Hurley wrote:
> Public bug reported:
> 
> We patched this bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/horizon/+bug/1027210
> 
> However, that fix worked for devstack and broke stand-alone
> installations of horizon because devstack pulled the clients from Github
> while Horizon's requirements file pulls them from PyPI. This is no good.
> 
> Now anytime you try to list out images from glance (except when using
> devstack) you get this error:
> 
> list() got an unexpected keyword argument 'page_size'
> 
> We need to reconcile devstack with Horizon, and in the future Horizon
> will *only* accept changes that work with *released* client versions.

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp


Re: [Openstack] qpid_heartbeat...doesn't?

2012-07-29 Thread Pádraig Brady
On 07/29/2012 07:14 PM, Lars Kellogg-Stedman wrote:
>> Looks like a typo.
>> Could you try this.
> 
> That seems better...although while the documentation says that
> qpid_heartbeat is "Seconds between heartbeat messages" [1], observed
> behavior suggests that it is actually *minutes* between messages.
> 
> [1]: 
> http://docs.openstack.org/essex/openstack-compute/admin/content/configuration-qpid.html

That's surprising as the qpid code does:

if self.connection.heartbeat:
  times.append(time.time() + self.connection.heartbeat)

Notice how time.time() is seconds, and so
heartbeat must be given in seconds.
Perhaps there is another issue with the scheduling of this?
How are you monitoring the connection?

cheers,
Pádraig.

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp


Re: [Openstack] qpid_heartbeat...doesn't?

2012-07-29 Thread Lars Kellogg-Stedman
> Looks like a typo.
> Could you try this.

That seems better...although while the documentation says that
qpid_heartbeat is "Seconds between heartbeat messages" [1], observed
behavior suggests that it is actually *minutes* between messages.

[1]: 
http://docs.openstack.org/essex/openstack-compute/admin/content/configuration-qpid.html

-- 
Lars Kellogg-Stedman|
Senior Technologist| http://ac.seas.harvard.edu/
Academic Computing | 
http://code.seas.harvard.edu/
Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences |

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp


Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Individual Member Elections

2012-07-29 Thread Rick Clark
Thanks Jonathon,

Apparently, I missed a lot by spending yesterday taking my kids to the
movies and playing outside all day.  It seems everyone else was on
Twitter.

I'm glad you are taking care of this.


Cheers,

Rick

On 07/29/2012 11:21 AM, Jonathan Bryce wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Rick Clark wrote:
>> Jonathon,
>> How is it possible for someone to taint the nomination process?  Are we
>> not allowed to promote our nominations? In light of the fact that the
>> process is closed and we can't know how many nominations we had
>> received, it seems fine to me to encourage nominations.  Have some
>> unwritten rules been broken, I am completely confused?
> 
> Certainly no rules against promoting your nomination or candidacy (or someone 
> else's for that matter). Campaign away! The situation in question is a 
> completely different matter and involves a serious allegation of harassment 
> that we are still trying to get details on.
> 
>> Saying someone
>> "violated the basic principles that hold our community together" is an
>> extreme statement. Our community does things in the open, by default.
>> Had we followed our "basic principles" in this nomination process, I
>> can't help but think we wouldn't be in this situation.
> 
> I agree that our tools and processes can get better and more transparent, and 
> as I mentioned below, we are working on that. Hope to have an update later 
> today or tomorrow on that to send out. I am not sure that it would have 
> prevented this situation as it involves behavior outside of the mechanics of 
> the nominations.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> 
>>
>>
>> Rick
>>
>>
>>
>> On 07/29/2012 01:18 AM, Jonathan Bryce wrote:
>>> The OpenStack Foundation has already attracted over 2,000 Individual 
>>> Members in a little over a week. It's a very exciting moment for all of us 
>>> involved in this effort, but also brings responsibility for each Individual 
>>> and Corporate member.
>>>
>>> We've learned that someone may have violated the basic principles that hold 
>>> this community together by trying to affect the nominations for the 
>>> Individual Member elections. This is not what our community stands for, and 
>>> we do not want to let the actions of one or a few tarnish the reputation of 
>>> the thousands of individuals who are working to make OpenStack a great 
>>> place to develop open source software. We are so determined to uphold our 
>>> values that every member--individual or corporate--agrees to a code of 
>>> conduct that prohibits abusive behavior and attempts to manipulate our 
>>> elections.
>>>
>>> Our bylaws and election process have been defined and overseen by very 
>>> experienced, independent legal counsel, Mark Radcliffe. We are completely 
>>> committed to ensuring this process is open, fair and legitimate in 
>>> accordance with our bylaws and Delaware corporate law. To ensure that the 
>>> process is open, fair and legitimate, we are looking for individuals who 
>>> would like to volunteer to be inspectors through the duration of the 
>>> election to certify the outcome along with our counsel. No more than two 
>>> affiliated members (working for the same company) can be inspectors, and 
>>> any candidates who wish to run for election are also ineligible to be 
>>> inspectors. As stated in the bylaws, "Each inspector, before entering upon 
>>> the discharge of his duties, shall take and sign an oath to faithfully 
>>> execute the duties of inspector with strict impartiality and according to 
>>> the best of his ability." This will require a firm time commitment from any 
>>> volunteers, as they will need to be available at a numb
er
>> of points through the process to fulfill their duties in a timely manner. If 
>> you are interested in being an inspector, let me know.
>>>
>>> Any complaints or concerns about the election process are taken extremely 
>>> seriously. Each complaint will be reviewed by our independent counsel and 
>>> addressed or brought before the full Board at its first meeting as 
>>> appropriate. To facilitate reporting we have created an email address that 
>>> is received only by the Foundation's independent counsel for review: 
>>> electionmoni...@openstack.org
>>>
>>> We are also working on process improvements for nominations and 
>>> elections--more details on that coming soon. In the meantime, please speak 
>>> up or contact me or Mark Radcliffe directly if you have any concerns. We 
>>> have all come a very long way in establishing the OpenStack Foundation--our 
>>> Foundation--and are right on the threshold of having it up and running. Now 
>>> is the time for us all to pull together and to make sure we continue to 
>>> build the kind of inclusive, supportive community that has come so far in 
>>> the last 2 years.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>> 210-317-2438
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Foundation mailing list
>>> foundat...@lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bi

Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Individual Member Elections

2012-07-29 Thread Jonathan Bryce
On Jul 29, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Rick Clark wrote:
> Jonathon,
> How is it possible for someone to taint the nomination process?  Are we
> not allowed to promote our nominations? In light of the fact that the
> process is closed and we can't know how many nominations we had
> received, it seems fine to me to encourage nominations.  Have some
> unwritten rules been broken, I am completely confused?

Certainly no rules against promoting your nomination or candidacy (or someone 
else's for that matter). Campaign away! The situation in question is a 
completely different matter and involves a serious allegation of harassment 
that we are still trying to get details on.

> Saying someone
> "violated the basic principles that hold our community together" is an
> extreme statement. Our community does things in the open, by default.
> Had we followed our "basic principles" in this nomination process, I
> can't help but think we wouldn't be in this situation.

I agree that our tools and processes can get better and more transparent, and 
as I mentioned below, we are working on that. Hope to have an update later 
today or tomorrow on that to send out. I am not sure that it would have 
prevented this situation as it involves behavior outside of the mechanics of 
the nominations.

Jonathan


> 
> 
> Rick
> 
> 
> 
> On 07/29/2012 01:18 AM, Jonathan Bryce wrote:
>> The OpenStack Foundation has already attracted over 2,000 Individual Members 
>> in a little over a week. It's a very exciting moment for all of us involved 
>> in this effort, but also brings responsibility for each Individual and 
>> Corporate member.
>> 
>> We've learned that someone may have violated the basic principles that hold 
>> this community together by trying to affect the nominations for the 
>> Individual Member elections. This is not what our community stands for, and 
>> we do not want to let the actions of one or a few tarnish the reputation of 
>> the thousands of individuals who are working to make OpenStack a great place 
>> to develop open source software. We are so determined to uphold our values 
>> that every member--individual or corporate--agrees to a code of conduct that 
>> prohibits abusive behavior and attempts to manipulate our elections.
>> 
>> Our bylaws and election process have been defined and overseen by very 
>> experienced, independent legal counsel, Mark Radcliffe. We are completely 
>> committed to ensuring this process is open, fair and legitimate in 
>> accordance with our bylaws and Delaware corporate law. To ensure that the 
>> process is open, fair and legitimate, we are looking for individuals who 
>> would like to volunteer to be inspectors through the duration of the 
>> election to certify the outcome along with our counsel. No more than two 
>> affiliated members (working for the same company) can be inspectors, and any 
>> candidates who wish to run for election are also ineligible to be 
>> inspectors. As stated in the bylaws, "Each inspector, before entering upon 
>> the discharge of his duties, shall take and sign an oath to faithfully 
>> execute the duties of inspector with strict impartiality and according to 
>> the best of his ability." This will require a firm time commitment from any 
>> volunteers, as they will need to be available at a number
> of points through the process to fulfill their duties in a timely manner. If 
> you are interested in being an inspector, let me know.
>> 
>> Any complaints or concerns about the election process are taken extremely 
>> seriously. Each complaint will be reviewed by our independent counsel and 
>> addressed or brought before the full Board at its first meeting as 
>> appropriate. To facilitate reporting we have created an email address that 
>> is received only by the Foundation's independent counsel for review: 
>> electionmoni...@openstack.org
>> 
>> We are also working on process improvements for nominations and 
>> elections--more details on that coming soon. In the meantime, please speak 
>> up or contact me or Mark Radcliffe directly if you have any concerns. We 
>> have all come a very long way in establishing the OpenStack Foundation--our 
>> Foundation--and are right on the threshold of having it up and running. Now 
>> is the time for us all to pull together and to make sure we continue to 
>> build the kind of inclusive, supportive community that has come so far in 
>> the last 2 years.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Jonathan
>> 210-317-2438
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Foundation mailing list
>> foundat...@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>> 
> 
> 


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp


Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Individual Member Elections

2012-07-29 Thread Rick Clark
Jonathon,
How is it possible for someone to taint the nomination process?  Are we
not allowed to promote our nominations? In light of the fact that the
process is closed and we can't know how many nominations we had
received, it seems fine to me to encourage nominations.  Have some
unwritten rules been broken, I am completely confused?  Saying someone
"violated the basic principles that hold our community together" is an
extreme statement. Our community does things in the open, by default.
Had we followed our "basic principles" in this nomination process, I
can't help but think we wouldn't be in this situation.


Rick



On 07/29/2012 01:18 AM, Jonathan Bryce wrote:
> The OpenStack Foundation has already attracted over 2,000 Individual Members 
> in a little over a week. It's a very exciting moment for all of us involved 
> in this effort, but also brings responsibility for each Individual and 
> Corporate member.
> 
> We've learned that someone may have violated the basic principles that hold 
> this community together by trying to affect the nominations for the 
> Individual Member elections. This is not what our community stands for, and 
> we do not want to let the actions of one or a few tarnish the reputation of 
> the thousands of individuals who are working to make OpenStack a great place 
> to develop open source software. We are so determined to uphold our values 
> that every member--individual or corporate--agrees to a code of conduct that 
> prohibits abusive behavior and attempts to manipulate our elections.
> 
> Our bylaws and election process have been defined and overseen by very 
> experienced, independent legal counsel, Mark Radcliffe. We are completely 
> committed to ensuring this process is open, fair and legitimate in accordance 
> with our bylaws and Delaware corporate law. To ensure that the process is 
> open, fair and legitimate, we are looking for individuals who would like to 
> volunteer to be inspectors through the duration of the election to certify 
> the outcome along with our counsel. No more than two affiliated members 
> (working for the same company) can be inspectors, and any candidates who wish 
> to run for election are also ineligible to be inspectors. As stated in the 
> bylaws, "Each inspector, before entering upon the discharge of his duties, 
> shall take and sign an oath to faithfully execute the duties of inspector 
> with strict impartiality and according to the best of his ability." This will 
> require a firm time commitment from any volunteers, as they will need to be 
> available at a number
 of points through the process to fulfill their duties in a timely manner. If 
you are interested in being an inspector, let me know.
> 
> Any complaints or concerns about the election process are taken extremely 
> seriously. Each complaint will be reviewed by our independent counsel and 
> addressed or brought before the full Board at its first meeting as 
> appropriate. To facilitate reporting we have created an email address that is 
> received only by the Foundation's independent counsel for review: 
> electionmoni...@openstack.org
> 
> We are also working on process improvements for nominations and 
> elections--more details on that coming soon. In the meantime, please speak up 
> or contact me or Mark Radcliffe directly if you have any concerns. We have 
> all come a very long way in establishing the OpenStack Foundation--our 
> Foundation--and are right on the threshold of having it up and running. Now 
> is the time for us all to pull together and to make sure we continue to build 
> the kind of inclusive, supportive community that has come so far in the last 
> 2 years.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jonathan
> 210-317-2438
> 
> 
> ___
> Foundation mailing list
> foundat...@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
> 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp


Re: [Openstack] [Nova] proposal to provide project specific instance type

2012-07-29 Thread unicell
Hi Jay and Nathan,

Thank you so much for the inputs.

FYI. I've already fired a new blueprint to track this feature.
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/project-specific-flavors

--
unicell


On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Jay Pipes  wrote:
>
> I know folks have started (finished?) work on the per-user quota

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp


Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Individual Member Elections

2012-07-29 Thread Mark McLoughlin
On Sun, 2012-07-29 at 11:43 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Hi Atul,
> 
> On Sun, 2012-07-29 at 07:21 +, Atul Jha wrote:
>   
> > We are also working on process improvements for nominations and
> > elections--more details on that coming soon. In the meantime, please
> > speak up or contact me or Mark Radcliffe directly if you have any
> > concerns. We have all come a very long way in establishing the
> > OpenStack Foundation--our Foundation--and are right on the threshold
> > of having it up and running. Now is the time for us all to pull
> > together and to make sure we continue to build the kind of inclusive,
> > supportive community that has come so far in the last 2 years.
> 
[..]
> You are laying out a mechanism for handling complaints about the
> election process which involves Mark Radcliffe being the sole recipient
> of those complaints. I know neither what your current role in the
> Foundation is nor how Mark was appointed to this position.

Wow. See how important it is to properly quote emails? :-(

My apologies to all. I see now that Jonathan sent the original email.
That makes a whole lot more sense.

I hope this gets resolved quickly.

Regards,
Mark.


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp


Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Individual Member Elections

2012-07-29 Thread Mark McLoughlin
Hi Atul,

On Sun, 2012-07-29 at 07:21 +, Atul Jha wrote:

> We've learned that someone may have violated the basic principles that
> hold this community together by trying to affect the nominations for
> the Individual Member elections. This is not what our community stands
> for, and we do not want to let the actions of one or a few tarnish the
> reputation of the thousands of individuals who are working to make
> OpenStack a great place to develop open source software. We are so
> determined to uphold our values that every member--individual or
> corporate--agrees to a code of conduct that prohibits abusive behavior
> and attempts to manipulate our elections.

Well said, we cannot allow the entire community to be tainted by the
behaviour of an individual.

> Our bylaws and election process have been defined and overseen by very
> experienced, independent legal counsel, Mark Radcliffe.

My understanding from:

  http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/openstack/foundation/14647

is that Mark was "retained to provide additional independent legal
advice" to the drafting committee.

>  We are completely committed to ensuring this process is open, fair
> and legitimate in accordance with our bylaws and Delaware corporate
> law. To ensure that the process is open, fair and legitimate, we are
> looking for individuals who would like to volunteer to be inspectors
> through the duration of the election to certify the outcome along with
> our counsel. No more than two affiliated members (working for the same
> company) can be inspectors, and any candidates who wish to run for
> election are also ineligible to be inspectors. As stated in the
> bylaws, "Each inspector, before entering upon the discharge of his
> duties, shall take and sign an oath to faithfully execute the duties
> of inspector with strict impartiality and according to the best of his
> ability." This will require a firm time commitment from any
> volunteers, as they will need to be available at a
>   number of points through the process to fulfill their duties in a
> timely manner. If you are interested in being an inspector, let me
> know.
> 
> Any complaints or concerns about the election process are taken
> extremely seriously. Each complaint will be reviewed by our
> independent counsel and addressed or brought before the full Board at
> its first meeting as appropriate. To facilitate reporting we have
> created an email address that is received only by the Foundation's
> independent counsel for review: electionmoni...@openstack.org
> 
> We are also working on process improvements for nominations and
> elections--more details on that coming soon. In the meantime, please
> speak up or contact me or Mark Radcliffe directly if you have any
> concerns. We have all come a very long way in establishing the
> OpenStack Foundation--our Foundation--and are right on the threshold
> of having it up and running. Now is the time for us all to pull
> together and to make sure we continue to build the kind of inclusive,
> supportive community that has come so far in the last 2 years.

I don't mean to give offence, but I must admit the above strikes me as
rather bizarre.

The role "inspector" you refer to above seems to be about an individual
who may be appointed to make a written report of a meeting and any
voting that happens there, including by proxy.

You are laying out a mechanism for handling complaints about the
election process which involves Mark Radcliffe being the sole recipient
of those complaints. I know neither what your current role in the
Foundation is nor how Mark was appointed to this position.

Further, the mechanism above does not address the issue at hand - how
should the Foundation handle a complaint about a member of our
community[1]?

Personally, I assume good good faith and there's some reasonable
explanation for how this all came about, but we need to be careful here
- having people (apparently arbitrarily) assume roles in the Foundation
and establish new processes doesn't help matters IMHO.

...

Seeing the brouhaha on twitter last night, I had hoped the target of the
allegation would be named and we could sort this out in the open.
However, a name doesn't appear forthcoming and the text of the complaint
itself has been deleted.

Given the code of conduct that members are subject:

  http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation/CommunityCodeOfConduct

and the bit about "OpenStack members ... are ultimately accountable to
the OpenStack Board of Directors", I think the way forward is for the
complaint to be made formally to the board so that they can investigate
the matter and report on their actions to address it.

The bylaws name Jonathan Bryce, Mark Collier and Alice King as the
"Initial Board". The complaint should be made to them.

If the complainant isn't satisfied with that and can't make the
complaint public, then we may need another process. That would need some
open discussion to figure out and IMHO may just be that the 

Re: [Openstack] Individual Member Elections

2012-07-29 Thread Atul Jha
Hi,

The OpenStack Foundation has already attracted over 2,000 Individual Members in 
a little over a week. It's a very exciting moment for all of us involved in 
this effort, but also brings responsibility for each Individual and Corporate 
member.

Awesome and kudos to everyone making it successful.


We've learned that someone may have violated the basic principles that hold 
this community together by trying to affect the nominations for the Individual 
Member elections. This is not what our community stands for, and we do not want 
to let the actions of one or a few tarnish the reputation of the thousands of 
individuals who are working to make OpenStack a great place to develop open 
source software. We are so determined to uphold our values that every 
member--individual or corporate--agrees to a code of conduct that prohibits 
abusive behavior and attempts to manipulate our elections.

Our bylaws and election process have been defined and overseen by very 
experienced, independent legal counsel, Mark Radcliffe. We are completely 
committed to ensuring this process is open, fair and legitimate in accordance 
with our bylaws and Delaware corporate law. To ensure that the process is open, 
fair and legitimate, we are looking for individuals who would like to volunteer 
to be inspectors through the duration of the election to certify the outcome 
along with our counsel. No more than two affiliated members (working for the 
same company) can be inspectors, and any candidates who wish to run for 
election are also ineligible to be inspectors. As stated in the bylaws, "Each 
inspector, before entering upon the discharge of his duties, shall take and 
sign an oath to faithfully execute the duties of inspector with strict 
impartiality and according to the best of his ability." This will require a 
firm time commitment from any volunteers, as they will need to be available at a
  number of points through the process to fulfill their duties in a timely 
manner. If you are interested in being an inspector, let me know.

Any complaints or concerns about the election process are taken extremely 
seriously. Each complaint will be reviewed by our independent counsel and 
addressed or brought before the full Board at its first meeting as appropriate. 
To facilitate reporting we have created an email address that is received only 
by the Foundation's independent counsel for review: 
electionmoni...@openstack.org

We are also working on process improvements for nominations and elections--more 
details on that coming soon. In the meantime, please speak up or contact me or 
Mark Radcliffe directly if you have any concerns. We have all come a very long 
way in establishing the OpenStack Foundation--our Foundation--and are right on 
the threshold of having it up and running. Now is the time for us all to pull 
together and to make sure we continue to build the kind of inclusive, 
supportive community that has come so far in the last 2 years.

+1

Cheers!!

Atul Jha aka koolhead17
http://www.csscorp.com/common/email-disclaimer.php

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp