Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Individual Member Elections
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] [OpenStack Foundation] Individual Member Elections
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-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation ___ Foundation mailing list foundat...@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation signature.asc
Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack Foundation] Individual Nominations for Foundation Board of Directors
Who is the election official, running this election. Nomination should be an open process, similar to the core dev process. It is currently closed and subject to manipulation. I would also suggest that if you are a candidate, you must not be managing the process. Rick On 07/25/2012 06:44 PM, Jonathan Bryce wrote: Hi everyone, Last Wednesday we started accepting Individual Members for the OpenStack Foundation. We've had an excellent response so far with well over 1,000 Individual Members joining in the first week. I wanted to share some important information about how to nominate and elect the Individual Members for the Board of Directors. The deadline to nominate Individual Directors--August 6--is coming very quickly. Directors elected by the Individual Members will make up 1/3 of the Board or 8 of the 24 seats. You must be an Individual Member to nominate, vote or run for an Individual Member position on the Board of Directors. You can become an Individual Member on our website: http://www.openstack.org/join/ Elections for the Individual Directors will take place August 20-24. To vote in the initial Board election, you must join as an Individual Member by August 15. To appear on the ballot, an Individual Member must receive nominations from 10 other Individual Members. The deadline to nominate an Individual Member is August 6, and all nominations are submitted via email to secret...@openstack.org. We have created a basic page with initial nominees on it, and will be reaching out to nominees so they can add additional information about themselves. To see who is being nominated so you can support current nominees (who need 10 nominations) or recommend additional candidates, go to http://www.openstack.org/community/openstack-foundation-board-2012-election-candidates/ Let us know if you have any questions, 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] [OpenStack Foundation] OpenStack Foundation
On 02/04/2012 04:20 AM, Soren Hansen wrote: 2012/2/4 Soren Hansenso...@linux2go.dk: The schedule on http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation says a revised (or final?) mission statement would have been posted last week. Ah, since I wrote my e-mail yesterday, it seems that page has been updated. Sorry. We were promised more communication. I think the absolute minimum would be announcing changes to the schedule on the mailing list. More info about what is actually going on would also be nice. I know that there are private meetings going on. Rackspace needs to understand that regardless of the good intent, it is not visible to the majority of the community and appears to be a private endeavor. I'm not questioning the intent, just the communication. If there is going to be a period of gathering requirements from major participants, just put that on the schedule, so everyone knows that something is happening, instead of just radio silence. ___ 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] OpenStack Mission Goals
No offense Jonathan, but this seems like meaningless fluff. Does Rackspace have anyone dedicated to this fulltime? The lack of leadership on this is apparent. If this was important, appropriate dedicated resources would be assigned to it. As it is, it appears to be a stalling tactic. Rackspace has become a smaller and smaller percentage of the Openstack universe. It is unreasonable that it should control the foundation process. Especially if they are going to take months between updates and have no visible community participation. Rackspace needs to hand the process over to a provisional community group that will pursue a foundation with vigor. Rick Clark On 01/04/2012 10:11 PM, Jonathan Bryce wrote: To adapt Mark Twain, rumors of the death of the foundation are greatly exaggerated. = ) I hadn't actually heard that rumor yet and don't know where it would be coming from, so thanks for bringing it up so we can address. First of all, the foundation is definitely not dead or indefinitely delayed. Sorry for not communicating the status better on the list. There's been a lot of response, and we've been trying to coordinate input from a number of sources. We've also been researching the technical details of what we need to make it happen. At the same time we have not had enough resources to dedicate to it up to this point. To correct that, we've got some additional people, including Mark Collier whom many of you know, working on it as of the beginning of this year to make the foundation happen. We also realized we needed to take the initial round of feedback and produce something for people to respond to, tear apart, cheer for, make better. We've tried to take the the feedback from a variety of forums--the session at the design summit, the initial burst of discussion on the list, the input from of in-person meetings and people who have reached out to us directly--and formulate a set of documents to guide the discussion. The first two are a draft mission document for the foundation and a draft of the foundation's organization structure. The mission document is very close to being ready to publish. We will be posting it on the wiki in the next few days. The structure document is still going through revisions but will follow shortly. Following the structure document, we'll get into the process of drafting the actual legal documents for the foundation. We will be linking all of these off the Governance section of the wiki and publishing them for feedback on the list a s well as reaching back out to the other community members we've talked to. So what can you do? Once the documents are posted, we really want feedback from everyone on them. As they're posted and we get feedback, we'll refine them and post final versions on the website. In the meantime, also continue to discuss whatever points you feel are important on the mailing list. We're reading everything and incorporating what's talked about. And anyone can always reach out to me or Mark directly if you have questions or comments. Thanks, Jonathan. On Jan 4, 2012, at 6:14 PM, Jan Drake wrote: So, no messages since October. Rumor has it the effort is dead or indefinitely delayed... what's the deal? Jan From: jan_dr...@hotmail.com Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:18:46 -0700 To: sandy.wa...@rackspace.com CC: foundat...@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] OpenStack Mission Goals +1 On Oct 20, 2011, at 9:49 AM, Sandy Walsh sandy.wa...@rackspace.com wrote: +1 How can you decide if you want to join a foundation if you don't know what it stands for? -S I think a discussion about what OpenStack is and isn't should definitely be had before the Foundation is set up. Otherwise, I imagine people will view the Foundation as being some sort of Wild West land grab, where companies are trying to shape what OpenStack is by fiat or by trying to buy control. Just a thought, -jay ___ Foundation mailing list foundat...@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation This email may include confidential information. If you received it in error, please delete it. ___ Foundation mailing list foundat...@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation ___ Foundation mailing list foundat...@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation ___ Foundation mailing list foundat...@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation ___ Foundation mailing list foundat...@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation signature.asc
Re: [Openstack] Do we really need a CLA? [was Re: Using Gerrit to verify the CLA]
Hey Mark, First of all, orthogonally, we are very lucky to not have Copyright Assignment crushing this project. That is what the management at Rackspace wanted, only NASA's inability to sign such a document prevented it. IANAL, but I was told by lawyers when we were in the planning stages of starting Openstack, that while in the US submitting code under the Apache License 2.0 was enough to bind the submitter to it, that is not the case in all countries. Some countries require explicit acceptance to be bound by it. As far as changing anything about the way the CLA works, until we have a foundation, the discussion of which seems to have stalled, we, as a group, have no real authority to change anything. We have a bigger hole in the Corporate CLA, IMHO. I have been told that since it is necessary for a corporate signer to explicitly name their individual contributers, and we have no way of updating the document, openstack is potentially left open to a lawsuit, if an employee unspecified in the CLA, contributes something they consider IP. I seriously hate all this legal stuff. Cheers, Rick On 01/03/2012 06:22 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: Hey, I'm not sure whether this has been discussed recently, but do we really need a CLA? I had a long discussion with Richard Fontana about the Apache CLA in the context of another project and I came away from that convinced that the Apache CLA is fairly pointless. Compare the CLA to the Apache License 2.0 - there's a couple of fairly minor, arbitrary differences but, on the whole, they're the same. So, the CLA is effectively just the contributor granting OpenStack LLC the contribution under the Apache License 2.0. There are other ways to go about this: - Put in place an assumption that anyone contributing to the project (e.g. by pushing to gerrit) are contributing under the existing license of the project. - Follow the kernel's approach of making Signed-off-by: in each mean that you are contributing (and have the right to contribute) the code under the existing license of the project (http://goo.gl/lRhmQ) - Have a contributor agreement which explicitly says I am the Copyright holder and submit my contributions under the Apache License 2.0 Each of these schemes are used elsewhere and have significant advantages over the current CLA scheme - e.g. less bureaucracy, not as scarey to new contributors, less chance of the CLA being confused with copyright assignment, etc. Cheers, 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 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] Issues with Packaging and a Proposal
I have a suggestion. Let's let the distros do whatever they want. While we need a development platform, we are not required to provide packages for each distribution. We got where we are today, because we we have many ubuntu devs that are also openstack devs. Whether Ubuntu takes the packages from debian or spins their own, is not our concern. Even if we develop on Ubuntu at the end of a release, we could just release our code with dependencies. What comes next is up to each distribution. This is much more in line with other upstream projects. 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] Issues with Packaging and a Proposal
On 08/25/2011 10:50 AM, Monty Taylor wrote: This is much more in line with other upstream projects. http://pkg.jenkins-ci.org/debian/ http://download.gluster.com/pub/gluster/glusterfs/LATEST/ http://www.apache.org/dist/cassandra/debian http://downloads-distro.mongodb.org/repo/debian-sysvinit http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/debian I could list more ... but I think my point is made here. Monty I could create an equally long list of projects that do not provide any official packages. These lists are meaningless. I do not think we should be making decisions for the distro's, but I have no problem with community supported packages. I think we need to back away from appearing to prefer one distro over another. Rick 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
[Openstack] XML and JSON for API's
Hi All, Is it required for new openstack API's to support both JSON and XML, or would it be acceptable to only support JSON? Cheers, Rick ___ 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] Today's netstack meeting
Both Dan and I are traveling today. So, unless someone really objects, we would like to reschedule today's netstack meeting to the same time tomorrow. Cheers, Rick Clark ___ 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] Discussion on October Design Summit Locations
On 05/04/2011 06:58 AM, Soren Hansen wrote: 2011/5/3 Stephen Spectorstephen.spec...@openstack.org: Finally, Hawaii sounds great until you see the cost of a Diet Coke in a hotel – it is just too expensive. Heh.. Have you even been to Europe? :) At the Ubuntu Developer Summit in Prague, the hotel had 0.7 L (that's less than a fifth of a gallon) bottles of water for CZK 300 (around $20). I didn't bother checking the price of much else. :) However a much more important benchmark was that 0.5 L of beer was ~15 CZK, which at the time was about $0.90. -- Soren Hansen| http://linux2go.dk/ Ubuntu Developer| http://www.ubuntu.com/ OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/ ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ 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] Creating a forum
a few comments about a forum: + While I agree with Thierry that most end user apps have forums, some SA/Dev oriented software also have forums. + I think there is a need for a place where people can ask simple questions they would not feel comfortable asking on the ML. - Forums are very labor intensive, we need to ensure that we actually have people to do the work - the successful forums tend to be in communities that number in the hundreds of thousands or millions. -+ Devs tend not to participate, but that is ok. They don't have to, if you have a robust user community, which I am not sure we do, yet. + it's ok to try and fail. If there are people like Jordan that want to do the work and start up a forum, I say let them. We just need to watch it and be prepared to shut it down if it is not succeeding. !!!Please do not try to combine the forums with the mailing list. It is ok to have different communication channels for different groups. +1 to a stack exchange type of forum. On 05/03/2011 08:59 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Jordan Rinke wrote: Can anyone name a large successful project that either doesn't have an official forum, or that multiple unofficial forums haven't sprung up around? The Linux Kernel ? Apache HTTPD ? Most projects that have forums are end-user-oriented, not sysadmin-oriented. Also, I looked and phpbb has a mod that allows marking topics as solved, selecting a post as the answer and also giving posts solve ratings so I think that is a good combination of both worlds (and we could tweak expand on the concept if needed) That doesn't solve the duplication of questions which usually plague forums. In the end, it all depends on what you're after. If you want a place for random people to randomly discuss OpenStack, then a forum system is definitely the good answer. If you want an area where to ask questions and find answers, then a stackexchange-type site is what you need. Using one to do the other is a recipe for pain. ___ 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] Creating a forum
On 05/03/2011 09:36 AM, Jordan Rinke wrote: Interesting because Ron very specifically mentioned being able to find useful and relevant information on the Ubuntu forums without bothering devs at the beginning of this discussion (which Soren then noted as an excellent point). I think there is much useful information on the Ubuntu forums, but it is laced with incorrect information too. Most technical people can easily discern which is which and I think our users will be more technical than the average Ubuntu user. I think over all it is good to have a non-dev forum. it is worth mentioning that our dev community and culture differs from Ubuntu. Ubuntu devs completely ignore Launchpad answers, while our Answers section is well used and responded to. Perhaps we shouldn't make assumptions based on Ubuntu. We don't have an extended answer from Anne yet, but she did vote Yes on the survey (unless someone else used her name since there is no real auth). -Original Message- From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thie...@openstack.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 9:27 AM To: Jordan Rinke Cc: openstack@lists.launchpad.net Subject: Re: [Openstack] Creating a forum Jordan Rinke wrote: I think a purely QnA site misses the mark a little, that style is great for a very specific question (And the OSQnA stuff Everett linked looks great) but I think a lot of users are lacking the knowledge to ask a very specific question just yet. So maybe it is that we need a place for random discussion, but that can also specifically answer a question as well. If you take Ubuntu (arguably one of the largest software-related forums in the world), the forums are completely ignored by developers, so it relies on a completely separate user community. It is a source for wrong (or outdated) technical answers and user frustration. They recently set up a stackexchange site at ask.ubuntu.com, and it is a huge success. Developers and users contribute to it, and it's a valuable and continuously-updated source of information. I don't want us to run into the same failure before realizing there is a better and more targeted tool available... Personally I would ignore forums (since they are a waste of time), but contribute to the stackexchange site (since they are an easy way to contribute reference information). 77.8% voting for a forum at this point (out of 18 responses) I would wait on Anne's answer before taking any hasty decision based on a binary poll. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) Release Manager, OpenStack ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ 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 Network service wiki and meeting
Hi Alex, The meeting today is just to discuss Launchpad setup and infrastructure needs, so we can be ready to hit the ground running. There will be no technical discussions or decisions made. I hope you can attend and give your input. Rick On 05/03/2011 10:02 AM, Dan Wendlandt wrote: Hi Alex, Great to hear that you're getting resources lined up! Other folks are still figuring out exactly what resources they will be able to contribute as well, which is why we're still planning on waiting until 5/10 for the actual discussion of what dev tasks various people will pick off and start coding. I know Rick wanted to discuss some logistical issues (teams, etc.) to help get the ball rolling on launchpad. He is the expert on what is needed to get a project up and running on launchpad, so I will defer to him on whether there is useful progress we can make even though some folks have yet to figure out who they will be committing to the project. Rick? Dan On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Alex Neefusa...@mellanox.com wrote: Dan/Rick - Have we decided if there is a meeting today (5/3)? From my perspective I prefer a delay until 5/10 as originally discussed. We are working internally at my company to assign resources to this effort. Alex -Original Message- From: openstack-bounces+alex=mellanox@lists.launchpad.net [mailto:openstack-bounces+alex=mellanox@lists.launchpad.net] On Behalf Of Rick Clark Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 2:29 PM To: Dan Wendlandt Cc: Jamey Meredith; Lew Tucker (letucker); Michael Smith (michsmit); openst...@lab.ntt.co.jp; openstack@lists.launchpad.net; Somik Behera; Ewan Mellor; Youcef Laribi Subject: Re: [Openstack] Openstack Network service wiki and meeting On 05/02/2011 01:19 PM, Dan Wendlandt wrote: Thanks Rick, CC'ing the openstack-list, based on Vish's request that all openstack networking discussion be on the main list until we get too chatty and people want to boot us off :) I was planning to forward it to the list as well. That's where we need to be. But we need to make sure that everyone understands that we are not implying any project status in Openstack and that we will be following the process that the PPB approved to request project status. I'm as eager as you are to keep the momentum going, but I believe that during the session on Friday we had agreed that the first networking meeting would be a week from tuesday (5/10), not this tuesday (5/3). This will give people time to create/review a proposed set of development-oriented blueprints based on friday's list and sync up with their internal teams about what resources they would contribute, etc (these blueprints still need to be created). It will also let people who weren't at the Friday meeting get an understanding of what we plan on working on and if they want to be involved. I couldn't remember and my notes were enigmatic at best. Could we still meet just to figure out how we want to setup teams and seed the core-dev teams? It should not take long. Dan On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Rick Clarkr...@openstack.org wrote: Hello all, I have created some wiki space and a meeting header and agenda template for the network service projects. http://wiki.openstack.org/Network/ http://wiki.openstack.org/Network/Meetings Please start filling in the main page with data and links to the various documents we've created. The Launchpad project is here: https://launchpad.net/network-service I want to discuss teams and core team membership at first meeting tomorrow. I can create the same team structure we have for the other projects, and we can just discuss core-dev, if the group wants. I want to really jump start things, but I am anxious to not step on any toes or leave anyone out. Just let me know how much you want me to do. Cheers, Rick ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ 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 Network service wiki and meeting
On 05/02/2011 01:19 PM, Dan Wendlandt wrote: Thanks Rick, CC'ing the openstack-list, based on Vish's request that all openstack networking discussion be on the main list until we get too chatty and people want to boot us off :) I was planning to forward it to the list as well. That's where we need to be. But we need to make sure that everyone understands that we are not implying any project status in Openstack and that we will be following the process that the PPB approved to request project status. I'm as eager as you are to keep the momentum going, but I believe that during the session on Friday we had agreed that the first networking meeting would be a week from tuesday (5/10), not this tuesday (5/3). This will give people time to create/review a proposed set of development-oriented blueprints based on friday's list and sync up with their internal teams about what resources they would contribute, etc (these blueprints still need to be created). It will also let people who weren't at the Friday meeting get an understanding of what we plan on working on and if they want to be involved. I couldn't remember and my notes were enigmatic at best. Could we still meet just to figure out how we want to setup teams and seed the core-dev teams? It should not take long. Dan On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Rick Clarkr...@openstack.org wrote: Hello all, I have created some wiki space and a meeting header and agenda template for the network service projects. http://wiki.openstack.org/Network/ http://wiki.openstack.org/Network/Meetings Please start filling in the main page with data and links to the various documents we've created. The Launchpad project is here: https://launchpad.net/network-service I want to discuss teams and core team membership at first meeting tomorrow. I can create the same team structure we have for the other projects, and we can just discuss core-dev, if the group wants. I want to really jump start things, but I am anxious to not step on any toes or leave anyone out. Just let me know how much you want me to do. Cheers, Rick ___ 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] openstack-meeting irc channel schedule
Since the number of projects seems to be increasing daily, I think we should create a #openstack-meeting schedule page on the wiki, so we don't accidentally conflict. It would also be a central place to see what teams are having IRC meetings and when to lurk. I don't see any real reason to restrict access to the channel. There is enough room for all the projects around openstack to have their irc meetings in the channel. Plus it encourages teams to meet in the open. Any objections? Rick ___ 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] Proposal for Ed Leafe to join Nova-Core
+1 On 04/15/2011 02:55 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: Hi all, Ed Leafe (dabo) has been one of those developers that has stepped up to the plate in code reviews and mailing list discussions. I'd like to propose he join nova-core. Cheers, jay ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp 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
[Openstack] NaaS proposal suggestion
As many of you know there are a few Network as a Service proposals floating around. All of the authors are working to combine them into something we all want to move forward with. Hopefully by the summit we will have one blueprint to rule them all. I would like to make a couple suggestions publicly that I have been mentioning to everyone I talk to about NaaS. 1. NaaS should be optional nova's existing hypervisor only flat and vlan network functionality should stay in nova. You should not need to bring up a separate service to bring up a simple test instance. This will also help us not break nova as we are making rapid code changes. 2. all communication should be via API. NaaS should not write or read directly from Novadb. I have seen many diagrams that have the NaaS writing data directly to novadb. 3. NaaS should be generic enough that other things can consume it. I would love to see Opennebula and Eucalyptus be able to use the Openstack NaaS. I know of a few sites that have both Eucalyptus and Openstack deployed. It would be nice if they could share a NaaS. i would also like to support application calling NaaS to create their own shared network containers. Cheers, Rick Principal Engineer, Cisco Systems 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] Moving code hosting to GitHub
Therefore, at this time, we are only proposing moving the code hosting functionality to GitHub, and not radically changing any other parts of the development and release process. Soren, Monty, and Thierry, who are the developers responsible for keeping our release management and development infrastructure in good shape, have identified the pieces of our existing infrastructure that they will have to modify. Some of these changes are small, some require a bit more work. They are all committed to making these changes and to moving us along in the process of transitioning code hosting over to GitHub. Are you implying that the decision had been made to move to github? This all sounds extremely disruptive for a project that has successfully managed phenomenal growth. I think we need to make sure this discussion includes all parties that have an interest in following the release and development of Openstack. 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] Feature Freeze status
Blueprints serve three purposes. I don't claim they do them well, or that we are using them well 1) they help us schedule technical discussions at the summit. We could obviously do it some other way, but that is on of the current uses. 2) They let the various dev groups know what is being worked on, so we don't duplicate efforts. and lets multiple groups know the approved architecture based on the summit discussions. 3) They let non-technical people follow the development cycle. This is the most important use, in my opinion. There are project managers, product managers, marketing and PR people, and executives, and more. They all need to either follow the dev cycle, or know what features are going to hit, or miss, ahead of release. It is not reasonable for those folks to have to read the MP's TBH, right now, blueprints are not optimal. The Launchpad team is rewriting blueprints to use the Launchpad bug engine. This hopefully will fix some of the glaring problems. Like not being able to have a linear discussion. Rick 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] core dev
+1 On 03/24/2011 02:40 PM, Trey Morris wrote: All, consider me as a nova core dev. Seems we could use a few more and I need an excuse to spend more time reviewing code :) Thanks, -tr3buchet Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached or embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of the individual or entity to which this message is addressed, and unless otherwise expressly indicated, is confidential and privileged information of Rackspace. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail at ab...@rackspace.com, and delete the original message. Your cooperation is appreciated. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp 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] OpenStack Compute 1.1
Jorge, I thought this was supposed released as Creative Commons. All I can find is the text below, which is not open. I think this is not appropriate for something released as a part of openstack. Rick API v1.1 (03/01/11) Copyright © 2009-2011 Rackspace US, Inc. All rights reserved. This document is intended for software developers interested in developing applications using the OpenStack Compute Application Programming Interface (API). The document is for informational purposes only and is provided “AS IS.” RACKSPACE MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE CHANGES TO SPECIFICATIONS AND PRODUCT/SERVICES DESCRIPTION AT ANY TIME WITHOUT NOTICE. RACKSPACE SERVICES OFFERINGS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE. USERS MUST TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR APPLICATION OF ANY SERVICES MENTIONED HEREIN. EXCEPT AS SET FORTH IN RACKSPACE GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND/OR CLOUD TERMS OF SERVICE, RACKSPACE ASSUMES NO LIABILITY WHATSOEVER, AND DISCLAIMS ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY, RELATING TO ITS SERVICES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NONINFRINGEMENT. Except as expressly provided in any written license agreement from Rackspace, the furnishing of this document does not give you any license to patents, trademarks, copyrights, or other intellectual property. Rackspace®, Rackspace logo and Fanatical Support® are registered service marks of Rackspace US, Inc. All other product names and trademarks used in this document are for identification purposes only and are property of their respective owners. On 03/02/2011 10:29 AM, Jorge Williams wrote: Hey guys, New version of OpenStack Compute 1.1 is out. PDF: http://docs.openstack.org/openstack-compute/developer/cs-devguide.pdf WebHelp: http://docs.openstack.org/openstack-compute/developer/content/ See the Document Change History section for a list of changes. The API is now in Launchpad in the openstack-manuals project. I checked it in 3 stages 1) Cloud Servers 1.0 : This is the version of Cloud Servers we're running on Rackspace 2) Open Stack Compute 1.1 (2/9/11) : This is the version first shared on OpenStack 3) Open Stack Compute 1.1 (3/1/11): This is the current version I did this so that you can run diffs against the three versions and see exactly what's changed. From now on all changes are going directly into Launchpad. I've gotten a lot of suggestions over the past couple of weeks, and I've tried to take them all into account. There are still a couple of changes coming based on those suggestions but they're not very big -- mostly cosmetic. I realize we're still having a debate about affinity id. Affinity id is still mentioned in the spec, but I'm totally open to removing it if we decide that's not the best approach. I appreciate your input. You can contribute by leaving comments in the WebHelp version (I don't think enterpad is going to work for this sort of thing). Or if you find something broken, or want to make another change, you can make changes to the openstack-manuals project submit a merge request. Thanks, jOrGe W. Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached or embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of the individual or entity to which this message is addressed, and unless otherwise expressly indicated, is confidential and privileged information of Rackspace. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail at ab...@rackspace.com, and delete the original message. Your cooperation is appreciated. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp 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] Novatools ...
I agree the 'os' designation is ambiguous and likely to cause some confusion. On 02/24/2011 04:36 PM, Eric Day wrote: ++ On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 02:33:42PM -0800, Devin Carlen wrote: This is a bit nitpicky but I'd rather see it called just nova, as in: nova describe images Who has strong opinions? On Feb 24, 2011, at 1:30 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Eric Day e...@oddments.org wrote: On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 03:48:25PM -0500, Jay Pipes wrote: I just don't want to end up with: os-describe-images os-describe-image-attribute os-describe-instances os-describe-groups os-describe-zones os-describe-keypairs os-describe-volumes os-describe-snapshots The above is asinine, IMO. Completely agree. :) Cool. Was starting to lose my mind thinking people *really* wanted to duplicate the eucatools mess... If you want to have an os-compute and an os-network CLI tool, cool, but I think that: os-compute describe images os-compute describe image-attribute os-compute describe instances os-compute describe groups etc... is far more workable than 15 separate CLI tools that do essentially identical things. Yup, agree. Also keep in mind that some operations may be duplicates across services, just with a different context. For example, in a deployment where you use glance backed by swift for nova, os-compute describe image id may be the same as os-image describe id or os-object describe id (swift), but the os-compute is in the context of instances so it could have more metadata. This will mirror the dependency tree we see between services (especially as they are split out). ++ We want to make sure there are tools so services can stand alone as needed (for example, os-image if you run glance standalone). Services that combine other services (like nova) should aggregate these into context-specific commands so you don't *need* to use the underlying service tools for most things. This allows you to control nova use one tool. :) No disagreement from me. -jay p.s. thx for not sending me to /dev/null ;) ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp 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] Novatools ...
On 02/24/2011 04:53 PM, JC Smith wrote: What about an interactive shell like IOS, vyatta, python shell, irb, etc $ novashell novashell show instances novashell stop instance foo novashell set instance foo memory 2048 novashell start instance foo Then wrap it in SSHD and you can embed nova into hardware, manage it like a switch, router, netapp, etc. You can always break out of the shell and get into the guts if you wanted to dig deeper. Down the road maybe you can introduce the concept of commits and rollbacks. Beautiful, I love it. -JC On Feb 24, 2011, at 1:30 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Eric Day e...@oddments.org wrote: On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 03:48:25PM -0500, Jay Pipes wrote: I just don't want to end up with: os-describe-images os-describe-image-attribute os-describe-instances os-describe-groups os-describe-zones os-describe-keypairs os-describe-volumes os-describe-snapshots The above is asinine, IMO. Completely agree. :) Cool. Was starting to lose my mind thinking people *really* wanted to duplicate the eucatools mess... If you want to have an os-compute and an os-network CLI tool, cool, but I think that: os-compute describe images os-compute describe image-attribute os-compute describe instances os-compute describe groups etc... is far more workable than 15 separate CLI tools that do essentially identical things. Yup, agree. Also keep in mind that some operations may be duplicates across services, just with a different context. For example, in a deployment where you use glance backed by swift for nova, os-compute describe image id may be the same as os-image describe id or os-object describe id (swift), but the os-compute is in the context of instances so it could have more metadata. This will mirror the dependency tree we see between services (especially as they are split out). ++ We want to make sure there are tools so services can stand alone as needed (for example, os-image if you run glance standalone). Services that combine other services (like nova) should aggregate these into context-specific commands so you don't *need* to use the underlying service tools for most things. This allows you to control nova use one tool. :) No disagreement from me. -jay p.s. thx for not sending me to /dev/null ;) ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp 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] Proposal to be a member of Nova Core
+1 for jk0 Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya vishvana...@gmail.com wrote: +1 Jk0 has been contributing a lot and doing reviews even when they don't count. All reviews count :) -jay ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ 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] Network Service for L2/L3 Network Infrastructure blueprint
Soren will be running the network service infrastructure from the Rackspace/Openstack side. I want to temper this discussion by reminding everyone that Cactus will be a testing/stabilization release. Feature freeze will come much quicker and we want anything major changes to hit very early. I think it is possible to come up with a plan that has the first phase of this blueprint hitting in Cactus, but we don't want to do anything that will jeopardize the stability of the network subsystem for Cactus. Rick On 01/28/2011 08:09 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: Thanks for the update, Ewan, and for the gentle encouragement for open, transparent, and public discussions of design. Let's move the discussions of the Network Service project forward! All involved: please don't hesitate to contact me or this mailing list if you have any questions at all about using Launchpad, working with blueprints, or anything else process-related. Cheers, jay On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Ewan Mellor ewan.mel...@eu.citrix.com wrote: Thanks to everyone who has expressed an interest in the “Network Service for L2/L3 Network Infrastructure” blueprint (aka bexar-network-service, though it’s obviously not going to land for Bexar). In particular, Ram Durairaj, Romain Lenglet, Koji Iida and Dan Wendlandt have all recently contacted me regarding this blueprint, and I expect names from Rackspace too. I assure you that I want all of you to be closely involved and to get your requirements included. I am going to take the text that’s currently in the Etherpad and mould it into a more concrete specification. I would appreciate any input that anyone would like to offer. My intention is to have a blueprint that we can get accepted for Cactus, and maybe a set of features that we want to consider for releases after that. We’ll discuss those future features at the next design summit. Romain, you said “I am currently very active developing this blueprint. I have proposed a concrete design on December 3rd, 2010, and I'm implementing it.” Please share this design, because it belongs on this blueprint. We can all review it there. Also, if you have code already, please refer us to a branch so that people can take a look at what you’ve done. And thanks for your work so far! ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp 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] Network Service for L2/L3 Network Infrastructure blueprint
On 01/28/2011 08:55 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Rick Clark r...@openstack.org wrote: I recognise the desire to do this for Cactus, but I feel that pulling out the network controller (and/or volume controller) into their own separate OpenStack subprojects is not a good idea for Cactus. Looking at the (dozens of) blueprints slated for Cactus, doing this kind of major rework will mean that most (if not all) of those blueprints will have to be delayed while this pulling out of code occurs. This will definitely jeopardise the Cactus release. My vote is to delay this at a minimum to the Diablo release. And, for the record, I haven't seen any blueprints for the network as a service or volume as a service projects. Can someone point us to them? Thanks! jay Whew, Jay I thought you were advocating major changes in Cactus. That would completely mess up my view of the world :) https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/bexar-network-service https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/bexar-extend-network-model https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/bexar-network-service It was discussed at ODS, but I have not seen any code or momentum, to date. I think it is worth while to have an open discussion about what if any of this can be safely done in Cactus. I like you, Jay, feel a bit conservative. I think we lost focus of the reason we chose time based releases. It is time to focus on nova being a solid trustworthy platform. Features land when they are of sufficient quality, releases contain only the features that passed muster. I will be sending an email about the focus and theme of Cactus in a little while. Rick 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
[Openstack] Cactus Release Preparation
Howdy Openstack, First of all, I apologize for the double post. Please respond on the openstack mailing list and not directly to me. Also, most of this applies specifically to nova. Swift is a much more mature project, and has already accomplished much of what is discussed in the email. As most of you know we are nearing the major milestone of our second release, Bexar. This is a major accomplishment and I want to thank everyone who participated in any way. Now it is time to start to turn our focus to the upcoming Cactus release cycle. In Bexar was a feature release. We pushed lots of new features. The focus of Nova development in Cactus is going to be testing and stabilization. This does not mean that we will not be adding new features. In cactus, I expect that many of the features that just missed arriving in the Bexar release will land, such as Live Migration. I also expect us to achieve feature parity with the Rackspace Cloud servers API. What we really mean by a stabilization and testing focus is that we will have a large portion of our developers focused on testing. We will also avoid major disruptive changes that could compromise our stability efforts. That means: * We will be much tougher in approving blueprints. Many will be deferred or rejected. * If a feature's development is going slow, we will quickly make a decision to defer it to Diablo. * We will be much tougher in our code reviews. * Branches need to land early. Do not expect exceptions to the Branch Merge Proposal Freeze * We will also be instituting new policies that ensure we maintain quality. * We will focus on creating a multi-server integrated testing environment, with external hooks for things we cannot test. If you have features that you intend to land in Cactus it is extremely important that you you propose them by the deadline of February 3rd. It will be extremely difficult to get an exception this release. The Cactus release schedule is here: http://wiki.openstack.org/CactusReleaseSchedule Cheers, Rick Clark Project Lead 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] Network Service for L2/L3 Network Infrastructure blueprint
On 01/28/2011 11:45 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Vishvananda Ishaya vishvana...@gmail.com wrote: I agree. I think splitting glance into a separate project has actually slowed it down. Massively disagree here. The only slowdown integrating Glance/Nova was around packaging issues, and those have now been resolved. What other slowdowns are you referring to? Glance is going at light-speed compared to other projects IMHO. For historical accuracy: Glance is in great shape now, but did flounder for the first couple months of the Austin release cycle. The problem was that separating it took the work off of the radar of most of the Nova devs. That was primarily a communication issue. Once Jay became involved and fixed that, things have progressed very well. So regardless of if and when we decide to split out other functionality, we need to ensure that there is enough communication back to the core project's development team. Glance blueprints and milestones are all online and mailing list discussion has already occurred on many of them. If there are further integration issues between Nova and Glance, please do file bugs and blueprints for them and we'll get to them quickly. I can't fix stuff I don't know about. -jay We should keep network service in trunk for the moment. Also, there were a couple of networking blueprints that were combined at the last design summit into one presentation. The presentation was given by one racker and one person from nicira, and also included a group from japan. I thought the plan was to implement this with openvswitch. Is this the same team/project? Or did that effort die? Vish On Jan 28, 2011, at 7:40 AM, Andy Smith wrote: I'd second a bit of what Jay says and toss in that I don't think the code is ready to be splitting services off: - There have already been significant problems dealing with glance, the nasa people and the rackspace people have effectively completely different code paths (nasa: ec2, objectstore, libvirt; rackspace: rackspace, glance, xenapi) and that needs to be aligned a bit more before we can create more separations if we want everybody to be working towards the same goals. - Try as we might there is still not a real consensus on high level coding style, for example the Xen-related code is radically different in shape and style from the libvirt code as is the rackspace api from the ec2 api, and having projects split off only worsens the problem as individual developers have fewer eyes on them. My goal and as far as I can tell most of my team's goals are to rectify a lot of that situation over the course of the next release by: - setting up and working through the rackspace side of the code paths (as mentioned above) enough that we can start generalizing its utility for the entire project - actual deprecation of the majority of objectstore - more thorough code reviews to ensure that code is meeting the overall style of the project, and probably a document describing the code review process After Cactus if the idea makes sense to split off then it can be pursued then, but at the moment it is much too early to consider it. On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Rick Clark r...@openstack.org wrote: On 01/28/2011 08:55 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Rick Clark r...@openstack.org wrote: I recognise the desire to do this for Cactus, but I feel that pulling out the network controller (and/or volume controller) into their own separate OpenStack subprojects is not a good idea for Cactus. Looking at the (dozens of) blueprints slated for Cactus, doing this kind of major rework will mean that most (if not all) of those blueprints will have to be delayed while this pulling out of code occurs. This will definitely jeopardise the Cactus release. My vote is to delay this at a minimum to the Diablo release. And, for the record, I haven't seen any blueprints for the network as a service or volume as a service projects. Can someone point us to them? Thanks! jay Whew, Jay I thought you were advocating major changes in Cactus. That would completely mess up my view of the world :) https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/bexar-network-service https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/bexar-extend-network-model https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/bexar-network-service It was discussed at ODS, but I have not seen any code or momentum, to date. I think it is worth while to have an open discussion about what if any of this can be safely done in Cactus. I like you, Jay, feel a bit conservative. I think we lost focus of the reason we chose time based releases. It is time to focus on nova being a solid trustworthy platform. Features land when they are of sufficient quality, releases contain only the features that passed muster. I will be sending an email about the focus and theme of Cactus in a little while. Rick
[Openstack] Welcome Our New Community Manager
Stackers (in case you haven't noticed that is what we are calling ourselves, it is a play off of rackers, the internal name for Rackspace employees), By now most of you we have a new Community Manager, Stephen Specter. Stephen was the Xen.org Community Manager before joining us. So he has a very apropos background, and many of you may already know him. http://openstack.org/blog/2010/09/community-manager-introduction/ He will be working hard planning our upcoming design summit. Please give him a hardy welcome. I'm sure we will be hearing from him a lot. Rick Clark 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
[Openstack] Please welcome our new Technical Writer Anne Gentle
OpenStack community, I am very happy to welcome Anne Gentle,who started Tuesday, to the OpenStack community. Anne has a great background both in tech writing and open source. She can introduce herself better than I can. http://openstack.org/blog/2010/09/content-stacker-reporting-for-duty/ You can read her personal blog and see a picture of her smiling face here: http://justwriteclick.com/ I am sure you will all be hearing from her as she tries to whip our release documentation into shape and helps build our community. I am VERY excited to have her with us. Rick Clark OpenStack Chief Architect 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
