Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Thierry Carrez]

Doug Hellmann wrote:
> There is only one way for a repository's contents to be considered
> part of the big tent: It needs to be listed in the projects.yaml
> file in the openstack/governance repository, associated with a
> deliverable from a team that has been accepted as a big tent member.
> 
> The Fuel team has stated that they are not ready to include the
> work in these new repositories under governance, and indeed the
> repositories are not listed in the set of deliverables for the Fuel
> team [1].
> 
> Therefore, the situation is clear, to me: They are not part of the
> big tent.

Reading this thread after a week off, I'd like to +1 Doug's
interpretation since it was referenced to describe the status quo.

As others have said, we wouldn't even have that discussion if the new
repositories didn't use "fuel" as part of the naming. We probably
wouldn't have that discussion either if the Fuel team affiliation was
more diverse and the new repositories were an experiment of a specific
subgroup of that team.

NB: I *do* have some concerns about single-vendor OpenStack projects
that don't grow more diverse affiliations over time, but that's a
completely separate topic.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[John Griffith]

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Sergey Lukjanov 
wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> First of all, let me say that it’s a marketing announcement and as all of
> you know such announcements aren’t precise from a technical side.
> Personally I’ve seen this paper first time on TechCrunch.
>
> First of all, fuel-ccp-* are a set of OpenStack projects and everyone is
> welcome to participate. All the regular community process(es) for other
> openstack projects apply to fuel-ccp-*. At the moment, in spite of what the
> marketing announcements say, it’s a bunch of people from Mirantis working
> on the repositories. Please think of this as an incubation process to try
> and see what the next incarnation of Fuel would look like in the future.
>
> Regardless of what was written, we aren’t applying to the Big Tent right
> now (as it was initially said explicitly when we were creating repos and
> it’s still valid). The state of the repos is still experimental, but I’d
> like to make things clear and confirm that Mirantis has chosen to use
> containers for infrastructure and OpenStack components and to use
> Kubernetes as the orchestrator of those containers. In the future, the Fuel
> OpenStack installer will use these containerized OpenStack/infrastructure
> component images. There are many questions to be solved and things to be
> done first in Fuel CCP, such as:
>
> * Freeze technologies and approaches, such as repos structure, image
> layers, etc.
> * Cleanup deprecated PoC stuff from the code
> * Implement basic test coverage for all parts of the project
> * Create Release Management approach
> * Consume OpenStack CI to run tests
> * Fully implement 3rd party CI (with end-to-end integration tests only)
> * Make at least initial documentation and ensure that it’s deployable
> using this doc
>
> and etc. In general, I would not expect us to seriously consider applying
> to the Big Tent for another 5-6 months at the earliest.
>
> Regarding the Fuel mission, that is:
>
> To streamline and accelerate the process of deploying, testing and
> maintaining various configurations of OpenStack at scale.
>
> I think that it’s 100% aligned with that we’re doing in Fuel CCP.
>
​All the other stuff aside, the above was my take away from the first or
second message in this thread so I fail to understand the debate around
this.  The mission statement is simply around deploying, how that deploy
mechanism is implemented (Kubernetes, Ironic whatever) doesn't really seem
to be an issue here.

The point about API's that Jay Pipes made was spot on in my opinion as
well.  We're not talking about service or project API's that the end users
or operators deal with on a daily basis.  Until there's a standard install
API I fail to see the argument against this.

Other questions about the 4 opens etc seem to have been answered, but I
don't have any real insight here.  Personally I'm looking forward to seeing
if somebody can come up with a reliable and relatively easy deployment
tool.  If it means competition then that's great as far as I'm concerned.
I'll use whichever one doesn't make me want to rip my hair out.

​


>
> About the Kolla usage in Fuel CCP, I agree with Kevin and we can see in
> future that Fuel CCP will be potentially using Kolla containers, it’ll
> require some time anyway, but it doesn’t mean that we stop considering it.
> And as Kevin correctly noticed, we did it already one time with Fuel
> adopting upstream Puppet modules and contributing actively to them.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Flavio Percoco  wrote:
>
>> On 28/07/16 04:45 +, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/27/16, 2:12 PM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07/27/2016 04:42 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:

> On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Fox, Kevin M  wrote:
>
> Its not an "end user" facing thing, but it is an "operator" facing
>> thing.
>>
>
> Well, the end user for Kolla is an operator, no?
>
> I deploy kolla containers today on non kolla managed systems in
>> production, and rely on that api being consistent.
>>
>> I'm positive I'm not the only operator doing this either. This sounds
>> like a consumable api to me.
>>
>
> I don¹t think that an API has to be RESTful to be considered an
> interface for we should avoid duplication.
>

 Application *Programming* Interface. There's nothing that is being
 *programmed* or *called* in Kolla's image definitions.

 What Kolla is/has is not an API. As Stephen said, it's more of an
 Application Binary Interface (ABI). It's not really an ABI, though, in
 the traditional sense of the term that I'm used to.

 It's an agreed set of package bases, installation procedures/directories
 and configuration recipes for OpenStack and infrastructure components.

>>>
>>> Jay,
>>>
>>> From my perspective, this isn't about 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Steven Dake (stdake)]

Thanks Doug.  I didn't pick up on your choice of Zane's point #1.  If that
is how the rest of the TC feels about it, that wfm.  I will be submitting
a resolution with your wording so clarity is reached and not lost in a
mailing list thread in the future when this issue occurs again.

Regards
-steve


On 7/28/16, 1:13 PM, "Doug Hellmann"  wrote:

>Excerpts from Steven Dake (stdake)'s message of 2016-07-28 19:40:29 +:
>> 
>> On 7/28/16, 12:30 PM, "Davanum Srinivas"  wrote:
>> 
>> >Steven,
>> >
>> >Please see response from Doug:
>> >http://markmail.org/message/yp7fpojnzufb5jki
>> 
>> Dims,
>> 
>> Are you implying Doug's position represents that of the TC?
>> 
>> I have read Doug's position, and it completely ignores Zane's assessment
>> of the problem at hand.
>
>I did not ignore his assessment. If I was not clear, I am saying
>that his interpretation #1 is the correct interpretation, that
>members of official teams can contribute to repositories that are
>not under governance.
>
>If you disagree with my conclusion or think further action is needed,
>then I suggest you formally propose something be added to the TC
>agenda. I consider this resolved, but it is well within your rights
>as a community member to propose topics for discussion yourself and
>I whole-heartedly encourage you to exercise those rights if you
>think you are not being heard and that the full TC needs to be
>involved to take more formal action.
>
>To add an agenda item, all you have to do is edit the wiki page [1]
>but please note there are some stipulations about timing at the
>bottom of the page, so read those first to ensure that your
>expectations are set correctly. If you have any known schedule
>conflicts, include that information so we can be sure to schedule
>the discussion for a week when you can be present to participate.
>
>Doug
>
>[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee
>
>> 
>> Clarity has not been reached.  I could restate the problem for you if
>>you
>> like.
>> 
>> >
>> >If anyone disagrees with that position, please file a resolution.
>> >
>> >Let's stop this thread now please.
>> 
>> 
>> Asking for a thread to be stopped before a resolution is reached is not
>> the right thing.
>> 
>> Regards
>> -steve
>> 
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >Dims
>> >
>> >On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Steven Dake (stdake)
>>
>> >wrote:
>> >> Dims,
>> >>
>> >> I personally think its the responsibility of the TC to resolve this
>> >> problem via a resolution.  That’s why we elected you folks :)
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >> -steve
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 7/28/16, 11:09 AM, "Davanum Srinivas"  wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Zane, Steve,
>> >>>
>> >>>I'd say go for it! Can you please write up a proposal for the TC to
>> >>>consider? 
>> >>>(https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/governance)
>> >>>
>> >>>Thanks,
>> >>>-- Dims
>> >>>
>> >>>On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Steven Dake (stdake)
>>
>> >>>wrote:
>>  Jay,
>> 
>>  I'll be frank.  I have been receiving numerous complaints which
>>mirror
>>  Zane's full second understanding of what it means to be an
>>OpenStack
>> big
>>  tent project.  These are not just Kolla developers.  These are
>>people
>> from
>>  all over the community.  They want something done about it.  I
>>agree
>> with
>>  Zane if clarity is provided by the TC via a resolution, the problem
>> would
>>  disappear.  We are all adults and can live by the rules, even if we
>>  disagree with them.  This contract is the agreement under which
>>  democracies are created, and one of the most appealing properties
>>of
>>  OpenStack.
>> 
>>  In this case there is no policy and one is obviously necessary to
>> avoid
>>  these scenarios in the future.
>> 
>>  The TC has four options as I see it:
>>  1) do nothing
>>  2) write a resolution mirroring Zane's first analysis
>>  3) write a resolution mirroring Zane's second analysis
>>  4) write a different resolution that is a compromise of the first
>> analysis
>>  and second analysis
>> 
>>  I don't wish Mirantis to state anything.  Vladimir did that (thanks
>>  Vladimir!).
>> 
>>  Regards
>>  -steve
>> 
>> 
>>  On 7/28/16, 10:30 AM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:
>> 
>> >I don't see what is unclear about any of it.
>> >
>> >What exactly is it that you wish Mirantis to state?
>> >
>> >Zane says there needs to be some guidance from the TC "about what
>>it
>> >means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent".
>> >
>> >But the fuel-ccp repos aren't listed in the governance repo, for
>> >reasons
>> >that were clearly stated by Mirantis engineers. They want to
>>innovate
>> >in
>> >this area without all the politics that this thread exposes.
>> >
>> >Mirantis engineers have 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Doug Hellmann]

Excerpts from Steven Dake (stdake)'s message of 2016-07-28 19:40:29 +:
> 
> On 7/28/16, 12:30 PM, "Davanum Srinivas"  wrote:
> 
> >Steven,
> >
> >Please see response from Doug:
> >http://markmail.org/message/yp7fpojnzufb5jki
> 
> Dims,
> 
> Are you implying Doug's position represents that of the TC?
> 
> I have read Doug's position, and it completely ignores Zane's assessment
> of the problem at hand.

I did not ignore his assessment. If I was not clear, I am saying
that his interpretation #1 is the correct interpretation, that
members of official teams can contribute to repositories that are
not under governance.

If you disagree with my conclusion or think further action is needed,
then I suggest you formally propose something be added to the TC
agenda. I consider this resolved, but it is well within your rights
as a community member to propose topics for discussion yourself and
I whole-heartedly encourage you to exercise those rights if you
think you are not being heard and that the full TC needs to be
involved to take more formal action.

To add an agenda item, all you have to do is edit the wiki page [1]
but please note there are some stipulations about timing at the
bottom of the page, so read those first to ensure that your
expectations are set correctly. If you have any known schedule
conflicts, include that information so we can be sure to schedule
the discussion for a week when you can be present to participate.

Doug

[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee

> 
> Clarity has not been reached.  I could restate the problem for you if you
> like.
> 
> >
> >If anyone disagrees with that position, please file a resolution.
> >
> >Let's stop this thread now please.
> 
> 
> Asking for a thread to be stopped before a resolution is reached is not
> the right thing.
> 
> Regards
> -steve
> 
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Dims
> >
> >On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) 
> >wrote:
> >> Dims,
> >>
> >> I personally think its the responsibility of the TC to resolve this
> >> problem via a resolution.  That’s why we elected you folks :)
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> -steve
> >>
> >>
> >> On 7/28/16, 11:09 AM, "Davanum Srinivas"  wrote:
> >>
> >>>Zane, Steve,
> >>>
> >>>I'd say go for it! Can you please write up a proposal for the TC to
> >>>consider? 
> >>>(https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/governance)
> >>>
> >>>Thanks,
> >>>-- Dims
> >>>
> >>>On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) 
> >>>wrote:
>  Jay,
> 
>  I'll be frank.  I have been receiving numerous complaints which mirror
>  Zane's full second understanding of what it means to be an OpenStack
> big
>  tent project.  These are not just Kolla developers.  These are people
> from
>  all over the community.  They want something done about it.  I agree
> with
>  Zane if clarity is provided by the TC via a resolution, the problem
> would
>  disappear.  We are all adults and can live by the rules, even if we
>  disagree with them.  This contract is the agreement under which
>  democracies are created, and one of the most appealing properties of
>  OpenStack.
> 
>  In this case there is no policy and one is obviously necessary to
> avoid
>  these scenarios in the future.
> 
>  The TC has four options as I see it:
>  1) do nothing
>  2) write a resolution mirroring Zane's first analysis
>  3) write a resolution mirroring Zane's second analysis
>  4) write a different resolution that is a compromise of the first
> analysis
>  and second analysis
> 
>  I don't wish Mirantis to state anything.  Vladimir did that (thanks
>  Vladimir!).
> 
>  Regards
>  -steve
> 
> 
>  On 7/28/16, 10:30 AM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:
> 
> >I don't see what is unclear about any of it.
> >
> >What exactly is it that you wish Mirantis to state?
> >
> >Zane says there needs to be some guidance from the TC "about what it
> >means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent".
> >
> >But the fuel-ccp repos aren't listed in the governance repo, for
> >reasons
> >that were clearly stated by Mirantis engineers. They want to innovate
> >in
> >this area without all the politics that this thread exposes.
> >
> >Mirantis engineers have clearly laid out the technical reasons that
> >Kolla doesn't fit the needs that Fuel has of these image definitions
> >and
> >orchestration tooling.
> >
> >The repos *aren't in the OpenStack tent* so how precisely would TC
> >guidance about what it means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack
> >tent
> >be useful here?
> >
> >-jay
> >
> >On 07/28/2016 01:04 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> >> Jay,
> >>
> >> That resolution doesn't clarify Zane's argument.
> 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Davanum Srinivas]

Steve,

This thread has degenerated. So my request is to use Doug's post as
status quo. If there's disagreement then file for a resolution that
suits them

-- Dims

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Steven Dake (stdake)  wrote:
>
>
> On 7/28/16, 12:30 PM, "Davanum Srinivas"  wrote:
>
>>Steven,
>>
>>Please see response from Doug:
>>http://markmail.org/message/yp7fpojnzufb5jki
>
> Dims,
>
> Are you implying Doug's position represents that of the TC?
>
> I have read Doug's position, and it completely ignores Zane's assessment
> of the problem at hand.
>
> Clarity has not been reached.  I could restate the problem for you if you
> like.
>
>>
>>If anyone disagrees with that position, please file a resolution.
>>
>>Let's stop this thread now please.
>
>
> Asking for a thread to be stopped before a resolution is reached is not
> the right thing.
>
> Regards
> -steve
>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Dims
>>
>>On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) 
>>wrote:
>>> Dims,
>>>
>>> I personally think its the responsibility of the TC to resolve this
>>> problem via a resolution.  That’s why we elected you folks :)
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> -steve
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/28/16, 11:09 AM, "Davanum Srinivas"  wrote:
>>>
Zane, Steve,

I'd say go for it! Can you please write up a proposal for the TC to
consider?
(https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/governance)

Thanks,
-- Dims

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) 
wrote:
> Jay,
>
> I'll be frank.  I have been receiving numerous complaints which mirror
> Zane's full second understanding of what it means to be an OpenStack
>big
> tent project.  These are not just Kolla developers.  These are people
>from
> all over the community.  They want something done about it.  I agree
>with
> Zane if clarity is provided by the TC via a resolution, the problem
>would
> disappear.  We are all adults and can live by the rules, even if we
> disagree with them.  This contract is the agreement under which
> democracies are created, and one of the most appealing properties of
> OpenStack.
>
> In this case there is no policy and one is obviously necessary to
>avoid
> these scenarios in the future.
>
> The TC has four options as I see it:
> 1) do nothing
> 2) write a resolution mirroring Zane's first analysis
> 3) write a resolution mirroring Zane's second analysis
> 4) write a different resolution that is a compromise of the first
>analysis
> and second analysis
>
> I don't wish Mirantis to state anything.  Vladimir did that (thanks
> Vladimir!).
>
> Regards
> -steve
>
>
> On 7/28/16, 10:30 AM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:
>
>>I don't see what is unclear about any of it.
>>
>>What exactly is it that you wish Mirantis to state?
>>
>>Zane says there needs to be some guidance from the TC "about what it
>>means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent".
>>
>>But the fuel-ccp repos aren't listed in the governance repo, for
>>reasons
>>that were clearly stated by Mirantis engineers. They want to innovate
>>in
>>this area without all the politics that this thread exposes.
>>
>>Mirantis engineers have clearly laid out the technical reasons that
>>Kolla doesn't fit the needs that Fuel has of these image definitions
>>and
>>orchestration tooling.
>>
>>The repos *aren't in the OpenStack tent* so how precisely would TC
>>guidance about what it means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack
>>tent
>>be useful here?
>>
>>-jay
>>
>>On 07/28/2016 01:04 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>>> Jay,
>>>
>>> That resolution doesn't clarify Zane's argument.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> -steve
>>>
>>> On 7/28/16, 9:54 AM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:
>>>
 The TC has given guidance on this already:


http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160119-stackforge-reti
re
me
nt
 .html

 "In order to simplify software development lifecycle transitions of
 Unofficial and Official OpenStack projects, all projects developed
 within the OpenStack project infrastructure will be permitted to
use
the
 “openstack/” namespace. The use of the term “Stackforge” to
describe
 unofficial projects should be considered deprecated."

 The Fuel CCP repos are projects that are not official OpenStack
projects.

 They are in the openstack/ git namespace because they use the
common
 infrastructure and there isn't any formal plan to have the repos
join
 the "official OpenStack projects" (i.e. 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Doug Hellmann]

If it ever becomes necessary for us to pass a resolution to deal with
every disagreement, we might as well all go herd goats.

This is a very straightforward situation, which has been blown out of
all reasonable proportion through well-intentioned but misplaced
concerns.

Please, everyone, let's call it resolved.

Doug

Excerpts from Steven Dake (stdake)'s message of 2016-07-28 19:26:37 +:
> Dims,
> 
> I personally think its the responsibility of the TC to resolve this
> problem via a resolution.  That’s why we elected you folks :)
> 
> Regards
> -steve
> 
> On 7/28/16, 11:09 AM, "Davanum Srinivas"  wrote:
> 
> >Zane, Steve,
> >
> >I'd say go for it! Can you please write up a proposal for the TC to
> >consider? (https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/governance)
> >
> >Thanks,
> >-- Dims
> >
> >On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) 
> >wrote:
> >> Jay,
> >>
> >> I'll be frank.  I have been receiving numerous complaints which mirror
> >> Zane's full second understanding of what it means to be an OpenStack big
> >> tent project.  These are not just Kolla developers.  These are people
> >>from
> >> all over the community.  They want something done about it.  I agree
> >>with
> >> Zane if clarity is provided by the TC via a resolution, the problem
> >>would
> >> disappear.  We are all adults and can live by the rules, even if we
> >> disagree with them.  This contract is the agreement under which
> >> democracies are created, and one of the most appealing properties of
> >> OpenStack.
> >>
> >> In this case there is no policy and one is obviously necessary to avoid
> >> these scenarios in the future.
> >>
> >> The TC has four options as I see it:
> >> 1) do nothing
> >> 2) write a resolution mirroring Zane's first analysis
> >> 3) write a resolution mirroring Zane's second analysis
> >> 4) write a different resolution that is a compromise of the first
> >>analysis
> >> and second analysis
> >>
> >> I don't wish Mirantis to state anything.  Vladimir did that (thanks
> >> Vladimir!).
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> -steve
> >>
> >>
> >> On 7/28/16, 10:30 AM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:
> >>
> >>>I don't see what is unclear about any of it.
> >>>
> >>>What exactly is it that you wish Mirantis to state?
> >>>
> >>>Zane says there needs to be some guidance from the TC "about what it
> >>>means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent".
> >>>
> >>>But the fuel-ccp repos aren't listed in the governance repo, for reasons
> >>>that were clearly stated by Mirantis engineers. They want to innovate in
> >>>this area without all the politics that this thread exposes.
> >>>
> >>>Mirantis engineers have clearly laid out the technical reasons that
> >>>Kolla doesn't fit the needs that Fuel has of these image definitions and
> >>>orchestration tooling.
> >>>
> >>>The repos *aren't in the OpenStack tent* so how precisely would TC
> >>>guidance about what it means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent
> >>>be useful here?
> >>>
> >>>-jay
> >>>
> >>>On 07/28/2016 01:04 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>  Jay,
> 
>  That resolution doesn't clarify Zane's argument.
> 
>  Regards,
>  -steve
> 
>  On 7/28/16, 9:54 AM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:
> 
> > The TC has given guidance on this already:
> >
> >
> >http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160119-stackforge-retire
> >me
> >nt
> > .html
> >
> > "In order to simplify software development lifecycle transitions of
> > Unofficial and Official OpenStack projects, all projects developed
> > within the OpenStack project infrastructure will be permitted to use
> >the
> > “openstack/” namespace. The use of the term “Stackforge” to describe
> > unofficial projects should be considered deprecated."
> >
> > The Fuel CCP repos are projects that are not official OpenStack
> >projects.
> >
> > They are in the openstack/ git namespace because they use the common
> > infrastructure and there isn't any formal plan to have the repos join
> > the "official OpenStack projects" (i.e. the ones listed in the
> > projects.yaml file in the openstack/governance repository).
> >
> > Could they be proposed in the future as official OpenStack projects?
> > Maybe. Not sure, and I don't believe it's necessary to decide ahead
> >of
> > time.
> >
> > Please stop using a marketing press release as some indication of
> >what
> > the "intent" is for these repos or even that there *is* any intent at
> > this point. It's really early on and these repos are intended as a
> >place
> > to experiment and innovate. I don't see why there is so much anger
> >about
> > that.
> >
> > Best,
> > -jay
> >
> > On 07/28/2016 12:33 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> >> Doug,
> >>
> >> Zane's analysis is correct.  I agree with 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Steven Dake (stdake)]

On 7/28/16, 12:30 PM, "Davanum Srinivas"  wrote:

>Steven,
>
>Please see response from Doug:
>http://markmail.org/message/yp7fpojnzufb5jki

Dims,

Are you implying Doug's position represents that of the TC?

I have read Doug's position, and it completely ignores Zane's assessment
of the problem at hand.

Clarity has not been reached.  I could restate the problem for you if you
like.

>
>If anyone disagrees with that position, please file a resolution.
>
>Let's stop this thread now please.


Asking for a thread to be stopped before a resolution is reached is not
the right thing.

Regards
-steve

>
>Thanks,
>Dims
>
>On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) 
>wrote:
>> Dims,
>>
>> I personally think its the responsibility of the TC to resolve this
>> problem via a resolution.  That’s why we elected you folks :)
>>
>> Regards
>> -steve
>>
>>
>> On 7/28/16, 11:09 AM, "Davanum Srinivas"  wrote:
>>
>>>Zane, Steve,
>>>
>>>I'd say go for it! Can you please write up a proposal for the TC to
>>>consider? 
>>>(https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/governance)
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>-- Dims
>>>
>>>On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) 
>>>wrote:
 Jay,

 I'll be frank.  I have been receiving numerous complaints which mirror
 Zane's full second understanding of what it means to be an OpenStack
big
 tent project.  These are not just Kolla developers.  These are people
from
 all over the community.  They want something done about it.  I agree
with
 Zane if clarity is provided by the TC via a resolution, the problem
would
 disappear.  We are all adults and can live by the rules, even if we
 disagree with them.  This contract is the agreement under which
 democracies are created, and one of the most appealing properties of
 OpenStack.

 In this case there is no policy and one is obviously necessary to
avoid
 these scenarios in the future.

 The TC has four options as I see it:
 1) do nothing
 2) write a resolution mirroring Zane's first analysis
 3) write a resolution mirroring Zane's second analysis
 4) write a different resolution that is a compromise of the first
analysis
 and second analysis

 I don't wish Mirantis to state anything.  Vladimir did that (thanks
 Vladimir!).

 Regards
 -steve


 On 7/28/16, 10:30 AM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:

>I don't see what is unclear about any of it.
>
>What exactly is it that you wish Mirantis to state?
>
>Zane says there needs to be some guidance from the TC "about what it
>means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent".
>
>But the fuel-ccp repos aren't listed in the governance repo, for
>reasons
>that were clearly stated by Mirantis engineers. They want to innovate
>in
>this area without all the politics that this thread exposes.
>
>Mirantis engineers have clearly laid out the technical reasons that
>Kolla doesn't fit the needs that Fuel has of these image definitions
>and
>orchestration tooling.
>
>The repos *aren't in the OpenStack tent* so how precisely would TC
>guidance about what it means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack
>tent
>be useful here?
>
>-jay
>
>On 07/28/2016 01:04 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>> Jay,
>>
>> That resolution doesn't clarify Zane's argument.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -steve
>>
>> On 7/28/16, 9:54 AM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:
>>
>>> The TC has given guidance on this already:
>>>
>>>
>>>http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160119-stackforge-reti
>>>re
>>>me
>>>nt
>>> .html
>>>
>>> "In order to simplify software development lifecycle transitions of
>>> Unofficial and Official OpenStack projects, all projects developed
>>> within the OpenStack project infrastructure will be permitted to
>>>use
>>>the
>>> “openstack/” namespace. The use of the term “Stackforge” to
>>>describe
>>> unofficial projects should be considered deprecated."
>>>
>>> The Fuel CCP repos are projects that are not official OpenStack
>>>projects.
>>>
>>> They are in the openstack/ git namespace because they use the
>>>common
>>> infrastructure and there isn't any formal plan to have the repos
>>>join
>>> the "official OpenStack projects" (i.e. the ones listed in the
>>> projects.yaml file in the openstack/governance repository).
>>>
>>> Could they be proposed in the future as official OpenStack
>>>projects?
>>> Maybe. Not sure, and I don't believe it's necessary to decide ahead
>>>of
>>> time.
>>>
>>> Please stop using a marketing press release as some indication of
>>>what
>>> the "intent" is for these 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Davanum Srinivas]

Steven,

Please see response from Doug:
http://markmail.org/message/yp7fpojnzufb5jki

If anyone disagrees with that position, please file a resolution.

Let's stop this thread now please.

Thanks,
Dims

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Steven Dake (stdake)  wrote:
> Dims,
>
> I personally think its the responsibility of the TC to resolve this
> problem via a resolution.  That’s why we elected you folks :)
>
> Regards
> -steve
>
>
> On 7/28/16, 11:09 AM, "Davanum Srinivas"  wrote:
>
>>Zane, Steve,
>>
>>I'd say go for it! Can you please write up a proposal for the TC to
>>consider? (https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/governance)
>>
>>Thanks,
>>-- Dims
>>
>>On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) 
>>wrote:
>>> Jay,
>>>
>>> I'll be frank.  I have been receiving numerous complaints which mirror
>>> Zane's full second understanding of what it means to be an OpenStack big
>>> tent project.  These are not just Kolla developers.  These are people
>>>from
>>> all over the community.  They want something done about it.  I agree
>>>with
>>> Zane if clarity is provided by the TC via a resolution, the problem
>>>would
>>> disappear.  We are all adults and can live by the rules, even if we
>>> disagree with them.  This contract is the agreement under which
>>> democracies are created, and one of the most appealing properties of
>>> OpenStack.
>>>
>>> In this case there is no policy and one is obviously necessary to avoid
>>> these scenarios in the future.
>>>
>>> The TC has four options as I see it:
>>> 1) do nothing
>>> 2) write a resolution mirroring Zane's first analysis
>>> 3) write a resolution mirroring Zane's second analysis
>>> 4) write a different resolution that is a compromise of the first
>>>analysis
>>> and second analysis
>>>
>>> I don't wish Mirantis to state anything.  Vladimir did that (thanks
>>> Vladimir!).
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> -steve
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/28/16, 10:30 AM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:
>>>
I don't see what is unclear about any of it.

What exactly is it that you wish Mirantis to state?

Zane says there needs to be some guidance from the TC "about what it
means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent".

But the fuel-ccp repos aren't listed in the governance repo, for reasons
that were clearly stated by Mirantis engineers. They want to innovate in
this area without all the politics that this thread exposes.

Mirantis engineers have clearly laid out the technical reasons that
Kolla doesn't fit the needs that Fuel has of these image definitions and
orchestration tooling.

The repos *aren't in the OpenStack tent* so how precisely would TC
guidance about what it means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent
be useful here?

-jay

On 07/28/2016 01:04 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> Jay,
>
> That resolution doesn't clarify Zane's argument.
>
> Regards,
> -steve
>
> On 7/28/16, 9:54 AM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:
>
>> The TC has given guidance on this already:
>>
>>
>>http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160119-stackforge-retire
>>me
>>nt
>> .html
>>
>> "In order to simplify software development lifecycle transitions of
>> Unofficial and Official OpenStack projects, all projects developed
>> within the OpenStack project infrastructure will be permitted to use
>>the
>> “openstack/” namespace. The use of the term “Stackforge” to describe
>> unofficial projects should be considered deprecated."
>>
>> The Fuel CCP repos are projects that are not official OpenStack
>>projects.
>>
>> They are in the openstack/ git namespace because they use the common
>> infrastructure and there isn't any formal plan to have the repos join
>> the "official OpenStack projects" (i.e. the ones listed in the
>> projects.yaml file in the openstack/governance repository).
>>
>> Could they be proposed in the future as official OpenStack projects?
>> Maybe. Not sure, and I don't believe it's necessary to decide ahead
>>of
>> time.
>>
>> Please stop using a marketing press release as some indication of
>>what
>> the "intent" is for these repos or even that there *is* any intent at
>> this point. It's really early on and these repos are intended as a
>>place
>> to experiment and innovate. I don't see why there is so much anger
>>about
>> that.
>>
>> Best,
>> -jay
>>
>> On 07/28/2016 12:33 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>>> Doug,
>>>
>>> Zane's analysis is correct.  I agree with Zane's assessment that TC
>>> clarification can solve this situation.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> -steve
>>>
>>> On 7/28/16, 9:15 AM, "Zane Bitter"  wrote:
>>>
 On 28/07/16 08:48, Vladimir 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Steven Dake (stdake)]

Dims,

I personally think its the responsibility of the TC to resolve this
problem via a resolution.  That’s why we elected you folks :)

Regards
-steve


On 7/28/16, 11:09 AM, "Davanum Srinivas"  wrote:

>Zane, Steve,
>
>I'd say go for it! Can you please write up a proposal for the TC to
>consider? (https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/governance)
>
>Thanks,
>-- Dims
>
>On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) 
>wrote:
>> Jay,
>>
>> I'll be frank.  I have been receiving numerous complaints which mirror
>> Zane's full second understanding of what it means to be an OpenStack big
>> tent project.  These are not just Kolla developers.  These are people
>>from
>> all over the community.  They want something done about it.  I agree
>>with
>> Zane if clarity is provided by the TC via a resolution, the problem
>>would
>> disappear.  We are all adults and can live by the rules, even if we
>> disagree with them.  This contract is the agreement under which
>> democracies are created, and one of the most appealing properties of
>> OpenStack.
>>
>> In this case there is no policy and one is obviously necessary to avoid
>> these scenarios in the future.
>>
>> The TC has four options as I see it:
>> 1) do nothing
>> 2) write a resolution mirroring Zane's first analysis
>> 3) write a resolution mirroring Zane's second analysis
>> 4) write a different resolution that is a compromise of the first
>>analysis
>> and second analysis
>>
>> I don't wish Mirantis to state anything.  Vladimir did that (thanks
>> Vladimir!).
>>
>> Regards
>> -steve
>>
>>
>> On 7/28/16, 10:30 AM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:
>>
>>>I don't see what is unclear about any of it.
>>>
>>>What exactly is it that you wish Mirantis to state?
>>>
>>>Zane says there needs to be some guidance from the TC "about what it
>>>means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent".
>>>
>>>But the fuel-ccp repos aren't listed in the governance repo, for reasons
>>>that were clearly stated by Mirantis engineers. They want to innovate in
>>>this area without all the politics that this thread exposes.
>>>
>>>Mirantis engineers have clearly laid out the technical reasons that
>>>Kolla doesn't fit the needs that Fuel has of these image definitions and
>>>orchestration tooling.
>>>
>>>The repos *aren't in the OpenStack tent* so how precisely would TC
>>>guidance about what it means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent
>>>be useful here?
>>>
>>>-jay
>>>
>>>On 07/28/2016 01:04 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
 Jay,

 That resolution doesn't clarify Zane's argument.

 Regards,
 -steve

 On 7/28/16, 9:54 AM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:

> The TC has given guidance on this already:
>
>
>http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160119-stackforge-retire
>me
>nt
> .html
>
> "In order to simplify software development lifecycle transitions of
> Unofficial and Official OpenStack projects, all projects developed
> within the OpenStack project infrastructure will be permitted to use
>the
> “openstack/” namespace. The use of the term “Stackforge” to describe
> unofficial projects should be considered deprecated."
>
> The Fuel CCP repos are projects that are not official OpenStack
>projects.
>
> They are in the openstack/ git namespace because they use the common
> infrastructure and there isn't any formal plan to have the repos join
> the "official OpenStack projects" (i.e. the ones listed in the
> projects.yaml file in the openstack/governance repository).
>
> Could they be proposed in the future as official OpenStack projects?
> Maybe. Not sure, and I don't believe it's necessary to decide ahead
>of
> time.
>
> Please stop using a marketing press release as some indication of
>what
> the "intent" is for these repos or even that there *is* any intent at
> this point. It's really early on and these repos are intended as a
>place
> to experiment and innovate. I don't see why there is so much anger
>about
> that.
>
> Best,
> -jay
>
> On 07/28/2016 12:33 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>> Doug,
>>
>> Zane's analysis is correct.  I agree with Zane's assessment that TC
>> clarification can solve this situation.
>>
>> Regards
>> -steve
>>
>> On 7/28/16, 9:15 AM, "Zane Bitter"  wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/07/16 08:48, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:
 Fuel-ccp repositories are public, everyone is welcome to
participate.
 I
 don¹t see where we violate ³4 opens². These repos are now
 experimental.
 At the moment the team is working on building CI pipeline and
 developing
 functional tests that are to be run as a part of CI process. These
 repos
 are not to be a part of Fuel 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Doug Hellmann]

Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2016-07-28 14:38:12 -0400:
> On 28/07/16 14:20, Jay Pipes wrote:
> > How would guidance from the TC about what it means for a repo to be
> > "part of the OpenStack tent" add clarity for repos that are not trying
> > to be part of the OpenStack tent?
> 
> If it were clear what it means for a repo to be "part of the OpenStack 
> tent" then it would be obvious to *everyone* which ones should be and 
> which ones should not. As it is there are two different interpretations 
> from which follow two different conclusions as to whether the Right 
> Thing(TM) is happening, causing unnecessary wailing and gnashing of 
> teeth. Please re-read my original message on this subject for a full 
> treatment.
> 
> cheers,
> Zane.
> 

There is only one way for a repository's contents to be considered
part of the big tent: It needs to be listed in the projects.yaml
file in the openstack/governance repository, associated with a
deliverable from a team that has been accepted as a big tent member.

The Fuel team has stated that they are not ready to include the
work in these new repositories under governance, and indeed the
repositories are not listed in the set of deliverables for the Fuel
team [1].

Therefore, the situation is clear, to me: They are not part of the
big tent.

Doug

[1] 
http://governance.openstack.org/reference/projects/fuel.html#deliverables-and-tags

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Zane Bitter]

On 28/07/16 14:38, Davanum Srinivas wrote:

Zane,


I don't understand why you're directing this reply to me. I *just* made 
clear that I don't have any interest one way or the other.



There's a Spec, Spec was discussed in Weekly Meeting. There's traffic
on the ML. I personally was helpful to some extent with the beginnning
of kolla-kubernetes.

So i don't think it's a lack of communication that's to blame.


AFAICT this has nothing to do with my point that this thread is a *train 
wreck* where everyone is talking past each other.


Also at no time did I ever refer to a "lack of communication".


Also if you see the repos, there's not much there... In effect they
are starting from scratch knowingly.


As I said, I don't have a horse in this race and I don't actually care. 
I'm just trying to explain each side's position to the other in the hope 
that they'll stop arguing.



But if you wish as i said before, please do file a TC resolution and
let's see where it goes.


I wouldn't know which one to file (although Doug's response suggests 
it's interpretation 1). Besides, I already did my good deed for the day 
and got attacked for my trouble.



As Steven said before "We are all adults and can live by the rules,
even if we disagree with them"


I don't even disagree with *either* rule. I'm merely trying to point out 
that different but unexamined opinions on what the rule is leads to bad 
discussions.


cheers,
Zane.


Thanks,
Dims

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Zane Bitter  wrote:

On 28/07/16 12:54, Jay Pipes wrote:


The TC has given guidance on this already:


http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160119-stackforge-retirement.html


"In order to simplify software development lifecycle transitions of
Unofficial and Official OpenStack projects, all projects developed
within the OpenStack project infrastructure will be permitted to use the
“openstack/” namespace. The use of the term “Stackforge” to describe
unofficial projects should be considered deprecated."



The word "project" has unfortunately had multiple meanings throughout the
history of OpenStack (I think it's something to do with multitenancy this
week, right?), so to be clear: when I say 'project' here I mean in the sense
of 'team'.

So I believe it's quite clear that there are official projects with official
repos and unofficial projects with unofficial repos, and that all of these
repos are hosted in the openstack/* namespace. (Nobody in the thread has
raised the namespacing as an issue AFAICT.)

What's not clear is whether official projects should have unofficial repos.
I submit that if that _were_ clear then this thread would never have existed
and we would all be happier :)


The Fuel CCP repos are projects that are not official OpenStack projects.



Because of the aforementioned 'project' pun issue there's two ways of
interpreting this. You may be saying that the repos are unofficial repos
within the "Fuel" project (team), in which case the question of whether
official projects should have unofficial repos applies.

Alternatively, you may be saying that the "Fuel CCP" project (team) is an
unofficial project separate from the "Fuel" project (team), with it's own
(naturally unofficial) repos, and that therefore the question of whether
official projects should have unofficial repos is moot. In which case I
think you at least have to forgive people for being confused ;)


They are in the openstack/ git namespace because they use the common
infrastructure and there isn't any formal plan to have the repos join
the "official OpenStack projects" (i.e. the ones listed in the
projects.yaml file in the openstack/governance repository).

Could they be proposed in the future as official OpenStack projects?
Maybe. Not sure, and I don't believe it's necessary to decide ahead of
time.

Please stop using a marketing press release as some indication of what
the "intent" is for these repos or even that there *is* any intent at
this point. It's really early on and these repos are intended as a place
to experiment and innovate. I don't see why there is so much anger about
that.



My only interest here is to try to help two groups that are clearly not
communicating very well to communicate better. TBH I don't think your
response was as helpful to those ends as it could have been. Can we start
again?

cheers,
Zane.



Best,
-jay

On 07/28/2016 12:33 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:


Doug,

Zane's analysis is correct.  I agree with Zane's assessment that TC
clarification can solve this situation.

Regards
-steve

On 7/28/16, 9:15 AM, "Zane Bitter"  wrote:


On 28/07/16 08:48, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:


Fuel-ccp repositories are public, everyone is welcome to participate. I
don¹t see where we violate ³4 opens². These repos are now experimental.
At the moment the team is working on building CI pipeline and
developing
functional tests that are to be run as a part of CI process. These
repos
are not to be a 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Jim Rollenhagen]

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 02:29:18PM -0400, Zane Bitter wrote:
> On 28/07/16 12:54, Jay Pipes wrote:
> >The TC has given guidance on this already:
> >
> >http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160119-stackforge-retirement.html
> >
> >
> >"In order to simplify software development lifecycle transitions of
> >Unofficial and Official OpenStack projects, all projects developed
> >within the OpenStack project infrastructure will be permitted to use the
> >“openstack/” namespace. The use of the term “Stackforge” to describe
> >unofficial projects should be considered deprecated."
> 
> The word "project" has unfortunately had multiple meanings throughout the
> history of OpenStack (I think it's something to do with multitenancy this
> week, right?), so to be clear: when I say 'project' here I mean in the sense
> of 'team'.
> 
> So I believe it's quite clear that there are official projects with official
> repos and unofficial projects with unofficial repos, and that all of these
> repos are hosted in the openstack/* namespace. (Nobody in the thread has
> raised the namespacing as an issue AFAICT.)
> 
> What's not clear is whether official projects should have unofficial repos.
> I submit that if that _were_ clear then this thread would never have existed
> and we would all be happier :)

Well, that does happen today, just as a note:
https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/ironic-staging-drivers

This is a bunch of out-of-tree drivers that a few Ironic developers
support, because Ironic is beginning to require third-party CI on
in-tree drivers.

As mentioned elsewhere, the Neutron stadium has many repos in and out of
the Neutron governance and the big tent.

So I'm curious, if we say "official projects should never have unofficial
repos", where that bar would be. Is it that the repo is not worked on by
the PTL? Some percent of core reviewers? Some percent of active
developers? Has the name in it?

If we make a rule that doesn't fit some unofficial repo, people will
either 1) work around the rule, or 2) put it on Github. Both of those
are (IMO) not any better for the community than having some unofficial
repo related to an official project.

(Oh, there's another worse outcome: the repo becomes proprietary
instead.)

// jim

> >The Fuel CCP repos are projects that are not official OpenStack projects.
> 
> Because of the aforementioned 'project' pun issue there's two ways of
> interpreting this. You may be saying that the repos are unofficial repos
> within the "Fuel" project (team), in which case the question of whether
> official projects should have unofficial repos applies.
> 
> Alternatively, you may be saying that the "Fuel CCP" project (team) is an
> unofficial project separate from the "Fuel" project (team), with it's own
> (naturally unofficial) repos, and that therefore the question of whether
> official projects should have unofficial repos is moot. In which case I
> think you at least have to forgive people for being confused ;)
> 
> >They are in the openstack/ git namespace because they use the common
> >infrastructure and there isn't any formal plan to have the repos join
> >the "official OpenStack projects" (i.e. the ones listed in the
> >projects.yaml file in the openstack/governance repository).
> >
> >Could they be proposed in the future as official OpenStack projects?
> >Maybe. Not sure, and I don't believe it's necessary to decide ahead of
> >time.
> >
> >Please stop using a marketing press release as some indication of what
> >the "intent" is for these repos or even that there *is* any intent at
> >this point. It's really early on and these repos are intended as a place
> >to experiment and innovate. I don't see why there is so much anger about
> >that.
> 
> My only interest here is to try to help two groups that are clearly not
> communicating very well to communicate better. TBH I don't think your
> response was as helpful to those ends as it could have been. Can we start
> again?
> 
> cheers,
> Zane.
> 
> >Best,
> >-jay
> >
> >On 07/28/2016 12:33 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> >>Doug,
> >>
> >>Zane's analysis is correct.  I agree with Zane's assessment that TC
> >>clarification can solve this situation.
> >>
> >>Regards
> >>-steve
> >>
> >>On 7/28/16, 9:15 AM, "Zane Bitter"  wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 28/07/16 08:48, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:
> Fuel-ccp repositories are public, everyone is welcome to participate. I
> don¹t see where we violate ³4 opens². These repos are now experimental.
> At the moment the team is working on building CI pipeline and
> developing
> functional tests that are to be run as a part of CI process. These
> repos
> are not to be a part of Fuel Newton release. From time to time we add
> and retire git repos and it is a part of development process. Not all
> these repos are to become a part of Big tent.
> >>>
> >>>It seems to me that there are two different interpretations of what it
> >>>means for a repo to be 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Andreas Jaeger]

On 07/28/2016 07:21 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> [...]
> I think it is a reasonable expectation that teams would want to add
> their new repositories to the governance list to have the rights
> that go along with that, but I'm not aware of any requirement that
> they do so.

Reviewing that change that added the repos, I was struggling with these
interpretations myself.

Here's a team that creates a spec that states they want to develop
certain parts outside of the big tent and seem to work as team on it
(so, much that their marketing believes it;) - a team that is part of
the big tent.

AFAIU, they could have easily opted on adding these repos to their
project and do the same kind of experimentation that they are doing now
as "stackforge" repos.

Most teams are happy to have their new repos as part of the big tent -
let's leave the Neutron stadium out for now which showed some of the
limits for this.

Being part of the Big tent has some advantages - but I did not
understand what kind of advantages it brings the team to have these
repos outside of the big tent.

But it's not my call to make how they do it, and thus I reviewed
positively - I just got the impression that either we have different
understandings on what it means that repos are in the big tent or not -
or I'm missing some information.

If there're any advantages or disadvantages or considerating regarding
the big tent for teams to add repos that I miss, I'd like to be aware of
them so that I can give guidance during project-config review,

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi
  SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
   GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton,
   HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Michał Jastrzębski]

Hello,

So as some of you might know, I write from a peculiar position. I'm
both Kolla core and Intel.

I don't like to see where this thread is going to. We are all one
community, we are all OpenStack after all. I think what's hurting us
here is this sense of competition. I would like to share my personal
view on that matter.

Competition is good thing. Let the best one win and therefore make
whole OpenStack namespace a slightly better place overall. However
what I'd hate to see is to silo ourselves and don't talk to each
other. We, Kolla and Fuel, are trying to solve very similar problem
(openstack deployment) in a very similar way (docker containers on top
of kubernetes). This makes us vulnerable to both competing and
knowledge silo, but that also gives us opportunity to cooperate.
Regardless of decision you guys (Mirantis) make, I would like to
encourage you to share your findings and feedback regarding OpenStack
in Docker on top of Kubernetes with Kolla. We will do the same for
you. As I said before, to me it's not us vs you, it's both of us
trying to improve experience of OpenStack.

That being said, I'm glad to hear from you, Sergey, that you're not
ruling out using Kolla as carrier for containers. I know we have few
points we need to discuss, but that's what we should do, discuss. Make
sure that we're splitting community for a reason and there is
something fundamental that would prevent us from closer cooperation.

I understand that Fuel is center of business for Mirantis, and adding
dependency for non-Mirantis driven project is a huge risk and it's not
a decision taken lightly. To that, I'll say that Nova is not a
Mirantis-driven project as well, which means you already do this, this
is just one step further.

Uff..long mail.

TLDR: Even if you want to have completely separate project, that's
cool, just let's make sure to talk so our collective experience will
improve both projects.

I hope this makes sense?

Cheers,
Michal


On 28 July 2016 at 13:29, Zane Bitter  wrote:
> On 28/07/16 12:54, Jay Pipes wrote:
>>
>> The TC has given guidance on this already:
>>
>>
>> http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160119-stackforge-retirement.html
>>
>>
>> "In order to simplify software development lifecycle transitions of
>> Unofficial and Official OpenStack projects, all projects developed
>> within the OpenStack project infrastructure will be permitted to use the
>> “openstack/” namespace. The use of the term “Stackforge” to describe
>> unofficial projects should be considered deprecated."
>
>
> The word "project" has unfortunately had multiple meanings throughout the
> history of OpenStack (I think it's something to do with multitenancy this
> week, right?), so to be clear: when I say 'project' here I mean in the sense
> of 'team'.
>
> So I believe it's quite clear that there are official projects with official
> repos and unofficial projects with unofficial repos, and that all of these
> repos are hosted in the openstack/* namespace. (Nobody in the thread has
> raised the namespacing as an issue AFAICT.)
>
> What's not clear is whether official projects should have unofficial repos.
> I submit that if that _were_ clear then this thread would never have existed
> and we would all be happier :)
>
>> The Fuel CCP repos are projects that are not official OpenStack projects.
>
>
> Because of the aforementioned 'project' pun issue there's two ways of
> interpreting this. You may be saying that the repos are unofficial repos
> within the "Fuel" project (team), in which case the question of whether
> official projects should have unofficial repos applies.
>
> Alternatively, you may be saying that the "Fuel CCP" project (team) is an
> unofficial project separate from the "Fuel" project (team), with it's own
> (naturally unofficial) repos, and that therefore the question of whether
> official projects should have unofficial repos is moot. In which case I
> think you at least have to forgive people for being confused ;)
>
>> They are in the openstack/ git namespace because they use the common
>> infrastructure and there isn't any formal plan to have the repos join
>> the "official OpenStack projects" (i.e. the ones listed in the
>> projects.yaml file in the openstack/governance repository).
>>
>> Could they be proposed in the future as official OpenStack projects?
>> Maybe. Not sure, and I don't believe it's necessary to decide ahead of
>> time.
>>
>> Please stop using a marketing press release as some indication of what
>> the "intent" is for these repos or even that there *is* any intent at
>> this point. It's really early on and these repos are intended as a place
>> to experiment and innovate. I don't see why there is so much anger about
>> that.
>
>
> My only interest here is to try to help two groups that are clearly not
> communicating very well to communicate better. TBH I don't think your
> response was as helpful to those ends as it could have been. Can we start
> again?
>
> 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Davanum Srinivas]

Zane,

There's a Spec, Spec was discussed in Weekly Meeting. There's traffic
on the ML. I personally was helpful to some extent with the beginnning
of kolla-kubernetes.

So i don't think it's a lack of communication that's to blame.

Also if you see the repos, there's not much there... In effect they
are starting from scratch knowingly.

But if you wish as i said before, please do file a TC resolution and
let's see where it goes.

As Steven said before "We are all adults and can live by the rules,
even if we disagree with them"

Thanks,
Dims

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Zane Bitter  wrote:
> On 28/07/16 12:54, Jay Pipes wrote:
>>
>> The TC has given guidance on this already:
>>
>>
>> http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160119-stackforge-retirement.html
>>
>>
>> "In order to simplify software development lifecycle transitions of
>> Unofficial and Official OpenStack projects, all projects developed
>> within the OpenStack project infrastructure will be permitted to use the
>> “openstack/” namespace. The use of the term “Stackforge” to describe
>> unofficial projects should be considered deprecated."
>
>
> The word "project" has unfortunately had multiple meanings throughout the
> history of OpenStack (I think it's something to do with multitenancy this
> week, right?), so to be clear: when I say 'project' here I mean in the sense
> of 'team'.
>
> So I believe it's quite clear that there are official projects with official
> repos and unofficial projects with unofficial repos, and that all of these
> repos are hosted in the openstack/* namespace. (Nobody in the thread has
> raised the namespacing as an issue AFAICT.)
>
> What's not clear is whether official projects should have unofficial repos.
> I submit that if that _were_ clear then this thread would never have existed
> and we would all be happier :)
>
>> The Fuel CCP repos are projects that are not official OpenStack projects.
>
>
> Because of the aforementioned 'project' pun issue there's two ways of
> interpreting this. You may be saying that the repos are unofficial repos
> within the "Fuel" project (team), in which case the question of whether
> official projects should have unofficial repos applies.
>
> Alternatively, you may be saying that the "Fuel CCP" project (team) is an
> unofficial project separate from the "Fuel" project (team), with it's own
> (naturally unofficial) repos, and that therefore the question of whether
> official projects should have unofficial repos is moot. In which case I
> think you at least have to forgive people for being confused ;)
>
>> They are in the openstack/ git namespace because they use the common
>> infrastructure and there isn't any formal plan to have the repos join
>> the "official OpenStack projects" (i.e. the ones listed in the
>> projects.yaml file in the openstack/governance repository).
>>
>> Could they be proposed in the future as official OpenStack projects?
>> Maybe. Not sure, and I don't believe it's necessary to decide ahead of
>> time.
>>
>> Please stop using a marketing press release as some indication of what
>> the "intent" is for these repos or even that there *is* any intent at
>> this point. It's really early on and these repos are intended as a place
>> to experiment and innovate. I don't see why there is so much anger about
>> that.
>
>
> My only interest here is to try to help two groups that are clearly not
> communicating very well to communicate better. TBH I don't think your
> response was as helpful to those ends as it could have been. Can we start
> again?
>
> cheers,
> Zane.
>
>
>> Best,
>> -jay
>>
>> On 07/28/2016 12:33 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>>>
>>> Doug,
>>>
>>> Zane's analysis is correct.  I agree with Zane's assessment that TC
>>> clarification can solve this situation.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> -steve
>>>
>>> On 7/28/16, 9:15 AM, "Zane Bitter"  wrote:
>>>
 On 28/07/16 08:48, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:
>
> Fuel-ccp repositories are public, everyone is welcome to participate. I
> don¹t see where we violate ³4 opens². These repos are now experimental.
> At the moment the team is working on building CI pipeline and
> developing
> functional tests that are to be run as a part of CI process. These
> repos
> are not to be a part of Fuel Newton release. From time to time we add
> and retire git repos and it is a part of development process. Not all
> these repos are to become a part of Big tent.


 It seems to me that there are two different interpretations of what it
 means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent, and that these
 differing interpretations are at the root of the arguments in this
 thread.

 The first interpretation is that repos listed as belonging to a team in
 the governance repo are part of a deliverable that is released each
 development cycle, and that the same team may also control other repos
 that are not 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Zane Bitter]

On 28/07/16 14:20, Jay Pipes wrote:

How would guidance from the TC about what it means for a repo to be
"part of the OpenStack tent" add clarity for repos that are not trying
to be part of the OpenStack tent?


If it were clear what it means for a repo to be "part of the OpenStack 
tent" then it would be obvious to *everyone* which ones should be and 
which ones should not. As it is there are two different interpretations 
from which follow two different conclusions as to whether the Right 
Thing(TM) is happening, causing unnecessary wailing and gnashing of 
teeth. Please re-read my original message on this subject for a full 
treatment.


cheers,
Zane.

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Russell Bryant]

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Jay Pipes  wrote:

> How would guidance from the TC about what it means for a repo to be "part
> of the OpenStack tent" add clarity for repos that are not trying to be part
> of the OpenStack tent?
>
> Just curious here...


Related, ​Flavio asked about this earlier, and I don't think it was
answered.

Is the issue with the use of the Fuel name?  Would the concern remain if
the repository was called "pancakes-ccp" instead of "fuel-ccp"?

-- 
Russell Bryant​
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Zane Bitter]

On 28/07/16 12:54, Jay Pipes wrote:

The TC has given guidance on this already:

http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160119-stackforge-retirement.html


"In order to simplify software development lifecycle transitions of
Unofficial and Official OpenStack projects, all projects developed
within the OpenStack project infrastructure will be permitted to use the
“openstack/” namespace. The use of the term “Stackforge” to describe
unofficial projects should be considered deprecated."


The word "project" has unfortunately had multiple meanings throughout 
the history of OpenStack (I think it's something to do with multitenancy 
this week, right?), so to be clear: when I say 'project' here I mean in 
the sense of 'team'.


So I believe it's quite clear that there are official projects with 
official repos and unofficial projects with unofficial repos, and that 
all of these repos are hosted in the openstack/* namespace. (Nobody in 
the thread has raised the namespacing as an issue AFAICT.)


What's not clear is whether official projects should have unofficial 
repos. I submit that if that _were_ clear then this thread would never 
have existed and we would all be happier :)



The Fuel CCP repos are projects that are not official OpenStack projects.


Because of the aforementioned 'project' pun issue there's two ways of 
interpreting this. You may be saying that the repos are unofficial repos 
within the "Fuel" project (team), in which case the question of whether 
official projects should have unofficial repos applies.


Alternatively, you may be saying that the "Fuel CCP" project (team) is 
an unofficial project separate from the "Fuel" project (team), with it's 
own (naturally unofficial) repos, and that therefore the question of 
whether official projects should have unofficial repos is moot. In which 
case I think you at least have to forgive people for being confused ;)



They are in the openstack/ git namespace because they use the common
infrastructure and there isn't any formal plan to have the repos join
the "official OpenStack projects" (i.e. the ones listed in the
projects.yaml file in the openstack/governance repository).

Could they be proposed in the future as official OpenStack projects?
Maybe. Not sure, and I don't believe it's necessary to decide ahead of
time.

Please stop using a marketing press release as some indication of what
the "intent" is for these repos or even that there *is* any intent at
this point. It's really early on and these repos are intended as a place
to experiment and innovate. I don't see why there is so much anger about
that.


My only interest here is to try to help two groups that are clearly not 
communicating very well to communicate better. TBH I don't think your 
response was as helpful to those ends as it could have been. Can we 
start again?


cheers,
Zane.


Best,
-jay

On 07/28/2016 12:33 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:

Doug,

Zane's analysis is correct.  I agree with Zane's assessment that TC
clarification can solve this situation.

Regards
-steve

On 7/28/16, 9:15 AM, "Zane Bitter"  wrote:


On 28/07/16 08:48, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:

Fuel-ccp repositories are public, everyone is welcome to participate. I
don¹t see where we violate ³4 opens². These repos are now experimental.
At the moment the team is working on building CI pipeline and
developing
functional tests that are to be run as a part of CI process. These
repos
are not to be a part of Fuel Newton release. From time to time we add
and retire git repos and it is a part of development process. Not all
these repos are to become a part of Big tent.


It seems to me that there are two different interpretations of what it
means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent, and that these
differing interpretations are at the root of the arguments in this
thread.

The first interpretation is that repos listed as belonging to a team in
the governance repo are part of a deliverable that is released each
development cycle, and that the same team may also control other repos
that are not deliverables and hence not part of OpenStack. It's easy to
see how people could have developed this interpretation in good faith.

The second interpretation is that the TC blesses a team; that the only
criterion for receiving this blessing is for the project to be "one of
us", which in practice effectively means following the Four Opens; and
that all repos which the team intends to operate in this manner, subject
to TC oversight, should be listed in the governance repo. It's also easy
to see how people could have developed this interpretation in good
faith. (In fact, I was following the big tent discussions very closely
at the time and this was always my understanding of what it meant.)

The only additional thing needed to explain this thread is the
(incorrect) assumption on behalf of all participants that everyone has
the same interpretation :)

Assuming everyone holds the first interpretation, 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Jay Pipes]

How would guidance from the TC about what it means for a repo to be 
"part of the OpenStack tent" add clarity for repos that are not trying 
to be part of the OpenStack tent?


Just curious here...

-jay

On 07/28/2016 02:01 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:

Jay,

I'll be frank.  I have been receiving numerous complaints which mirror
Zane's full second understanding of what it means to be an OpenStack big
tent project.  These are not just Kolla developers.  These are people from
all over the community.  They want something done about it.  I agree with
Zane if clarity is provided by the TC via a resolution, the problem would
disappear.  We are all adults and can live by the rules, even if we
disagree with them.  This contract is the agreement under which
democracies are created, and one of the most appealing properties of
OpenStack.

In this case there is no policy and one is obviously necessary to avoid
these scenarios in the future.

The TC has four options as I see it:
1) do nothing
2) write a resolution mirroring Zane's first analysis
3) write a resolution mirroring Zane's second analysis
4) write a different resolution that is a compromise of the first analysis
and second analysis

I don't wish Mirantis to state anything.  Vladimir did that (thanks
Vladimir!).

Regards
-steve


On 7/28/16, 10:30 AM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:


I don't see what is unclear about any of it.

What exactly is it that you wish Mirantis to state?

Zane says there needs to be some guidance from the TC "about what it
means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent".

But the fuel-ccp repos aren't listed in the governance repo, for reasons
that were clearly stated by Mirantis engineers. They want to innovate in
this area without all the politics that this thread exposes.

Mirantis engineers have clearly laid out the technical reasons that
Kolla doesn't fit the needs that Fuel has of these image definitions and
orchestration tooling.

The repos *aren't in the OpenStack tent* so how precisely would TC
guidance about what it means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent
be useful here?

-jay

On 07/28/2016 01:04 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:

Jay,

That resolution doesn't clarify Zane's argument.

Regards,
-steve

On 7/28/16, 9:54 AM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:


The TC has given guidance on this already:


http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160119-stackforge-retireme
nt
.html

"In order to simplify software development lifecycle transitions of
Unofficial and Official OpenStack projects, all projects developed
within the OpenStack project infrastructure will be permitted to use
the
“openstack/” namespace. The use of the term “Stackforge” to describe
unofficial projects should be considered deprecated."

The Fuel CCP repos are projects that are not official OpenStack
projects.

They are in the openstack/ git namespace because they use the common
infrastructure and there isn't any formal plan to have the repos join
the "official OpenStack projects" (i.e. the ones listed in the
projects.yaml file in the openstack/governance repository).

Could they be proposed in the future as official OpenStack projects?
Maybe. Not sure, and I don't believe it's necessary to decide ahead of
time.

Please stop using a marketing press release as some indication of what
the "intent" is for these repos or even that there *is* any intent at
this point. It's really early on and these repos are intended as a
place
to experiment and innovate. I don't see why there is so much anger
about
that.

Best,
-jay

On 07/28/2016 12:33 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:

Doug,

Zane's analysis is correct.  I agree with Zane's assessment that TC
clarification can solve this situation.

Regards
-steve

On 7/28/16, 9:15 AM, "Zane Bitter"  wrote:


On 28/07/16 08:48, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:

Fuel-ccp repositories are public, everyone is welcome to
participate.
I
don¹t see where we violate ³4 opens². These repos are now
experimental.
At the moment the team is working on building CI pipeline and
developing
functional tests that are to be run as a part of CI process. These
repos
are not to be a part of Fuel Newton release. From time to time we
add
and retire git repos and it is a part of development process. Not
all
these repos are to become a part of Big tent.


It seems to me that there are two different interpretations of what
it
means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent, and that these
differing interpretations are at the root of the arguments in this
thread.

The first interpretation is that repos listed as belonging to a team
in
the governance repo are part of a deliverable that is released each
development cycle, and that the same team may also control other
repos
that are not deliverables and hence not part of OpenStack. It's easy
to
see how people could have developed this interpretation in good
faith.

The second interpretation is that the TC blesses a team; that the
only
criterion for 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Davanum Srinivas]

Zane, Steve,

I'd say go for it! Can you please write up a proposal for the TC to
consider? (https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/governance)

Thanks,
-- Dims

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Steven Dake (stdake)  wrote:
> Jay,
>
> I'll be frank.  I have been receiving numerous complaints which mirror
> Zane's full second understanding of what it means to be an OpenStack big
> tent project.  These are not just Kolla developers.  These are people from
> all over the community.  They want something done about it.  I agree with
> Zane if clarity is provided by the TC via a resolution, the problem would
> disappear.  We are all adults and can live by the rules, even if we
> disagree with them.  This contract is the agreement under which
> democracies are created, and one of the most appealing properties of
> OpenStack.
>
> In this case there is no policy and one is obviously necessary to avoid
> these scenarios in the future.
>
> The TC has four options as I see it:
> 1) do nothing
> 2) write a resolution mirroring Zane's first analysis
> 3) write a resolution mirroring Zane's second analysis
> 4) write a different resolution that is a compromise of the first analysis
> and second analysis
>
> I don't wish Mirantis to state anything.  Vladimir did that (thanks
> Vladimir!).
>
> Regards
> -steve
>
>
> On 7/28/16, 10:30 AM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:
>
>>I don't see what is unclear about any of it.
>>
>>What exactly is it that you wish Mirantis to state?
>>
>>Zane says there needs to be some guidance from the TC "about what it
>>means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent".
>>
>>But the fuel-ccp repos aren't listed in the governance repo, for reasons
>>that were clearly stated by Mirantis engineers. They want to innovate in
>>this area without all the politics that this thread exposes.
>>
>>Mirantis engineers have clearly laid out the technical reasons that
>>Kolla doesn't fit the needs that Fuel has of these image definitions and
>>orchestration tooling.
>>
>>The repos *aren't in the OpenStack tent* so how precisely would TC
>>guidance about what it means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent
>>be useful here?
>>
>>-jay
>>
>>On 07/28/2016 01:04 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>>> Jay,
>>>
>>> That resolution doesn't clarify Zane's argument.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> -steve
>>>
>>> On 7/28/16, 9:54 AM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:
>>>
 The TC has given guidance on this already:


http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160119-stackforge-retireme
nt
 .html

 "In order to simplify software development lifecycle transitions of
 Unofficial and Official OpenStack projects, all projects developed
 within the OpenStack project infrastructure will be permitted to use
the
 “openstack/” namespace. The use of the term “Stackforge” to describe
 unofficial projects should be considered deprecated."

 The Fuel CCP repos are projects that are not official OpenStack
projects.

 They are in the openstack/ git namespace because they use the common
 infrastructure and there isn't any formal plan to have the repos join
 the "official OpenStack projects" (i.e. the ones listed in the
 projects.yaml file in the openstack/governance repository).

 Could they be proposed in the future as official OpenStack projects?
 Maybe. Not sure, and I don't believe it's necessary to decide ahead of
 time.

 Please stop using a marketing press release as some indication of what
 the "intent" is for these repos or even that there *is* any intent at
 this point. It's really early on and these repos are intended as a
place
 to experiment and innovate. I don't see why there is so much anger
about
 that.

 Best,
 -jay

 On 07/28/2016 12:33 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> Doug,
>
> Zane's analysis is correct.  I agree with Zane's assessment that TC
> clarification can solve this situation.
>
> Regards
> -steve
>
> On 7/28/16, 9:15 AM, "Zane Bitter"  wrote:
>
>> On 28/07/16 08:48, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:
>>> Fuel-ccp repositories are public, everyone is welcome to
>>>participate.
>>> I
>>> don¹t see where we violate ³4 opens². These repos are now
>>> experimental.
>>> At the moment the team is working on building CI pipeline and
>>> developing
>>> functional tests that are to be run as a part of CI process. These
>>> repos
>>> are not to be a part of Fuel Newton release. From time to time we
>>>add
>>> and retire git repos and it is a part of development process. Not
>>>all
>>> these repos are to become a part of Big tent.
>>
>> It seems to me that there are two different interpretations of what
>>it
>> means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent, and that these
>> differing 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Steven Dake (stdake)]

Jay,

I'll be frank.  I have been receiving numerous complaints which mirror
Zane's full second understanding of what it means to be an OpenStack big
tent project.  These are not just Kolla developers.  These are people from
all over the community.  They want something done about it.  I agree with
Zane if clarity is provided by the TC via a resolution, the problem would
disappear.  We are all adults and can live by the rules, even if we
disagree with them.  This contract is the agreement under which
democracies are created, and one of the most appealing properties of
OpenStack.

In this case there is no policy and one is obviously necessary to avoid
these scenarios in the future.

The TC has four options as I see it:
1) do nothing
2) write a resolution mirroring Zane's first analysis
3) write a resolution mirroring Zane's second analysis
4) write a different resolution that is a compromise of the first analysis
and second analysis

I don't wish Mirantis to state anything.  Vladimir did that (thanks
Vladimir!).

Regards
-steve


On 7/28/16, 10:30 AM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:

>I don't see what is unclear about any of it.
>
>What exactly is it that you wish Mirantis to state?
>
>Zane says there needs to be some guidance from the TC "about what it
>means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent".
>
>But the fuel-ccp repos aren't listed in the governance repo, for reasons
>that were clearly stated by Mirantis engineers. They want to innovate in
>this area without all the politics that this thread exposes.
>
>Mirantis engineers have clearly laid out the technical reasons that
>Kolla doesn't fit the needs that Fuel has of these image definitions and
>orchestration tooling.
>
>The repos *aren't in the OpenStack tent* so how precisely would TC
>guidance about what it means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent
>be useful here?
>
>-jay
>
>On 07/28/2016 01:04 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>> Jay,
>>
>> That resolution doesn't clarify Zane's argument.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -steve
>>
>> On 7/28/16, 9:54 AM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:
>>
>>> The TC has given guidance on this already:
>>>
>>> 
>>>http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160119-stackforge-retireme
>>>nt
>>> .html
>>>
>>> "In order to simplify software development lifecycle transitions of
>>> Unofficial and Official OpenStack projects, all projects developed
>>> within the OpenStack project infrastructure will be permitted to use
>>>the
>>> “openstack/” namespace. The use of the term “Stackforge” to describe
>>> unofficial projects should be considered deprecated."
>>>
>>> The Fuel CCP repos are projects that are not official OpenStack
>>>projects.
>>>
>>> They are in the openstack/ git namespace because they use the common
>>> infrastructure and there isn't any formal plan to have the repos join
>>> the "official OpenStack projects" (i.e. the ones listed in the
>>> projects.yaml file in the openstack/governance repository).
>>>
>>> Could they be proposed in the future as official OpenStack projects?
>>> Maybe. Not sure, and I don't believe it's necessary to decide ahead of
>>> time.
>>>
>>> Please stop using a marketing press release as some indication of what
>>> the "intent" is for these repos or even that there *is* any intent at
>>> this point. It's really early on and these repos are intended as a
>>>place
>>> to experiment and innovate. I don't see why there is so much anger
>>>about
>>> that.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> -jay
>>>
>>> On 07/28/2016 12:33 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
 Doug,

 Zane's analysis is correct.  I agree with Zane's assessment that TC
 clarification can solve this situation.

 Regards
 -steve

 On 7/28/16, 9:15 AM, "Zane Bitter"  wrote:

> On 28/07/16 08:48, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:
>> Fuel-ccp repositories are public, everyone is welcome to
>>participate.
>> I
>> don¹t see where we violate ³4 opens². These repos are now
>> experimental.
>> At the moment the team is working on building CI pipeline and
>> developing
>> functional tests that are to be run as a part of CI process. These
>> repos
>> are not to be a part of Fuel Newton release. From time to time we
>>add
>> and retire git repos and it is a part of development process. Not
>>all
>> these repos are to become a part of Big tent.
>
> It seems to me that there are two different interpretations of what
>it
> means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent, and that these
> differing interpretations are at the root of the arguments in this
> thread.
>
> The first interpretation is that repos listed as belonging to a team
>in
> the governance repo are part of a deliverable that is released each
> development cycle, and that the same team may also control other
>repos
> that are not deliverables and hence not part of OpenStack. It's easy
>to
> see how people 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Mark Casey]

On 7/28/2016 11:29 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:

Excerpts from Fox, Kevin M's message of 2016-07-27 22:56:56 +:

I think that would be true, if the container api was opinionated. for example, 
trying to map only a subset of the openstack config options to docker 
environment variables. This would make the containers specific to what your 
talking about. Which business rules to support, what hardware, etc.

But the api is a fairly small one. Its mostly a standardized way to pass config 
files in through docker volumes and get them to land in the right places in the 
container. You should be able to use any system you want (puppet, chef, jinja, 
shell scripts) to deal with the business logic and such, to generate the config 
files, then use the standard api contract to ensure that whatever way you 
launch the container, (puppet, chef, heat, docker run, kubelet, kubernetes, 
etc) it behaves the same. The way your generated config file specifies.

Kolla has provided many different variants of each of the containers (centos, 
ubuntu, etc), showing that api contract is pretty flexible.

A similar thing is going on with kolla-kubernetes.


I appreciate your optimism, however, Kolla is not "the deployment of
OpenStack". It is a set of tools to deploy OpenStack with a set of options
available. If it were a small thing to do, people would choose it. But
instead, they know, the combinatorial matrix of options is staggering,
and one is much better off specializing if they don't fit into the
somewhat generic model that any tool like Kolla provides.

I'd say focus on _keeping things like Kolla focused_ rather than
worrying about making it interoperable.
The point is well made, but this consideration is there for all kinds of 
decisions and must be evaluated on a case by case basis. "The difficult 
efforts of being interoperable vs. the cost of maintaining more 
non-interoperable things."


In this case, at least from the discussion that made it into the spec, 
the models didn't seem to be so far off.



__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Jay Pipes]

I don't see what is unclear about any of it.

What exactly is it that you wish Mirantis to state?

Zane says there needs to be some guidance from the TC "about what it 
means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent".


But the fuel-ccp repos aren't listed in the governance repo, for reasons 
that were clearly stated by Mirantis engineers. They want to innovate in 
this area without all the politics that this thread exposes.


Mirantis engineers have clearly laid out the technical reasons that 
Kolla doesn't fit the needs that Fuel has of these image definitions and 
orchestration tooling.


The repos *aren't in the OpenStack tent* so how precisely would TC 
guidance about what it means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent 
be useful here?


-jay

On 07/28/2016 01:04 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:

Jay,

That resolution doesn't clarify Zane's argument.

Regards,
-steve

On 7/28/16, 9:54 AM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:


The TC has given guidance on this already:

http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160119-stackforge-retirement
.html

"In order to simplify software development lifecycle transitions of
Unofficial and Official OpenStack projects, all projects developed
within the OpenStack project infrastructure will be permitted to use the
“openstack/” namespace. The use of the term “Stackforge” to describe
unofficial projects should be considered deprecated."

The Fuel CCP repos are projects that are not official OpenStack projects.

They are in the openstack/ git namespace because they use the common
infrastructure and there isn't any formal plan to have the repos join
the "official OpenStack projects" (i.e. the ones listed in the
projects.yaml file in the openstack/governance repository).

Could they be proposed in the future as official OpenStack projects?
Maybe. Not sure, and I don't believe it's necessary to decide ahead of
time.

Please stop using a marketing press release as some indication of what
the "intent" is for these repos or even that there *is* any intent at
this point. It's really early on and these repos are intended as a place
to experiment and innovate. I don't see why there is so much anger about
that.

Best,
-jay

On 07/28/2016 12:33 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:

Doug,

Zane's analysis is correct.  I agree with Zane's assessment that TC
clarification can solve this situation.

Regards
-steve

On 7/28/16, 9:15 AM, "Zane Bitter"  wrote:


On 28/07/16 08:48, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:

Fuel-ccp repositories are public, everyone is welcome to participate.
I
don¹t see where we violate ³4 opens². These repos are now
experimental.
At the moment the team is working on building CI pipeline and
developing
functional tests that are to be run as a part of CI process. These
repos
are not to be a part of Fuel Newton release. From time to time we add
and retire git repos and it is a part of development process. Not all
these repos are to become a part of Big tent.


It seems to me that there are two different interpretations of what it
means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent, and that these
differing interpretations are at the root of the arguments in this
thread.

The first interpretation is that repos listed as belonging to a team in
the governance repo are part of a deliverable that is released each
development cycle, and that the same team may also control other repos
that are not deliverables and hence not part of OpenStack. It's easy to
see how people could have developed this interpretation in good faith.

The second interpretation is that the TC blesses a team; that the only
criterion for receiving this blessing is for the project to be "one of
us", which in practice effectively means following the Four Opens; and
that all repos which the team intends to operate in this manner,
subject
to TC oversight, should be listed in the governance repo. It's also
easy
to see how people could have developed this interpretation in good
faith. (In fact, I was following the big tent discussions very closely
at the time and this was always my understanding of what it meant.)

The only additional thing needed to explain this thread is the
(incorrect) assumption on behalf of all participants that everyone has
the same interpretation :)

Assuming everyone holds the first interpretation, the current
designation of the fuel-ccp repo looks completely logical and the
complaints about it look like sour grapes.

Assuming everyone holds the second interpretation, the current
designation of the fuel-ccp repo looks like an attempt to avoid TC
oversight in order to violate the Four Opens while using the name of an
official project (and issuing press releases identifying it as part of
said official project), and the complaints look like a logical attempt
to defend OpenStack from at least the appearance of openwashing.

I believe this entire controversy will evaporate if the TC can clarify
what it means for a repository to be listed in the governance repo.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Doug Hellmann]

Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2016-07-28 12:15:34 -0400:
> On 28/07/16 08:48, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:
> > Fuel-ccp repositories are public, everyone is welcome to participate. I
> > don’t see where we violate “4 opens”. These repos are now experimental.
> > At the moment the team is working on building CI pipeline and developing
> > functional tests that are to be run as a part of CI process. These repos
> > are not to be a part of Fuel Newton release. From time to time we add
> > and retire git repos and it is a part of development process. Not all
> > these repos are to become a part of Big tent.
> 
> It seems to me that there are two different interpretations of what it 
> means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent, and that these 
> differing interpretations are at the root of the arguments in this thread.
> 
> The first interpretation is that repos listed as belonging to a team in 
> the governance repo are part of a deliverable that is released each 
> development cycle, and that the same team may also control other repos 
> that are not deliverables and hence not part of OpenStack. It's easy to 
> see how people could have developed this interpretation in good faith.
> 
> The second interpretation is that the TC blesses a team; that the only 
> criterion for receiving this blessing is for the project to be "one of 
> us", which in practice effectively means following the Four Opens; and 
> that all repos which the team intends to operate in this manner, subject 
> to TC oversight, should be listed in the governance repo. It's also easy 
> to see how people could have developed this interpretation in good 
> faith. (In fact, I was following the big tent discussions very closely 
> at the time and this was always my understanding of what it meant.)
> 
> The only additional thing needed to explain this thread is the 
> (incorrect) assumption on behalf of all participants that everyone has 
> the same interpretation :)
> 
> Assuming everyone holds the first interpretation, the current 
> designation of the fuel-ccp repo looks completely logical and the 
> complaints about it look like sour grapes.
> 
> Assuming everyone holds the second interpretation, the current 
> designation of the fuel-ccp repo looks like an attempt to avoid TC 
> oversight in order to violate the Four Opens while using the name of an 
> official project (and issuing press releases identifying it as part of 
> said official project), and the complaints look like a logical attempt 
> to defend OpenStack from at least the appearance of openwashing.
> 
> I believe this entire controversy will evaporate if the TC can clarify 
> what it means for a repository to be listed in the governance repo.
> 
> cheers,
> Zane.
> 

I think it is a reasonable expectation that teams would want to add
their new repositories to the governance list to have the rights
that go along with that, but I'm not aware of any requirement that
they do so.

Doug

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Steven Dake (stdake)]

Jay,

That resolution doesn't clarify Zane's argument.

Regards,
-steve

On 7/28/16, 9:54 AM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:

>The TC has given guidance on this already:
>
>http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160119-stackforge-retirement
>.html
>
>"In order to simplify software development lifecycle transitions of
>Unofficial and Official OpenStack projects, all projects developed
>within the OpenStack project infrastructure will be permitted to use the
>“openstack/” namespace. The use of the term “Stackforge” to describe
>unofficial projects should be considered deprecated."
>
>The Fuel CCP repos are projects that are not official OpenStack projects.
>
>They are in the openstack/ git namespace because they use the common
>infrastructure and there isn't any formal plan to have the repos join
>the "official OpenStack projects" (i.e. the ones listed in the
>projects.yaml file in the openstack/governance repository).
>
>Could they be proposed in the future as official OpenStack projects?
>Maybe. Not sure, and I don't believe it's necessary to decide ahead of
>time.
>
>Please stop using a marketing press release as some indication of what
>the "intent" is for these repos or even that there *is* any intent at
>this point. It's really early on and these repos are intended as a place
>to experiment and innovate. I don't see why there is so much anger about
>that.
>
>Best,
>-jay
>
>On 07/28/2016 12:33 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>> Doug,
>>
>> Zane's analysis is correct.  I agree with Zane's assessment that TC
>> clarification can solve this situation.
>>
>> Regards
>> -steve
>>
>> On 7/28/16, 9:15 AM, "Zane Bitter"  wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/07/16 08:48, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:
 Fuel-ccp repositories are public, everyone is welcome to participate.
I
 don¹t see where we violate ³4 opens². These repos are now
experimental.
 At the moment the team is working on building CI pipeline and
developing
 functional tests that are to be run as a part of CI process. These
repos
 are not to be a part of Fuel Newton release. From time to time we add
 and retire git repos and it is a part of development process. Not all
 these repos are to become a part of Big tent.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that there are two different interpretations of what it
>>> means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent, and that these
>>> differing interpretations are at the root of the arguments in this
>>>thread.
>>>
>>> The first interpretation is that repos listed as belonging to a team in
>>> the governance repo are part of a deliverable that is released each
>>> development cycle, and that the same team may also control other repos
>>> that are not deliverables and hence not part of OpenStack. It's easy to
>>> see how people could have developed this interpretation in good faith.
>>>
>>> The second interpretation is that the TC blesses a team; that the only
>>> criterion for receiving this blessing is for the project to be "one of
>>> us", which in practice effectively means following the Four Opens; and
>>> that all repos which the team intends to operate in this manner,
>>>subject
>>> to TC oversight, should be listed in the governance repo. It's also
>>>easy
>>> to see how people could have developed this interpretation in good
>>> faith. (In fact, I was following the big tent discussions very closely
>>> at the time and this was always my understanding of what it meant.)
>>>
>>> The only additional thing needed to explain this thread is the
>>> (incorrect) assumption on behalf of all participants that everyone has
>>> the same interpretation :)
>>>
>>> Assuming everyone holds the first interpretation, the current
>>> designation of the fuel-ccp repo looks completely logical and the
>>> complaints about it look like sour grapes.
>>>
>>> Assuming everyone holds the second interpretation, the current
>>> designation of the fuel-ccp repo looks like an attempt to avoid TC
>>> oversight in order to violate the Four Opens while using the name of an
>>> official project (and issuing press releases identifying it as part of
>>> said official project), and the complaints look like a logical attempt
>>> to defend OpenStack from at least the appearance of openwashing.
>>>
>>> I believe this entire controversy will evaporate if the TC can clarify
>>> what it means for a repository to be listed in the governance repo.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Zane.
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>__
>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> Unsubscribe: 
>>>openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>> 
>>_
>>_
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Jay Pipes]

The TC has given guidance on this already:

http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160119-stackforge-retirement.html

"In order to simplify software development lifecycle transitions of 
Unofficial and Official OpenStack projects, all projects developed 
within the OpenStack project infrastructure will be permitted to use the 
“openstack/” namespace. The use of the term “Stackforge” to describe 
unofficial projects should be considered deprecated."


The Fuel CCP repos are projects that are not official OpenStack projects.

They are in the openstack/ git namespace because they use the common 
infrastructure and there isn't any formal plan to have the repos join 
the "official OpenStack projects" (i.e. the ones listed in the 
projects.yaml file in the openstack/governance repository).


Could they be proposed in the future as official OpenStack projects? 
Maybe. Not sure, and I don't believe it's necessary to decide ahead of time.


Please stop using a marketing press release as some indication of what 
the "intent" is for these repos or even that there *is* any intent at 
this point. It's really early on and these repos are intended as a place 
to experiment and innovate. I don't see why there is so much anger about 
that.


Best,
-jay

On 07/28/2016 12:33 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:

Doug,

Zane's analysis is correct.  I agree with Zane's assessment that TC
clarification can solve this situation.

Regards
-steve

On 7/28/16, 9:15 AM, "Zane Bitter"  wrote:


On 28/07/16 08:48, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:

Fuel-ccp repositories are public, everyone is welcome to participate. I
don¹t see where we violate ³4 opens². These repos are now experimental.
At the moment the team is working on building CI pipeline and developing
functional tests that are to be run as a part of CI process. These repos
are not to be a part of Fuel Newton release. From time to time we add
and retire git repos and it is a part of development process. Not all
these repos are to become a part of Big tent.


It seems to me that there are two different interpretations of what it
means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent, and that these
differing interpretations are at the root of the arguments in this thread.

The first interpretation is that repos listed as belonging to a team in
the governance repo are part of a deliverable that is released each
development cycle, and that the same team may also control other repos
that are not deliverables and hence not part of OpenStack. It's easy to
see how people could have developed this interpretation in good faith.

The second interpretation is that the TC blesses a team; that the only
criterion for receiving this blessing is for the project to be "one of
us", which in practice effectively means following the Four Opens; and
that all repos which the team intends to operate in this manner, subject
to TC oversight, should be listed in the governance repo. It's also easy
to see how people could have developed this interpretation in good
faith. (In fact, I was following the big tent discussions very closely
at the time and this was always my understanding of what it meant.)

The only additional thing needed to explain this thread is the
(incorrect) assumption on behalf of all participants that everyone has
the same interpretation :)

Assuming everyone holds the first interpretation, the current
designation of the fuel-ccp repo looks completely logical and the
complaints about it look like sour grapes.

Assuming everyone holds the second interpretation, the current
designation of the fuel-ccp repo looks like an attempt to avoid TC
oversight in order to violate the Four Opens while using the name of an
official project (and issuing press releases identifying it as part of
said official project), and the complaints look like a logical attempt
to defend OpenStack from at least the appearance of openwashing.

I believe this entire controversy will evaporate if the TC can clarify
what it means for a repository to be listed in the governance repo.

cheers,
Zane.

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Fox, Kevin M]

+1

From: Steven Dake (stdake) [std...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 9:33 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting 
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

Doug,

Zane's analysis is correct.  I agree with Zane's assessment that TC
clarification can solve this situation.

Regards
-steve

On 7/28/16, 9:15 AM, "Zane Bitter" <zbit...@redhat.com> wrote:

>On 28/07/16 08:48, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:
>> Fuel-ccp repositories are public, everyone is welcome to participate. I
>> don¹t see where we violate ³4 opens². These repos are now experimental.
>> At the moment the team is working on building CI pipeline and developing
>> functional tests that are to be run as a part of CI process. These repos
>> are not to be a part of Fuel Newton release. From time to time we add
>> and retire git repos and it is a part of development process. Not all
>> these repos are to become a part of Big tent.
>
>It seems to me that there are two different interpretations of what it
>means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent, and that these
>differing interpretations are at the root of the arguments in this thread.
>
>The first interpretation is that repos listed as belonging to a team in
>the governance repo are part of a deliverable that is released each
>development cycle, and that the same team may also control other repos
>that are not deliverables and hence not part of OpenStack. It's easy to
>see how people could have developed this interpretation in good faith.
>
>The second interpretation is that the TC blesses a team; that the only
>criterion for receiving this blessing is for the project to be "one of
>us", which in practice effectively means following the Four Opens; and
>that all repos which the team intends to operate in this manner, subject
>to TC oversight, should be listed in the governance repo. It's also easy
>to see how people could have developed this interpretation in good
>faith. (In fact, I was following the big tent discussions very closely
>at the time and this was always my understanding of what it meant.)
>
>The only additional thing needed to explain this thread is the
>(incorrect) assumption on behalf of all participants that everyone has
>the same interpretation :)
>
>Assuming everyone holds the first interpretation, the current
>designation of the fuel-ccp repo looks completely logical and the
>complaints about it look like sour grapes.
>
>Assuming everyone holds the second interpretation, the current
>designation of the fuel-ccp repo looks like an attempt to avoid TC
>oversight in order to violate the Four Opens while using the name of an
>official project (and issuing press releases identifying it as part of
>said official project), and the complaints look like a logical attempt
>to defend OpenStack from at least the appearance of openwashing.
>
>I believe this entire controversy will evaporate if the TC can clarify
>what it means for a repository to be listed in the governance repo.
>
>cheers,
>Zane.
>
>__
>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Steven Dake (stdake)]

Doug,

Zane's analysis is correct.  I agree with Zane's assessment that TC
clarification can solve this situation.

Regards
-steve

On 7/28/16, 9:15 AM, "Zane Bitter"  wrote:

>On 28/07/16 08:48, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:
>> Fuel-ccp repositories are public, everyone is welcome to participate. I
>> don¹t see where we violate ³4 opens². These repos are now experimental.
>> At the moment the team is working on building CI pipeline and developing
>> functional tests that are to be run as a part of CI process. These repos
>> are not to be a part of Fuel Newton release. From time to time we add
>> and retire git repos and it is a part of development process. Not all
>> these repos are to become a part of Big tent.
>
>It seems to me that there are two different interpretations of what it
>means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent, and that these
>differing interpretations are at the root of the arguments in this thread.
>
>The first interpretation is that repos listed as belonging to a team in
>the governance repo are part of a deliverable that is released each
>development cycle, and that the same team may also control other repos
>that are not deliverables and hence not part of OpenStack. It's easy to
>see how people could have developed this interpretation in good faith.
>
>The second interpretation is that the TC blesses a team; that the only
>criterion for receiving this blessing is for the project to be "one of
>us", which in practice effectively means following the Four Opens; and
>that all repos which the team intends to operate in this manner, subject
>to TC oversight, should be listed in the governance repo. It's also easy
>to see how people could have developed this interpretation in good
>faith. (In fact, I was following the big tent discussions very closely
>at the time and this was always my understanding of what it meant.)
>
>The only additional thing needed to explain this thread is the
>(incorrect) assumption on behalf of all participants that everyone has
>the same interpretation :)
>
>Assuming everyone holds the first interpretation, the current
>designation of the fuel-ccp repo looks completely logical and the
>complaints about it look like sour grapes.
>
>Assuming everyone holds the second interpretation, the current
>designation of the fuel-ccp repo looks like an attempt to avoid TC
>oversight in order to violate the Four Opens while using the name of an
>official project (and issuing press releases identifying it as part of
>said official project), and the complaints look like a logical attempt
>to defend OpenStack from at least the appearance of openwashing.
>
>I believe this entire controversy will evaporate if the TC can clarify
>what it means for a repository to be listed in the governance repo.
>
>cheers,
>Zane.
>
>__
>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Clint Byrum]

Excerpts from Fox, Kevin M's message of 2016-07-27 22:56:56 +:
> I think that would be true, if the container api was opinionated. for 
> example, trying to map only a subset of the openstack config options to 
> docker environment variables. This would make the containers specific to what 
> your talking about. Which business rules to support, what hardware, etc.
> 
> But the api is a fairly small one. Its mostly a standardized way to pass 
> config files in through docker volumes and get them to land in the right 
> places in the container. You should be able to use any system you want 
> (puppet, chef, jinja, shell scripts) to deal with the business logic and 
> such, to generate the config files, then use the standard api contract to 
> ensure that whatever way you launch the container, (puppet, chef, heat, 
> docker run, kubelet, kubernetes, etc) it behaves the same. The way your 
> generated config file specifies.
> 
> Kolla has provided many different variants of each of the containers (centos, 
> ubuntu, etc), showing that api contract is pretty flexible.
> 
> A similar thing is going on with kolla-kubernetes.
> 

I appreciate your optimism, however, Kolla is not "the deployment of
OpenStack". It is a set of tools to deploy OpenStack with a set of options
available. If it were a small thing to do, people would choose it. But
instead, they know, the combinatorial matrix of options is staggering,
and one is much better off specializing if they don't fit into the
somewhat generic model that any tool like Kolla provides.

I'd say focus on _keeping things like Kolla focused_ rather than
worrying about making it interoperable.

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Mark Casey]

Sorry for the double post, but the part about people wasting their time 
reads far more inflammatory than I really intended. I merely mean 
community effort is a strong theme.



On 7/28/2016 11:20 AM, Mark Casey wrote:


+1 to one more pass at using the same images. Doing so will become 
practically impossible in a matter of weeks or months, and in the long 
term the additional shared human resources outweigh the interpersonal 
complexities (and for any who don't think so - maybe you're wasting 
your time here?).



Logically, I just view Kolla's existing containers as a thin wrapper 
around OpenStack projects' debs and rpms (though I understand there 
are many differences from a purely technical standpoint, and that the 
containers can be built entirely from source instead). I suppose I 
view them this way because building the existing containers creates 
deployable artifacts (that is, the images) and these images have a lot 
of the same qualities as traditional deb/rpm packages. The resulting 
artifacts in both cases are somewhat immutable, they both put programs 
in certain places, both expect configs in certain places, both 
configure logs to be written in certain places, etc. In fact a lot of 
these locations in the container's case are dictated by where they are 
expected in the packages. Sharing the images could further standardize 
things.



This is different IMHO than deployment tooling in the usual 
configuration management sense, which I presume is one of the reasons 
for this possible Kolla repo-split to begin with. I certainly see the 
upsides to having a diverse set of tooling to deploy project artifacts 
(deb/rpm/container image/git commit [i.e. from source]), but I don't 
get duplicating the artifacts themselves over relatively simple 
technicalities. I highly doubt anyone would create a major packaging 
variation in the deb/rpm packaging (perhaps where all OpenStack 
projects are deployable from a single rpm or deb [wouldn't that be 
fun!], or perhaps a switch to FPM) merely because it made sense for a 
new deployment project. (to be clear though, I am in general happy to 
have more deployment options coming online)



Thank you,
Mark


On 7/28/2016 8:56 AM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
I really see 3 issues raised in the spec mentioned that have any 
disagreement as far as I can tell.


1. mirantis would like to see kolla-ansible split from the base kolla 
repo. This has a lot of support and is likely to come up for a final 
vote soon. It was postponed due to not wanting to split in the middle 
of a cycle. - This does not seem like a good reason at this point to 
spawn a new project. I support the split.


2. mirantis would like to see repos split for each docker container 
definition to be one per container. This is purely a management style 
difference. Split or combined both has advantages, and at present 
scaling issues have not been hit, so change has a cost that doesn't 
yet have a significant benefit. If it started to be, I'm sure it 
would be re-evaluated. This does not seem like a good reason at this 
point to spawn a new project. I think splitting seems unnecessary at 
this point, but if the whole thing comes down to this one issue, I'd 
support splitting the repos just so we don't duplicate so much work 
over such a minor thing.


3. Some bootstrap logic in some of the containers. mirantis would 
like to see it gone. Its completely optional (just don't set the 
BOOTSTRAP env vars) and needs to stay for api backwards compatibility 
in existing containers. It does not have to be used by deployment 
tools that don't wish to use it. This does not seem like a good 
reason at this point to spawn a new project. I support keeping it to 
not break things as its optional.


Are these really that contentious that we have to split a community 
over? Can we get both sides to give in a little and help each other out?


Maybe something like:
1. kolla commits to split out kolla-ansible as soon as possible 
(right after newton tagged)
2. Some middle ground here. Maybe its keep as is, but come up with a 
formal procedure for re-evaluating when it becomes painful and make a 
change. (Seems similar to the fuel/puppet repo upstreaming thing, in 
a way. Maybe some of the same process could work here? Some time to 
review metrics?)

3. We keep the optional stuff so we don't break existing deployments.

Is this reasonable?

Thanks,
Kevin

*From:* Vladimir Kozhukalov [vkozhuka...@mirantis.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, July 28, 2016 5:48 AM
*To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
*Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like 
Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off


>1. Alter the mission statement of fuel to match the reality being

>published by the press and Mirantis's executive team

>2. Include these non-experimental repos in the projects.yaml governance

>Repository


Fran

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Mark Casey]

+1 to one more pass at using the same images. Doing so will become 
practically impossible in a matter of weeks or months, and in the long 
term the additional shared human resources outweigh the interpersonal 
complexities (and for any who don't think so - maybe you're wasting your 
time here?).



Logically, I just view Kolla's existing containers as a thin wrapper 
around OpenStack projects' debs and rpms (though I understand there are 
many differences from a purely technical standpoint, and that the 
containers can be built entirely from source instead). I suppose I view 
them this way because building the existing containers creates 
deployable artifacts (that is, the images) and these images have a lot 
of the same qualities as traditional deb/rpm packages. The resulting 
artifacts in both cases are somewhat immutable, they both put programs 
in certain places, both expect configs in certain places, both configure 
logs to be written in certain places, etc. In fact a lot of these 
locations in the container's case are dictated by where they are 
expected in the packages. Sharing the images could further standardize 
things.



This is different IMHO than deployment tooling in the usual 
configuration management sense, which I presume is one of the reasons 
for this possible Kolla repo-split to begin with. I certainly see the 
upsides to having a diverse set of tooling to deploy project artifacts 
(deb/rpm/container image/git commit [i.e. from source]), but I don't get 
duplicating the artifacts themselves over relatively simple 
technicalities. I highly doubt anyone would create a major packaging 
variation in the deb/rpm packaging (perhaps where all OpenStack projects 
are deployable from a single rpm or deb [wouldn't that be fun!], or 
perhaps a switch to FPM) merely because it made sense for a new 
deployment project. (to be clear though, I am in general happy to have 
more deployment options coming online)



Thank you,
Mark


On 7/28/2016 8:56 AM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
I really see 3 issues raised in the spec mentioned that have any 
disagreement as far as I can tell.


1. mirantis would like to see kolla-ansible split from the base kolla 
repo. This has a lot of support and is likely to come up for a final 
vote soon. It was postponed due to not wanting to split in the middle 
of a cycle. - This does not seem like a good reason at this point to 
spawn a new project. I support the split.


2. mirantis would like to see repos split for each docker container 
definition to be one per container. This is purely a management style 
difference. Split or combined both has advantages, and at present 
scaling issues have not been hit, so change has a cost that doesn't 
yet have a significant benefit. If it started to be, I'm sure it would 
be re-evaluated. This does not seem like a good reason at this point 
to spawn a new project. I think splitting seems unnecessary at this 
point, but if the whole thing comes down to this one issue, I'd 
support splitting the repos just so we don't duplicate so much work 
over such a minor thing.


3. Some bootstrap logic in some of the containers. mirantis would like 
to see it gone. Its completely optional (just don't set the BOOTSTRAP 
env vars) and needs to stay for api backwards compatibility in 
existing containers. It does not have to be used by deployment tools 
that don't wish to use it. This does not seem like a good reason at 
this point to spawn a new project. I support keeping it to not break 
things as its optional.


Are these really that contentious that we have to split a community 
over? Can we get both sides to give in a little and help each other out?


Maybe something like:
1. kolla commits to split out kolla-ansible as soon as possible (right 
after newton tagged)
2. Some middle ground here. Maybe its keep as is, but come up with a 
formal procedure for re-evaluating when it becomes painful and make a 
change. (Seems similar to the fuel/puppet repo upstreaming thing, in a 
way. Maybe some of the same process could work here? Some time to 
review metrics?)

3. We keep the optional stuff so we don't break existing deployments.

Is this reasonable?

Thanks,
Kevin

*From:* Vladimir Kozhukalov [vkozhuka...@mirantis.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, July 28, 2016 5:48 AM
*To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
*Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis 
is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off


>1. Alter the mission statement of fuel to match the reality being

>published by the press and Mirantis's executive team

>2. Include these non-experimental repos in the projects.yaml governance

>Repository


Frankly, I don’t understand what part of the press release contradicts 
with Fuel mission.


Current Fuel mission is “To streamline and accelerate the process of 
deploying, testing and maintaining various configurations 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Zane Bitter]

On 28/07/16 08:48, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:

Fuel-ccp repositories are public, everyone is welcome to participate. I
don’t see where we violate “4 opens”. These repos are now experimental.
At the moment the team is working on building CI pipeline and developing
functional tests that are to be run as a part of CI process. These repos
are not to be a part of Fuel Newton release. From time to time we add
and retire git repos and it is a part of development process. Not all
these repos are to become a part of Big tent.


It seems to me that there are two different interpretations of what it 
means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent, and that these 
differing interpretations are at the root of the arguments in this thread.


The first interpretation is that repos listed as belonging to a team in 
the governance repo are part of a deliverable that is released each 
development cycle, and that the same team may also control other repos 
that are not deliverables and hence not part of OpenStack. It's easy to 
see how people could have developed this interpretation in good faith.


The second interpretation is that the TC blesses a team; that the only 
criterion for receiving this blessing is for the project to be "one of 
us", which in practice effectively means following the Four Opens; and 
that all repos which the team intends to operate in this manner, subject 
to TC oversight, should be listed in the governance repo. It's also easy 
to see how people could have developed this interpretation in good 
faith. (In fact, I was following the big tent discussions very closely 
at the time and this was always my understanding of what it meant.)


The only additional thing needed to explain this thread is the 
(incorrect) assumption on behalf of all participants that everyone has 
the same interpretation :)


Assuming everyone holds the first interpretation, the current 
designation of the fuel-ccp repo looks completely logical and the 
complaints about it look like sour grapes.


Assuming everyone holds the second interpretation, the current 
designation of the fuel-ccp repo looks like an attempt to avoid TC 
oversight in order to violate the Four Opens while using the name of an 
official project (and issuing press releases identifying it as part of 
said official project), and the complaints look like a logical attempt 
to defend OpenStack from at least the appearance of openwashing.


I believe this entire controversy will evaporate if the TC can clarify 
what it means for a repository to be listed in the governance repo.


cheers,
Zane.

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Steven Dake (stdake)]

Thanks for the clarity Doug.

Regards
-steve

On 7/28/16, 8:37 AM, "Doug Hellmann"  wrote:

>Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2016-07-28 16:43:35 +0200:
>> On 28/07/16 04:45 +, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >On 7/27/16, 2:12 PM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:
>> >
>> >>On 07/27/2016 04:42 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:
>> >>> On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Fox, Kevin M 
>>wrote:
>> >>>
>>  Its not an "end user" facing thing, but it is an "operator" facing
>> thing.
>> >>>
>> >>> Well, the end user for Kolla is an operator, no?
>> >>>
>>  I deploy kolla containers today on non kolla managed systems in
>> production, and rely on that api being consistent.
>> 
>>  I'm positive I'm not the only operator doing this either. This
>>sounds
>> like a consumable api to me.
>> >>>
>> >>> I don¹t think that an API has to be RESTful to be considered an
>> >>>interface for we should avoid duplication.
>> >>
>> >>Application *Programming* Interface. There's nothing that is being
>> >>*programmed* or *called* in Kolla's image definitions.
>> >>
>> >>What Kolla is/has is not an API. As Stephen said, it's more of an
>> >>Application Binary Interface (ABI). It's not really an ABI, though, in
>> >>the traditional sense of the term that I'm used to.
>> >>
>> >>It's an agreed set of package bases, installation
>>procedures/directories
>> >>and configuration recipes for OpenStack and infrastructure components.
>> >
>> >Jay,
>> >
>> >From my perspective, this isn't about ABI proliferation or competition.
>> >This is about open public discourse.
>> >
>> >It is the responsibility of all community members to protect the four
>> >opens.
>> >
>> >Given the intent of fuel-ccp to fully adopt K8S into Fuel described
>>here:
>> 
>>>https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/25/openstack-will-soon-be-able-to-run-on-
>>>top
>> >-of-kubernetes/
>> >
>> >
>> >It is hard to understand the arguments in the reviews related to "this
>>is
>> >an experimental project, so its not targeted towards big tent" yet
>>Boris
>> >wrote in that press release its Fuel's next big thing.
>> >
>> >I raised the objection early on that a mission statement change was
>>needed
>> >by Fuel if they wanted to proceed down this path, to which I was told
>>K8S
>> >support is not going into big tent.
>> >
>> >As a result of Mirantis's change in mind about fuel-ccp being NOT
>> >experimental and being targeted for big tent, I'd like the record set
>> >straight in the governance repository since the intentions are being
>> >published in the press and the current intentions of this project are
>> >public.
>> 
>> If I can be honest, I think this whole thread is not going anywhere
>>because it
>> just started based on the wrong assumption, the wrong tone and with poor
>> wording. I'd have asked for clarifications before demanding changes
>>from anyone.
>> To me, the way this thread started violates one of principles of our
>>community,
>> which is assuming good faith. I'll assume good faith now and interpret
>>this
>> thread as a hope to clarify the goals and intentions of this projects
>>and not as
>> a way to bluntly point fingers, which is how some people might have
>>perceived
>> it.
>
>+1
>
>I'm not sure how/why this escalated so quickly. It seems there's some
>history between these teams, though. If Kevin's summary of the issues on
>the universal containers spec is correct, it seems like there's room for
>compromise. That said, I agree with Russell and Flavio that there's also
>plenty of room for different implementations in the deployment space,
>whether are part of the big tent or not.
>
>> 
>> >I could see how people could perceive many violations of the four
>>opens in
>> >all of the activities related to the fuel-ccp project.  We as a
>>community
>> >value open discourse because we are all intelligent human beings.  We
>> >value honesty and integrity because trust is the foundation of how our
>> >community operates.  I feel the best way for Fuel to repair the
>>perceived
>> >violations of the four opens going forward is to:
>> 
>> I honestly don't see the violation. The fuel team added these repos and
>> explicitly said they are not planning to join the tent right now.
>>Adding new
>> repos called `fuel-blah` won't make those deliverables official.
>>Whenever the
>> team decides to make these deliverables part of Fuel, they'll have to
>>send a
>> patch to the governance repo.
>> 
>> So, again, where's the lack of openess? Is it just based on the content
>>of the
>> press release? I'm mostly asking because I don't personally read press
>>releases
>> when reviewing patches for the governance repo. I do see the
>>inconsistency
>> between the press release and what's in the repos/reviews but I in
>>those cases,
>> the governance repository is the source of truth not the press release.
>
>Please oh please, let's not start down the path of being driven to
>assert that any contributor is being 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Doug Hellmann]

Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2016-07-28 16:43:35 +0200:
> On 28/07/16 04:45 +, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> >
> >
> >On 7/27/16, 2:12 PM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:
> >
> >>On 07/27/2016 04:42 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:
> >>> On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Fox, Kevin M  wrote:
> >>>
>  Its not an "end user" facing thing, but it is an "operator" facing
> thing.
> >>>
> >>> Well, the end user for Kolla is an operator, no?
> >>>
>  I deploy kolla containers today on non kolla managed systems in
> production, and rely on that api being consistent.
> 
>  I'm positive I'm not the only operator doing this either. This sounds
> like a consumable api to me.
> >>>
> >>> I don¹t think that an API has to be RESTful to be considered an
> >>>interface for we should avoid duplication.
> >>
> >>Application *Programming* Interface. There's nothing that is being
> >>*programmed* or *called* in Kolla's image definitions.
> >>
> >>What Kolla is/has is not an API. As Stephen said, it's more of an
> >>Application Binary Interface (ABI). It's not really an ABI, though, in
> >>the traditional sense of the term that I'm used to.
> >>
> >>It's an agreed set of package bases, installation procedures/directories
> >>and configuration recipes for OpenStack and infrastructure components.
> >
> >Jay,
> >
> >From my perspective, this isn't about ABI proliferation or competition.
> >This is about open public discourse.
> >
> >It is the responsibility of all community members to protect the four
> >opens.
> >
> >Given the intent of fuel-ccp to fully adopt K8S into Fuel described here:
> >https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/25/openstack-will-soon-be-able-to-run-on-top
> >-of-kubernetes/
> >
> >
> >It is hard to understand the arguments in the reviews related to "this is
> >an experimental project, so its not targeted towards big tent" yet Boris
> >wrote in that press release its Fuel's next big thing.
> >
> >I raised the objection early on that a mission statement change was needed
> >by Fuel if they wanted to proceed down this path, to which I was told K8S
> >support is not going into big tent.
> >
> >As a result of Mirantis's change in mind about fuel-ccp being NOT
> >experimental and being targeted for big tent, I'd like the record set
> >straight in the governance repository since the intentions are being
> >published in the press and the current intentions of this project are
> >public.
> 
> If I can be honest, I think this whole thread is not going anywhere because it
> just started based on the wrong assumption, the wrong tone and with poor
> wording. I'd have asked for clarifications before demanding changes from 
> anyone.
> To me, the way this thread started violates one of principles of our 
> community,
> which is assuming good faith. I'll assume good faith now and interpret this
> thread as a hope to clarify the goals and intentions of this projects and not 
> as
> a way to bluntly point fingers, which is how some people might have perceived
> it.

+1

I'm not sure how/why this escalated so quickly. It seems there's some
history between these teams, though. If Kevin's summary of the issues on
the universal containers spec is correct, it seems like there's room for
compromise. That said, I agree with Russell and Flavio that there's also
plenty of room for different implementations in the deployment space,
whether are part of the big tent or not.

> 
> >I could see how people could perceive many violations of the four opens in
> >all of the activities related to the fuel-ccp project.  We as a community
> >value open discourse because we are all intelligent human beings.  We
> >value honesty and integrity because trust is the foundation of how our
> >community operates.  I feel the best way for Fuel to repair the perceived
> >violations of the four opens going forward is to:
> 
> I honestly don't see the violation. The fuel team added these repos and
> explicitly said they are not planning to join the tent right now. Adding new
> repos called `fuel-blah` won't make those deliverables official. Whenever the
> team decides to make these deliverables part of Fuel, they'll have to send a
> patch to the governance repo.
> 
> So, again, where's the lack of openess? Is it just based on the content of the
> press release? I'm mostly asking because I don't personally read press 
> releases
> when reviewing patches for the governance repo. I do see the inconsistency
> between the press release and what's in the repos/reviews but I in those 
> cases,
> the governance repository is the source of truth not the press release.

Please oh please, let's not start down the path of being driven to
assert that any contributor is being dishonest or lacks integrity
because of the content of press releases.

> 
> >1. Alter the mission statement of fuel to match the reality being
> >published by the press and Mirantis's executive team

I don't think the mission statement needs to change to 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Sergey Lukjanov]

Hi folks,

First of all, let me say that it’s a marketing announcement and as all of
you know such announcements aren’t precise from a technical side.
Personally I’ve seen this paper first time on TechCrunch.

First of all, fuel-ccp-* are a set of OpenStack projects and everyone is
welcome to participate. All the regular community process(es) for other
openstack projects apply to fuel-ccp-*. At the moment, in spite of what the
marketing announcements say, it’s a bunch of people from Mirantis working
on the repositories. Please think of this as an incubation process to try
and see what the next incarnation of Fuel would look like in the future.

Regardless of what was written, we aren’t applying to the Big Tent right
now (as it was initially said explicitly when we were creating repos and
it’s still valid). The state of the repos is still experimental, but I’d
like to make things clear and confirm that Mirantis has chosen to use
containers for infrastructure and OpenStack components and to use
Kubernetes as the orchestrator of those containers. In the future, the Fuel
OpenStack installer will use these containerized OpenStack/infrastructure
component images. There are many questions to be solved and things to be
done first in Fuel CCP, such as:

* Freeze technologies and approaches, such as repos structure, image
layers, etc.
* Cleanup deprecated PoC stuff from the code
* Implement basic test coverage for all parts of the project
* Create Release Management approach
* Consume OpenStack CI to run tests
* Fully implement 3rd party CI (with end-to-end integration tests only)
* Make at least initial documentation and ensure that it’s deployable using
this doc

and etc. In general, I would not expect us to seriously consider applying
to the Big Tent for another 5-6 months at the earliest.

Regarding the Fuel mission, that is:

To streamline and accelerate the process of deploying, testing and
maintaining various configurations of OpenStack at scale.

I think that it’s 100% aligned with that we’re doing in Fuel CCP.

About the Kolla usage in Fuel CCP, I agree with Kevin and we can see in
future that Fuel CCP will be potentially using Kolla containers, it’ll
require some time anyway, but it doesn’t mean that we stop considering it.
And as Kevin correctly noticed, we did it already one time with Fuel
adopting upstream Puppet modules and contributing actively to them.

Thanks.


On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Flavio Percoco  wrote:

> On 28/07/16 04:45 +, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 7/27/16, 2:12 PM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:
>>
>> On 07/27/2016 04:42 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:
>>>
 On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Fox, Kevin M  wrote:

 Its not an "end user" facing thing, but it is an "operator" facing
> thing.
>

 Well, the end user for Kolla is an operator, no?

 I deploy kolla containers today on non kolla managed systems in
> production, and rely on that api being consistent.
>
> I'm positive I'm not the only operator doing this either. This sounds
> like a consumable api to me.
>

 I don¹t think that an API has to be RESTful to be considered an
 interface for we should avoid duplication.

>>>
>>> Application *Programming* Interface. There's nothing that is being
>>> *programmed* or *called* in Kolla's image definitions.
>>>
>>> What Kolla is/has is not an API. As Stephen said, it's more of an
>>> Application Binary Interface (ABI). It's not really an ABI, though, in
>>> the traditional sense of the term that I'm used to.
>>>
>>> It's an agreed set of package bases, installation procedures/directories
>>> and configuration recipes for OpenStack and infrastructure components.
>>>
>>
>> Jay,
>>
>> From my perspective, this isn't about ABI proliferation or competition.
>> This is about open public discourse.
>>
>> It is the responsibility of all community members to protect the four
>> opens.
>>
>> Given the intent of fuel-ccp to fully adopt K8S into Fuel described here:
>>
>> https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/25/openstack-will-soon-be-able-to-run-on-top
>> -of-kubernetes/
>>
>>
>> It is hard to understand the arguments in the reviews related to "this is
>> an experimental project, so its not targeted towards big tent" yet Boris
>> wrote in that press release its Fuel's next big thing.
>>
>> I raised the objection early on that a mission statement change was needed
>> by Fuel if they wanted to proceed down this path, to which I was told K8S
>> support is not going into big tent.
>>
>> As a result of Mirantis's change in mind about fuel-ccp being NOT
>> experimental and being targeted for big tent, I'd like the record set
>> straight in the governance repository since the intentions are being
>> published in the press and the current intentions of this project are
>> public.
>>
>
> If I can be honest, I think this whole thread is not going anywhere
> because it
> just started based 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Flavio Percoco]

On 28/07/16 13:56 +, Fox, Kevin M wrote:

I really see 3 issues raised in the spec mentioned that have any disagreement 
as far as I can tell.

1. mirantis would like to see kolla-ansible split from the base kolla repo. 
This has a lot of support and is likely to come up for a final vote soon. It 
was postponed due to not wanting to split in the middle of a cycle. - This does 
not seem like a good reason at this point to spawn a new project. I support the 
split.


Not just mirantis. *I* would love to see kolla-ansible split (and I'd also love
to be able to do `pip install kolla-build, but I digress).


2. mirantis would like to see repos split for each docker container definition 
to be one per container. This is purely a management style difference. Split or 
combined both has advantages, and at present scaling issues have not been hit, 
so change has a cost that doesn't yet have a significant benefit. If it started 
to be, I'm sure it would be re-evaluated. This does not seem like a good reason 
at this point to spawn a new project. I think splitting seems unnecessary at 
this point, but if the whole thing comes down to this one issue, I'd support 
splitting the repos just so we don't duplicate so much work over such a minor 
thing.

3. Some bootstrap logic in some of the containers. mirantis would like to see 
it gone. Its completely optional (just don't set the BOOTSTRAP env vars) and 
needs to stay for api backwards compatibility in existing containers. It does 
not have to be used by deployment tools that don't wish to use it. This does 
not seem like a good reason at this point to spawn a new project. I support 
keeping it to not break things as its optional.

Are these really that contentious that we have to split a community over? Can 
we get both sides to give in a little and help each other out?

Maybe something like:
1. kolla commits to split out kolla-ansible as soon as possible (right after 
newton tagged)
2. Some middle ground here. Maybe its keep as is, but come up with a formal 
procedure for re-evaluating when it becomes painful and make a change. (Seems 
similar to the fuel/puppet repo upstreaming thing, in a way. Maybe some of the 
same process could work here? Some time to review metrics?)
3. We keep the optional stuff so we don't break existing deployments.

Is this reasonable?


This is definitely a better way to encourage collaboration on this topic, which
I happen to be interested into as well. :D

Flavio



Thanks,
Kevin

From: Vladimir Kozhukalov [vkozhuka...@mirantis.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 5:48 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting 
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off



1. Alter the mission statement of fuel to match the reality being



published by the press and Mirantis's executive team



2. Include these non-experimental repos in the projects.yaml governance



Repository



Frankly, I don’t understand what part of the press release contradicts with 
Fuel mission.

Current Fuel mission is “To streamline and accelerate the process of deploying, 
testing and maintaining various configurations of OpenStack at scale.” which 
means we are not bound to any specific technology when deploying OpenStack.


At the moment Fuel deploys RPM/DEB packages using Puppet and Fuel specific 
orchestration mechanism. We are not going to drop this approach immediately, it 
works quite well and we are working hard to make things better (including 
ability to upgrade). But we also keep in mind that technologies are constantly 
changing and we’d like to benefit of this progress. That is why we are now 
looking at Docker containers and Kubernetes. Our users know that it is not our 
first experience of trying to use containers. Fuel releases prior to 9.0 used 
to deploy Fuel services in containers on the Fuel admin node.


Many of you know how difficult it is to upgrade OpenStack clusters. We hope 
that containers could help us to solve not all but some of problems that we 
encounter when upgrading cluster. Maintaining and hence upgrade of OpenStack 
clusters is a part of Fuel mission and we are just trying to find a way how to 
do things.


Why not Kolla but Fuel-ccp? It is not a secret that Fuel is driven by Mirantis. 
At Mirantis we deploy and maintain OpenStack. In attempts to find a way how to 
make OpenStack easily maintainable, some of Mirantis folks spent some time to 
contribute to Kolla and Mesos. But there were some concerns that were discussed 
several times (including this Kolla spec 
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/330575) that would make it not so easy to use 
Kolla containers for our use cases. Fuel-ccp is just an attempt to address 
these concerns. Frankly, I don’t see anything bad in having more than one set 
of container images (like we have more than one set of RPM/DEB distributions).


Those concerns are, for example

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Russell Bryant]

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Flavio Percoco  wrote:

> On 28/07/16 15:48 +0300, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:
>
>> 1. Alter the mission statement of fuel to match the reality being
>>>
>>
>> published by the press and Mirantis's executive team
>>>
>>
>> 2. Include these non-experimental repos in the projects.yaml governance
>>>
>>
>> Repository
>>>
>>
>> Frankly, I don’t understand what part of the press release contradicts
>> with
>> Fuel mission.
>>
>> Current Fuel mission is “To streamline and accelerate the process of
>> deploying, testing and maintaining various configurations of OpenStack at
>> scale.” which means we are not bound to any specific technology when
>> deploying OpenStack.
>>
>
> TBH, I also think this statement is broad enough to cover containers.
> Unless the
> request is to explicitly mention "containers" in the mission statement, I
> think
> there's no need to change it. I'd also be against having "containers" being
> explicitly mentioned in Fuel's statement, FWIW. I don't think it'd be of
> any
> benefit/use. Unless I'm missing something fundamental here, of course.


​I agree that the current mission statement seems fine.


>
> At the moment Fuel deploys RPM/DEB packages using Puppet and Fuel specific
>> orchestration mechanism. We are not going to drop this approach
>> immediately, it works quite well and we are working hard to make things
>> better (including ability to upgrade). But we also keep in mind that
>> technologies are constantly changing and we’d like to benefit of this
>> progress. That is why we are now looking at Docker containers and
>> Kubernetes. Our users know that it is not our first experience of trying
>> to
>> use containers. Fuel releases prior to 9.0 used to deploy Fuel services in
>> containers on the Fuel admin node.
>>
>> Many of you know how difficult it is to upgrade OpenStack clusters. We
>> hope
>> that containers could help us to solve not all but some of problems that
>> we
>> encounter when upgrading cluster. Maintaining and hence upgrade of
>> OpenStack clusters is a part of Fuel mission and we are just trying to
>> find
>> a way how to do things.
>>
>> Why not Kolla but Fuel-ccp? It is not a secret that Fuel is driven by
>> Mirantis. At Mirantis we deploy and maintain OpenStack. In attempts to
>> find
>> a way how to make OpenStack easily maintainable, some of Mirantis folks
>> spent some time to contribute to Kolla and Mesos. But there were some
>> concerns that were discussed several times (including this Kolla spec
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/330575) that would make it not so easy
>> to
>> use Kolla containers for our use cases. Fuel-ccp is just an attempt to
>> address these concerns. Frankly, I don’t see anything bad in having more
>> than one set of container images (like we have more than one set of
>> RPM/DEB
>> distributions).
>>
>
> ++
>

​I think the project seems fine.  They are clearly aware of Kolla.  If they
don't want to use it (for whatever the reason), I don't think it matters.
OpenStack deployment is far from a well solved problem.  We have plenty of
overlapping deployment related projects and I'm happy to see that
continue.  Ongoing experimentation with different approaches is a good
thing here.

To summarize, I see all actions taken so far by the Fuel team as fine.  I
see no need to change anything in governance.  They are free to add it as
an official deliverable if and when they choose to do so.  Even if they
have a vision of these things becoming official and supported in the
future, that does not mean they must mark them that way today.

-- 
Russell Bryant
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Flavio Percoco]

On 28/07/16 15:48 +0300, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:

1. Alter the mission statement of fuel to match the reality being



published by the press and Mirantis's executive team



2. Include these non-experimental repos in the projects.yaml governance



Repository


Frankly, I don’t understand what part of the press release contradicts with
Fuel mission.

Current Fuel mission is “To streamline and accelerate the process of
deploying, testing and maintaining various configurations of OpenStack at
scale.” which means we are not bound to any specific technology when
deploying OpenStack.


TBH, I also think this statement is broad enough to cover containers. Unless the
request is to explicitly mention "containers" in the mission statement, I think
there's no need to change it. I'd also be against having "containers" being
explicitly mentioned in Fuel's statement, FWIW. I don't think it'd be of any
benefit/use. Unless I'm missing something fundamental here, of course.


At the moment Fuel deploys RPM/DEB packages using Puppet and Fuel specific
orchestration mechanism. We are not going to drop this approach
immediately, it works quite well and we are working hard to make things
better (including ability to upgrade). But we also keep in mind that
technologies are constantly changing and we’d like to benefit of this
progress. That is why we are now looking at Docker containers and
Kubernetes. Our users know that it is not our first experience of trying to
use containers. Fuel releases prior to 9.0 used to deploy Fuel services in
containers on the Fuel admin node.

Many of you know how difficult it is to upgrade OpenStack clusters. We hope
that containers could help us to solve not all but some of problems that we
encounter when upgrading cluster. Maintaining and hence upgrade of
OpenStack clusters is a part of Fuel mission and we are just trying to find
a way how to do things.

Why not Kolla but Fuel-ccp? It is not a secret that Fuel is driven by
Mirantis. At Mirantis we deploy and maintain OpenStack. In attempts to find
a way how to make OpenStack easily maintainable, some of Mirantis folks
spent some time to contribute to Kolla and Mesos. But there were some
concerns that were discussed several times (including this Kolla spec
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/330575) that would make it not so easy to
use Kolla containers for our use cases. Fuel-ccp is just an attempt to
address these concerns. Frankly, I don’t see anything bad in having more
than one set of container images (like we have more than one set of RPM/DEB
distributions).


++

Flavio


Those concerns are, for example, container images should not be bound to
any specific deployment technology. Containers in some sense are a similar
concept to RPM/DEB packages and it does not matter what deployment tool
(puppet, ansible) one uses to install them. There should be mature CI
pipeline for building/testing/publishing images. There should be a
convenient way (kind of DSL) to deal with dozens of images. I’d like to
avoid discussing this here once again.

Fuel-ccp repositories are public, everyone is welcome to participate. I
don’t see where we violate “4 opens”. These repos are now experimental. At
the moment the team is working on building CI pipeline and developing
functional tests that are to be run as a part of CI process. These repos
are not to be a part of Fuel Newton release. From time to time we add and
retire git repos and it is a part of development process. Not all these
repos are to become a part of Big tent.


Vladimir Kozhukalov

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) 
wrote:




On 7/27/16, 2:12 PM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:

>On 07/27/2016 04:42 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:
>> On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Fox, Kevin M  wrote:
>>
>>> Its not an "end user" facing thing, but it is an "operator" facing
>>>thing.
>>
>> Well, the end user for Kolla is an operator, no?
>>
>>> I deploy kolla containers today on non kolla managed systems in
>>>production, and rely on that api being consistent.
>>>
>>> I'm positive I'm not the only operator doing this either. This sounds
>>>like a consumable api to me.
>>
>> I don¹t think that an API has to be RESTful to be considered an
>>interface for we should avoid duplication.
>
>Application *Programming* Interface. There's nothing that is being
>*programmed* or *called* in Kolla's image definitions.
>
>What Kolla is/has is not an API. As Stephen said, it's more of an
>Application Binary Interface (ABI). It's not really an ABI, though, in
>the traditional sense of the term that I'm used to.
>
>It's an agreed set of package bases, installation procedures/directories
>and configuration recipes for OpenStack and infrastructure components.

Jay,

From my perspective, this isn't about ABI proliferation or competition.
This is about open public discourse.

It is the responsibility of all community members to protect the four
opens.

Given the intent of fuel-ccp to 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Flavio Percoco]

On 28/07/16 04:45 +, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:



On 7/27/16, 2:12 PM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:


On 07/27/2016 04:42 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:

On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Fox, Kevin M  wrote:


Its not an "end user" facing thing, but it is an "operator" facing
thing.


Well, the end user for Kolla is an operator, no?


I deploy kolla containers today on non kolla managed systems in
production, and rely on that api being consistent.

I'm positive I'm not the only operator doing this either. This sounds
like a consumable api to me.


I don¹t think that an API has to be RESTful to be considered an
interface for we should avoid duplication.


Application *Programming* Interface. There's nothing that is being
*programmed* or *called* in Kolla's image definitions.

What Kolla is/has is not an API. As Stephen said, it's more of an
Application Binary Interface (ABI). It's not really an ABI, though, in
the traditional sense of the term that I'm used to.

It's an agreed set of package bases, installation procedures/directories
and configuration recipes for OpenStack and infrastructure components.


Jay,

From my perspective, this isn't about ABI proliferation or competition.
This is about open public discourse.

It is the responsibility of all community members to protect the four
opens.

Given the intent of fuel-ccp to fully adopt K8S into Fuel described here:
https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/25/openstack-will-soon-be-able-to-run-on-top
-of-kubernetes/


It is hard to understand the arguments in the reviews related to "this is
an experimental project, so its not targeted towards big tent" yet Boris
wrote in that press release its Fuel's next big thing.

I raised the objection early on that a mission statement change was needed
by Fuel if they wanted to proceed down this path, to which I was told K8S
support is not going into big tent.

As a result of Mirantis's change in mind about fuel-ccp being NOT
experimental and being targeted for big tent, I'd like the record set
straight in the governance repository since the intentions are being
published in the press and the current intentions of this project are
public.


If I can be honest, I think this whole thread is not going anywhere because it
just started based on the wrong assumption, the wrong tone and with poor
wording. I'd have asked for clarifications before demanding changes from anyone.
To me, the way this thread started violates one of principles of our community,
which is assuming good faith. I'll assume good faith now and interpret this
thread as a hope to clarify the goals and intentions of this projects and not as
a way to bluntly point fingers, which is how some people might have perceived
it.


I could see how people could perceive many violations of the four opens in
all of the activities related to the fuel-ccp project.  We as a community
value open discourse because we are all intelligent human beings.  We
value honesty and integrity because trust is the foundation of how our
community operates.  I feel the best way for Fuel to repair the perceived
violations of the four opens going forward is to:


I honestly don't see the violation. The fuel team added these repos and
explicitly said they are not planning to join the tent right now. Adding new
repos called `fuel-blah` won't make those deliverables official. Whenever the
team decides to make these deliverables part of Fuel, they'll have to send a
patch to the governance repo.

So, again, where's the lack of openess? Is it just based on the content of the
press release? I'm mostly asking because I don't personally read press releases
when reviewing patches for the governance repo. I do see the inconsistency
between the press release and what's in the repos/reviews but I in those cases,
the governance repository is the source of truth not the press release.


1. Alter the mission statement of fuel to match the reality being
published by the press and Mirantis's executive team
2. Include these non-experimental repos in the projects.yaml governance
repository


What would have happened if the project names would've been
"my-super-openstack-container-project"?

Flavio

--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Fox, Kevin M]

I really see 3 issues raised in the spec mentioned that have any disagreement 
as far as I can tell.

1. mirantis would like to see kolla-ansible split from the base kolla repo. 
This has a lot of support and is likely to come up for a final vote soon. It 
was postponed due to not wanting to split in the middle of a cycle. - This does 
not seem like a good reason at this point to spawn a new project. I support the 
split.

2. mirantis would like to see repos split for each docker container definition 
to be one per container. This is purely a management style difference. Split or 
combined both has advantages, and at present scaling issues have not been hit, 
so change has a cost that doesn't yet have a significant benefit. If it started 
to be, I'm sure it would be re-evaluated. This does not seem like a good reason 
at this point to spawn a new project. I think splitting seems unnecessary at 
this point, but if the whole thing comes down to this one issue, I'd support 
splitting the repos just so we don't duplicate so much work over such a minor 
thing.

3. Some bootstrap logic in some of the containers. mirantis would like to see 
it gone. Its completely optional (just don't set the BOOTSTRAP env vars) and 
needs to stay for api backwards compatibility in existing containers. It does 
not have to be used by deployment tools that don't wish to use it. This does 
not seem like a good reason at this point to spawn a new project. I support 
keeping it to not break things as its optional.

Are these really that contentious that we have to split a community over? Can 
we get both sides to give in a little and help each other out?

Maybe something like:
1. kolla commits to split out kolla-ansible as soon as possible (right after 
newton tagged)
2. Some middle ground here. Maybe its keep as is, but come up with a formal 
procedure for re-evaluating when it becomes painful and make a change. (Seems 
similar to the fuel/puppet repo upstreaming thing, in a way. Maybe some of the 
same process could work here? Some time to review metrics?)
3. We keep the optional stuff so we don't break existing deployments.

Is this reasonable?

Thanks,
Kevin

From: Vladimir Kozhukalov [vkozhuka...@mirantis.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 5:48 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting 
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off


>1. Alter the mission statement of fuel to match the reality being

>published by the press and Mirantis's executive team

>2. Include these non-experimental repos in the projects.yaml governance

>Repository


Frankly, I don’t understand what part of the press release contradicts with 
Fuel mission.

Current Fuel mission is “To streamline and accelerate the process of deploying, 
testing and maintaining various configurations of OpenStack at scale.” which 
means we are not bound to any specific technology when deploying OpenStack.


At the moment Fuel deploys RPM/DEB packages using Puppet and Fuel specific 
orchestration mechanism. We are not going to drop this approach immediately, it 
works quite well and we are working hard to make things better (including 
ability to upgrade). But we also keep in mind that technologies are constantly 
changing and we’d like to benefit of this progress. That is why we are now 
looking at Docker containers and Kubernetes. Our users know that it is not our 
first experience of trying to use containers. Fuel releases prior to 9.0 used 
to deploy Fuel services in containers on the Fuel admin node.


Many of you know how difficult it is to upgrade OpenStack clusters. We hope 
that containers could help us to solve not all but some of problems that we 
encounter when upgrading cluster. Maintaining and hence upgrade of OpenStack 
clusters is a part of Fuel mission and we are just trying to find a way how to 
do things.


Why not Kolla but Fuel-ccp? It is not a secret that Fuel is driven by Mirantis. 
At Mirantis we deploy and maintain OpenStack. In attempts to find a way how to 
make OpenStack easily maintainable, some of Mirantis folks spent some time to 
contribute to Kolla and Mesos. But there were some concerns that were discussed 
several times (including this Kolla spec 
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/330575) that would make it not so easy to use 
Kolla containers for our use cases. Fuel-ccp is just an attempt to address 
these concerns. Frankly, I don’t see anything bad in having more than one set 
of container images (like we have more than one set of RPM/DEB distributions).


Those concerns are, for example, container images should not be bound to any 
specific deployment technology. Containers in some sense are a similar concept 
to RPM/DEB packages and it does not matter what deployment tool (puppet, 
ansible) one uses to install them. There should be mature CI pipeline for 
building/testing/publishing images. 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Vladimir Kozhukalov]

>1. Alter the mission statement of fuel to match the reality being

>published by the press and Mirantis's executive team

>2. Include these non-experimental repos in the projects.yaml governance

>Repository

Frankly, I don’t understand what part of the press release contradicts with
Fuel mission.

Current Fuel mission is “To streamline and accelerate the process of
deploying, testing and maintaining various configurations of OpenStack at
scale.” which means we are not bound to any specific technology when
deploying OpenStack.

At the moment Fuel deploys RPM/DEB packages using Puppet and Fuel specific
orchestration mechanism. We are not going to drop this approach
immediately, it works quite well and we are working hard to make things
better (including ability to upgrade). But we also keep in mind that
technologies are constantly changing and we’d like to benefit of this
progress. That is why we are now looking at Docker containers and
Kubernetes. Our users know that it is not our first experience of trying to
use containers. Fuel releases prior to 9.0 used to deploy Fuel services in
containers on the Fuel admin node.

Many of you know how difficult it is to upgrade OpenStack clusters. We hope
that containers could help us to solve not all but some of problems that we
encounter when upgrading cluster. Maintaining and hence upgrade of
OpenStack clusters is a part of Fuel mission and we are just trying to find
a way how to do things.

Why not Kolla but Fuel-ccp? It is not a secret that Fuel is driven by
Mirantis. At Mirantis we deploy and maintain OpenStack. In attempts to find
a way how to make OpenStack easily maintainable, some of Mirantis folks
spent some time to contribute to Kolla and Mesos. But there were some
concerns that were discussed several times (including this Kolla spec
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/330575) that would make it not so easy to
use Kolla containers for our use cases. Fuel-ccp is just an attempt to
address these concerns. Frankly, I don’t see anything bad in having more
than one set of container images (like we have more than one set of RPM/DEB
distributions).

Those concerns are, for example, container images should not be bound to
any specific deployment technology. Containers in some sense are a similar
concept to RPM/DEB packages and it does not matter what deployment tool
(puppet, ansible) one uses to install them. There should be mature CI
pipeline for building/testing/publishing images. There should be a
convenient way (kind of DSL) to deal with dozens of images. I’d like to
avoid discussing this here once again.

Fuel-ccp repositories are public, everyone is welcome to participate. I
don’t see where we violate “4 opens”. These repos are now experimental. At
the moment the team is working on building CI pipeline and developing
functional tests that are to be run as a part of CI process. These repos
are not to be a part of Fuel Newton release. From time to time we add and
retire git repos and it is a part of development process. Not all these
repos are to become a part of Big tent.



Vladimir Kozhukalov

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) 
wrote:

>
>
> On 7/27/16, 2:12 PM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:
>
> >On 07/27/2016 04:42 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:
> >> On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Fox, Kevin M  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Its not an "end user" facing thing, but it is an "operator" facing
> >>>thing.
> >>
> >> Well, the end user for Kolla is an operator, no?
> >>
> >>> I deploy kolla containers today on non kolla managed systems in
> >>>production, and rely on that api being consistent.
> >>>
> >>> I'm positive I'm not the only operator doing this either. This sounds
> >>>like a consumable api to me.
> >>
> >> I don¹t think that an API has to be RESTful to be considered an
> >>interface for we should avoid duplication.
> >
> >Application *Programming* Interface. There's nothing that is being
> >*programmed* or *called* in Kolla's image definitions.
> >
> >What Kolla is/has is not an API. As Stephen said, it's more of an
> >Application Binary Interface (ABI). It's not really an ABI, though, in
> >the traditional sense of the term that I'm used to.
> >
> >It's an agreed set of package bases, installation procedures/directories
> >and configuration recipes for OpenStack and infrastructure components.
>
> Jay,
>
> From my perspective, this isn't about ABI proliferation or competition.
> This is about open public discourse.
>
> It is the responsibility of all community members to protect the four
> opens.
>
> Given the intent of fuel-ccp to fully adopt K8S into Fuel described here:
> https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/25/openstack-will-soon-be-able-to-run-on-top
> -of-kubernetes/
>
>
> It is hard to understand the arguments in the reviews related to "this is
> an experimental project, so its not targeted towards big tent" yet Boris
> wrote in that press release its Fuel's next big thing.
>
> I raised the objection early on 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Steven Dake (stdake)]

On 7/27/16, 2:12 PM, "Jay Pipes"  wrote:

>On 07/27/2016 04:42 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:
>> On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Fox, Kevin M  wrote:
>>
>>> Its not an "end user" facing thing, but it is an "operator" facing
>>>thing.
>>
>> Well, the end user for Kolla is an operator, no?
>>
>>> I deploy kolla containers today on non kolla managed systems in
>>>production, and rely on that api being consistent.
>>>
>>> I'm positive I'm not the only operator doing this either. This sounds
>>>like a consumable api to me.
>>
>> I don¹t think that an API has to be RESTful to be considered an
>>interface for we should avoid duplication.
>
>Application *Programming* Interface. There's nothing that is being
>*programmed* or *called* in Kolla's image definitions.
>
>What Kolla is/has is not an API. As Stephen said, it's more of an
>Application Binary Interface (ABI). It's not really an ABI, though, in
>the traditional sense of the term that I'm used to.
>
>It's an agreed set of package bases, installation procedures/directories
>and configuration recipes for OpenStack and infrastructure components.

Jay,

>From my perspective, this isn't about ABI proliferation or competition.
This is about open public discourse.

It is the responsibility of all community members to protect the four
opens.

Given the intent of fuel-ccp to fully adopt K8S into Fuel described here:
https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/25/openstack-will-soon-be-able-to-run-on-top
-of-kubernetes/


It is hard to understand the arguments in the reviews related to "this is
an experimental project, so its not targeted towards big tent" yet Boris
wrote in that press release its Fuel's next big thing.

I raised the objection early on that a mission statement change was needed
by Fuel if they wanted to proceed down this path, to which I was told K8S
support is not going into big tent.

As a result of Mirantis's change in mind about fuel-ccp being NOT
experimental and being targeted for big tent, I'd like the record set
straight in the governance repository since the intentions are being
published in the press and the current intentions of this project are
public.

I could see how people could perceive many violations of the four opens in
all of the activities related to the fuel-ccp project.  We as a community
value open discourse because we are all intelligent human beings.  We
value honesty and integrity because trust is the foundation of how our
community operates.  I feel the best way for Fuel to repair the perceived
violations of the four opens going forward is to:

1. Alter the mission statement of fuel to match the reality being
published by the press and Mirantis's executive team
2. Include these non-experimental repos in the projects.yaml governance
repository

That would satisfy my four opens concerns.

If the Fuel PTL doesn't want to do these two things, I'd like a public
explanation as to why from Vladimir who thus far has remained quiet on
this thread.

Thanks
-steve




>
>I see no reason for the OpenStack community to standardize on those
>things, frankly. It's like asking RedHat and Canonical to agree to "just
>use RPM" as their package specification format. I wonder how that
>conversation would go.
>
>Best,
>-jay
>
>__
>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Fox, Kevin M]

I think that would be true, if the container api was opinionated. for example, 
trying to map only a subset of the openstack config options to docker 
environment variables. This would make the containers specific to what your 
talking about. Which business rules to support, what hardware, etc.

But the api is a fairly small one. Its mostly a standardized way to pass config 
files in through docker volumes and get them to land in the right places in the 
container. You should be able to use any system you want (puppet, chef, jinja, 
shell scripts) to deal with the business logic and such, to generate the config 
files, then use the standard api contract to ensure that whatever way you 
launch the container, (puppet, chef, heat, docker run, kubelet, kubernetes, 
etc) it behaves the same. The way your generated config file specifies.

Kolla has provided many different variants of each of the containers (centos, 
ubuntu, etc), showing that api contract is pretty flexible.

A similar thing is going on with kolla-kubernetes.

Thanks,
Kevin


From: Clint Byrum [cl...@fewbar.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 3:12 PM
To: openstack-dev
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting 
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

Excerpts from Fox, Kevin M's message of 2016-07-27 21:51:15 +:
> Its a standard way of launching a given openstack service container with 
> specified config regardless if its backed with a redhat or ubuntu or source 
> based package set that the Operator can rely on having a standardized 
> interface to. distro packages don't grantee that kind of thing and don't want 
> to.
>
> To me, its an abstraction api kind of like nova is to kvm vs xen. the nova 
> user shouldn't have to care which backend is chosen.
>

You're not wrong, and I do believe there is programming happening to
these interfaces. However the surface area of the API you describe is
_WAY_ too big to justify the work to maintain it as a single entity.

This is really why deployment tooling is so diverse. Hardware, networks,
business rules, operating systems, licensing, regulatory constraints...
all of those are part of a real deployment, and trying to make an API
that allows covering all of those bases, versus just having a bunch of
specific-ish implementations, has so far resulted in acceptance of more
implementations nearly every time.

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Fox, Kevin M]

Ok. :)

Thanks,
Kevin

From: Jay Pipes [jaypi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 3:05 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting 
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

On 07/27/2016 05:51 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> Its a standard way of launching a given openstack service container with 
> specified config regardless if its backed with a redhat or ubuntu or source 
> based package set that the Operator can rely on having a standardized 
> interface to. distro packages don't grantee that kind of thing and don't want 
> to.
>
> To me, its an abstraction api kind of like nova is to kvm vs xen. the nova 
> user shouldn't have to care which backend is chosen.

I can tell this conversation isn't going anywhere and we're not going to
agree, so let's just agree to disagree.

Best,
-jay

> 
> From: Jay Pipes [jaypi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 2:12 PM
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is 
> getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off
>
> On 07/27/2016 04:42 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:
>> On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> Its not an "end user" facing thing, but it is an "operator" facing thing.
>>
>> Well, the end user for Kolla is an operator, no?
>>
>>> I deploy kolla containers today on non kolla managed systems in production, 
>>> and rely on that api being consistent.
>>>
>>> I'm positive I'm not the only operator doing this either. This sounds like 
>>> a consumable api to me.
>>
>> I don’t think that an API has to be RESTful to be considered an interface 
>> for we should avoid duplication.
>
> Application *Programming* Interface. There's nothing that is being
> *programmed* or *called* in Kolla's image definitions.
>
> What Kolla is/has is not an API. As Stephen said, it's more of an
> Application Binary Interface (ABI). It's not really an ABI, though, in
> the traditional sense of the term that I'm used to.
>
> It's an agreed set of package bases, installation procedures/directories
> and configuration recipes for OpenStack and infrastructure components.
>
> I see no reason for the OpenStack community to standardize on those
> things, frankly. It's like asking RedHat and Canonical to agree to "just
> use RPM" as their package specification format. I wonder how that
> conversation would go.
>
> Best,
> -jay
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Clint Byrum]

Excerpts from Fox, Kevin M's message of 2016-07-27 21:51:15 +:
> Its a standard way of launching a given openstack service container with 
> specified config regardless if its backed with a redhat or ubuntu or source 
> based package set that the Operator can rely on having a standardized 
> interface to. distro packages don't grantee that kind of thing and don't want 
> to.
> 
> To me, its an abstraction api kind of like nova is to kvm vs xen. the nova 
> user shouldn't have to care which backend is chosen.
> 

You're not wrong, and I do believe there is programming happening to
these interfaces. However the surface area of the API you describe is
_WAY_ too big to justify the work to maintain it as a single entity.

This is really why deployment tooling is so diverse. Hardware, networks,
business rules, operating systems, licensing, regulatory constraints...
all of those are part of a real deployment, and trying to make an API
that allows covering all of those bases, versus just having a bunch of
specific-ish implementations, has so far resulted in acceptance of more
implementations nearly every time.

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Jay Pipes]

On 07/27/2016 05:51 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:

Its a standard way of launching a given openstack service container with 
specified config regardless if its backed with a redhat or ubuntu or source 
based package set that the Operator can rely on having a standardized interface 
to. distro packages don't grantee that kind of thing and don't want to.

To me, its an abstraction api kind of like nova is to kvm vs xen. the nova user 
shouldn't have to care which backend is chosen.


I can tell this conversation isn't going anywhere and we're not going to 
agree, so let's just agree to disagree.


Best,
-jay



From: Jay Pipes [jaypi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 2:12 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting 
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

On 07/27/2016 04:42 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:

On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:


Its not an "end user" facing thing, but it is an "operator" facing thing.


Well, the end user for Kolla is an operator, no?


I deploy kolla containers today on non kolla managed systems in production, and 
rely on that api being consistent.

I'm positive I'm not the only operator doing this either. This sounds like a 
consumable api to me.


I don’t think that an API has to be RESTful to be considered an interface for 
we should avoid duplication.


Application *Programming* Interface. There's nothing that is being
*programmed* or *called* in Kolla's image definitions.

What Kolla is/has is not an API. As Stephen said, it's more of an
Application Binary Interface (ABI). It's not really an ABI, though, in
the traditional sense of the term that I'm used to.

It's an agreed set of package bases, installation procedures/directories
and configuration recipes for OpenStack and infrastructure components.

I see no reason for the OpenStack community to standardize on those
things, frankly. It's like asking RedHat and Canonical to agree to "just
use RPM" as their package specification format. I wonder how that
conversation would go.

Best,
-jay

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Fox, Kevin M]

Its a standard way of launching a given openstack service container with 
specified config regardless if its backed with a redhat or ubuntu or source 
based package set that the Operator can rely on having a standardized interface 
to. distro packages don't grantee that kind of thing and don't want to.

To me, its an abstraction api kind of like nova is to kvm vs xen. the nova user 
shouldn't have to care which backend is chosen.

Thanks,
Kevin

From: Jay Pipes [jaypi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 2:12 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting 
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

On 07/27/2016 04:42 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:
>
>> Its not an "end user" facing thing, but it is an "operator" facing thing.
>
> Well, the end user for Kolla is an operator, no?
>
>> I deploy kolla containers today on non kolla managed systems in production, 
>> and rely on that api being consistent.
>>
>> I'm positive I'm not the only operator doing this either. This sounds like a 
>> consumable api to me.
>
> I don’t think that an API has to be RESTful to be considered an interface for 
> we should avoid duplication.

Application *Programming* Interface. There's nothing that is being
*programmed* or *called* in Kolla's image definitions.

What Kolla is/has is not an API. As Stephen said, it's more of an
Application Binary Interface (ABI). It's not really an ABI, though, in
the traditional sense of the term that I'm used to.

It's an agreed set of package bases, installation procedures/directories
and configuration recipes for OpenStack and infrastructure components.

I see no reason for the OpenStack community to standardize on those
things, frankly. It's like asking RedHat and Canonical to agree to "just
use RPM" as their package specification format. I wonder how that
conversation would go.

Best,
-jay

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Clint Byrum]

Excerpts from Ed Leafe's message of 2016-07-27 10:59:06 -0500:
> On Jul 27, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Joshua Harlow  wrote:
> 
> >> Whether to have competing projects in the big tent was debated by the TC
> >> at the time and my recollection is that we decided that was a good thing
> >> -- if someone wanted to develop a Nova replacement, then let them do it
> >> in public with the community. It would either win or lose based on its
> >> merits. Why is this not something which can happen here as well?
> > 
> > For real, I (or someone) can start a nova replacement without getting 
> > rejected (or yelled at or ...) by the TC saying it's a competing project??? 
> > Wow, this is news to me...
> 
> No, you can’t start a Nova replacement and still call yourself OpenStack.
> 

Is that true? I thought the thing would be that you'd have to be
running Nova to still use the mark. As long as you're running Nova and
the users can use Nova (the real one), if you also had a competitor to
Nova available, it would just need to pass the relatively low bar of
big tent membership to still be a part of "OpenStack".

> The sense I have gotten over the years from the TC is that gratuitous 
> competition is strongly discouraged. When the Monasca project was being 
> considered for the big tent, there was a *lot* of concern expressed over the 
> partial overlap with Ceilometer. It was only after much reassurance that the 
> overlap was not fundamental that these objections were dropped.
> 
> I have no stake in either Fuel or Kolla, so my only concern is duplication of 
> effort. You can always achieve more working together, though it will never 
> happen as fast as when you go it alone. It’s a trade-off: the needs of the 
> vendor vs. the health of the community.
> 
> 
> -- Ed Leafe
> 

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Jay Pipes]

On 07/27/2016 04:42 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:

On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Fox, Kevin M  wrote:


Its not an "end user" facing thing, but it is an "operator" facing thing.


Well, the end user for Kolla is an operator, no?


I deploy kolla containers today on non kolla managed systems in production, and 
rely on that api being consistent.

I'm positive I'm not the only operator doing this either. This sounds like a 
consumable api to me.


I don’t think that an API has to be RESTful to be considered an interface for 
we should avoid duplication.


Application *Programming* Interface. There's nothing that is being 
*programmed* or *called* in Kolla's image definitions.


What Kolla is/has is not an API. As Stephen said, it's more of an 
Application Binary Interface (ABI). It's not really an ABI, though, in 
the traditional sense of the term that I'm used to.


It's an agreed set of package bases, installation procedures/directories 
and configuration recipes for OpenStack and infrastructure components.


I see no reason for the OpenStack community to standardize on those 
things, frankly. It's like asking RedHat and Canonical to agree to "just 
use RPM" as their package specification format. I wonder how that 
conversation would go.


Best,
-jay

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Ed Leafe]

On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Fox, Kevin M  wrote:

> Its not an "end user" facing thing, but it is an "operator" facing thing.

Well, the end user for Kolla is an operator, no?

> I deploy kolla containers today on non kolla managed systems in production, 
> and rely on that api being consistent.
> 
> I'm positive I'm not the only operator doing this either. This sounds like a 
> consumable api to me.

I don’t think that an API has to be RESTful to be considered an interface for 
we should avoid duplication.


-- Ed Leafe






__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Fox, Kevin M]

Its not an "end user" facing thing, but it is an "operator" facing thing.

I deploy kolla containers today on non kolla managed systems in production, and 
rely on that api being consistent.

I'm positive I'm not the only operator doing this either. This sounds like a 
consumable api to me.

Thanks,
Kevin

From: Jay Pipes [jaypi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 12:02 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting 
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

On 07/27/2016 01:59 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> Kolla is providing a public api for docker containers and kubernetes 
> templates though. So its not just a deployment tool issue. Its not 
> specifically rest, but does that matter?

Yes, it matters.

Kolla isn't providing a user-interfacing HTTP API for doing something in
a cloud. Kolla is providing a prescriptive way of building Docker images
from a set of Dockerfiles and various configuration file templates. That
isn't a consumable API. That's a reference manual.

Best,
-jay

> 
> From: Jay Pipes [jaypi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 10:36 AM
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is 
> getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off
>
> On 07/27/2016 10:10 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:
>> On 07/27/2016 09:59 AM, Ed Leafe wrote:
>>> On Jul 27, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Joshua Harlow <harlo...@fastmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Whether to have competing projects in the big tent was debated by
>>>>> the TC
>>>>> at the time and my recollection is that we decided that was a good
>>>>> thing
>>>>> -- if someone wanted to develop a Nova replacement, then let them do it
>>>>> in public with the community. It would either win or lose based on its
>>>>> merits. Why is this not something which can happen here as well?
>>>>
>>>> For real, I (or someone) can start a nova replacement without getting
>>>> rejected (or yelled at or ...) by the TC saying it's a competing
>>>> project??? Wow, this is news to me...
>>>
>>> No, you can’t start a Nova replacement and still call yourself OpenStack.
>>>
>>> The sense I have gotten over the years from the TC is that gratuitous
>>> competition is strongly discouraged.
>>
>> I seem to recall that back during the "big tent" discussion people were
>> talking about allowing competing projects that performed the same task,
>> and letting natural selection decide which one survived.
>>
>> For example, at
>> "http://www.joinfu.com/2014/09/answering-the-existential-question-in-openstack/;
>> Jay Pipes said that being under the big tent should not mean that the
>> project is the only/best way to provide a specific function to OpenStack
>> users.
>>
>> On the other hand, the OpenStack new projects requirements *do*
>> explicitly state that "Where it makes sense, the project cooperates with
>> existing projects rather than gratuitously competing or reinventing the
>> wheel."
>>
>> Maybe it boils down to the definition of "gratuitous" competition.
>
> For the record I think I've always been clear that I don't see
> competition as a bad thing within the OpenStack ecosystem however I have
> always been a proponent of having a *single consistent REST API* for a
> particular service type. I think innovation should happen at the
> implementation layer, but the public HTTP APIs should be collated and
> reviewed for overlap and inconsistencies.
>
> This was why in the past I haven't raised a stink about multiple
> deployment tools, since there was no OpenStack HTTP API for deployment
> of OpenStack itself. But I have absolutely raised concerns over overlap
> of HTTP APIs, like is the case with Monasca and various Telemetry
> project APIs. Again, implementation diversity cool. Public HTTP API
> diversity, not cool.
>
> Best,
> -jay
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cg

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Steven Dake (stdake)]

One correction inside:

On 7/27/16, 12:02 PM, "Jay Pipes" <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 07/27/2016 01:59 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
>> Kolla is providing a public api for docker containers and kubernetes
>>templates though. So its not just a deployment tool issue. Its not
>>specifically rest, but does that matter?
>
>Yes, it matters.
>
>Kolla isn't providing a user-interfacing HTTP API for doing something in
>a cloud. Kolla is providing a prescriptive way of building Docker images
>from a set of Dockerfiles and various configuration file templates. That
>isn't a consumable API. That's a reference manual.
>
>Best,
>-jay

Not that I think this discussion is all that productive but it should be
based on facts.  Kolla container images do provide a standardized
consumable ABI and we have claimed such for over two cycles.

Regards
-steve

>
>> 
>> From: Jay Pipes [jaypi...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 10:36 AM
>> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is
>>getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off
>>
>> On 07/27/2016 10:10 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:
>>> On 07/27/2016 09:59 AM, Ed Leafe wrote:
>>>> On Jul 27, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Joshua Harlow <harlo...@fastmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Whether to have competing projects in the big tent was debated by
>>>>>> the TC
>>>>>> at the time and my recollection is that we decided that was a good
>>>>>> thing
>>>>>> -- if someone wanted to develop a Nova replacement, then let them
>>>>>>do it
>>>>>> in public with the community. It would either win or lose based on
>>>>>>its
>>>>>> merits. Why is this not something which can happen here as well?
>>>>>
>>>>> For real, I (or someone) can start a nova replacement without getting
>>>>> rejected (or yelled at or ...) by the TC saying it's a competing
>>>>> project??? Wow, this is news to me...
>>>>
>>>> No, you can¹t start a Nova replacement and still call yourself
>>>>OpenStack.
>>>>
>>>> The sense I have gotten over the years from the TC is that gratuitous
>>>> competition is strongly discouraged.
>>>
>>> I seem to recall that back during the "big tent" discussion people were
>>> talking about allowing competing projects that performed the same task,
>>> and letting natural selection decide which one survived.
>>>
>>> For example, at
>>> 
>>>"http://www.joinfu.com/2014/09/answering-the-existential-question-in-ope
>>>nstack/"
>>> Jay Pipes said that being under the big tent should not mean that the
>>> project is the only/best way to provide a specific function to
>>>OpenStack
>>> users.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, the OpenStack new projects requirements *do*
>>> explicitly state that "Where it makes sense, the project cooperates
>>>with
>>> existing projects rather than gratuitously competing or reinventing the
>>> wheel."
>>>
>>> Maybe it boils down to the definition of "gratuitous" competition.
>>
>> For the record I think I've always been clear that I don't see
>> competition as a bad thing within the OpenStack ecosystem however I have
>> always been a proponent of having a *single consistent REST API* for a
>> particular service type. I think innovation should happen at the
>> implementation layer, but the public HTTP APIs should be collated and
>> reviewed for overlap and inconsistencies.
>>
>> This was why in the past I haven't raised a stink about multiple
>> deployment tools, since there was no OpenStack HTTP API for deployment
>> of OpenStack itself. But I have absolutely raised concerns over overlap
>> of HTTP APIs, like is the case with Monasca and various Telemetry
>> project APIs. Again, implementation diversity cool. Public HTTP API
>> diversity, not cool.
>>
>> Best,
>> -jay
>>
>> 
>>_
>>_
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: 
>>openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>> 
>>_
>>_
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: 
>>openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>
>__
>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Jay Pipes]

On 07/27/2016 01:59 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:

Kolla is providing a public api for docker containers and kubernetes templates 
though. So its not just a deployment tool issue. Its not specifically rest, but 
does that matter?


Yes, it matters.

Kolla isn't providing a user-interfacing HTTP API for doing something in 
a cloud. Kolla is providing a prescriptive way of building Docker images 
from a set of Dockerfiles and various configuration file templates. That 
isn't a consumable API. That's a reference manual.


Best,
-jay



From: Jay Pipes [jaypi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 10:36 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting 
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

On 07/27/2016 10:10 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:

On 07/27/2016 09:59 AM, Ed Leafe wrote:

On Jul 27, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Joshua Harlow <harlo...@fastmail.com>
wrote:


Whether to have competing projects in the big tent was debated by
the TC
at the time and my recollection is that we decided that was a good
thing
-- if someone wanted to develop a Nova replacement, then let them do it
in public with the community. It would either win or lose based on its
merits. Why is this not something which can happen here as well?


For real, I (or someone) can start a nova replacement without getting
rejected (or yelled at or ...) by the TC saying it's a competing
project??? Wow, this is news to me...


No, you can’t start a Nova replacement and still call yourself OpenStack.

The sense I have gotten over the years from the TC is that gratuitous
competition is strongly discouraged.


I seem to recall that back during the "big tent" discussion people were
talking about allowing competing projects that performed the same task,
and letting natural selection decide which one survived.

For example, at
"http://www.joinfu.com/2014/09/answering-the-existential-question-in-openstack/;
Jay Pipes said that being under the big tent should not mean that the
project is the only/best way to provide a specific function to OpenStack
users.

On the other hand, the OpenStack new projects requirements *do*
explicitly state that "Where it makes sense, the project cooperates with
existing projects rather than gratuitously competing or reinventing the
wheel."

Maybe it boils down to the definition of "gratuitous" competition.


For the record I think I've always been clear that I don't see
competition as a bad thing within the OpenStack ecosystem however I have
always been a proponent of having a *single consistent REST API* for a
particular service type. I think innovation should happen at the
implementation layer, but the public HTTP APIs should be collated and
reviewed for overlap and inconsistencies.

This was why in the past I haven't raised a stink about multiple
deployment tools, since there was no OpenStack HTTP API for deployment
of OpenStack itself. But I have absolutely raised concerns over overlap
of HTTP APIs, like is the case with Monasca and various Telemetry
project APIs. Again, implementation diversity cool. Public HTTP API
diversity, not cool.

Best,
-jay

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Fox, Kevin M]

Kolla is providing a public api for docker containers and kubernetes templates 
though. So its not just a deployment tool issue. Its not specifically rest, but 
does that matter?

Thanks,
Kevin

From: Jay Pipes [jaypi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 10:36 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting 
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

On 07/27/2016 10:10 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 07/27/2016 09:59 AM, Ed Leafe wrote:
>> On Jul 27, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Joshua Harlow <harlo...@fastmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Whether to have competing projects in the big tent was debated by
>>>> the TC
>>>> at the time and my recollection is that we decided that was a good
>>>> thing
>>>> -- if someone wanted to develop a Nova replacement, then let them do it
>>>> in public with the community. It would either win or lose based on its
>>>> merits. Why is this not something which can happen here as well?
>>>
>>> For real, I (or someone) can start a nova replacement without getting
>>> rejected (or yelled at or ...) by the TC saying it's a competing
>>> project??? Wow, this is news to me...
>>
>> No, you can’t start a Nova replacement and still call yourself OpenStack.
>>
>> The sense I have gotten over the years from the TC is that gratuitous
>> competition is strongly discouraged.
>
> I seem to recall that back during the "big tent" discussion people were
> talking about allowing competing projects that performed the same task,
> and letting natural selection decide which one survived.
>
> For example, at
> "http://www.joinfu.com/2014/09/answering-the-existential-question-in-openstack/;
> Jay Pipes said that being under the big tent should not mean that the
> project is the only/best way to provide a specific function to OpenStack
> users.
>
> On the other hand, the OpenStack new projects requirements *do*
> explicitly state that "Where it makes sense, the project cooperates with
> existing projects rather than gratuitously competing or reinventing the
> wheel."
>
> Maybe it boils down to the definition of "gratuitous" competition.

For the record I think I've always been clear that I don't see
competition as a bad thing within the OpenStack ecosystem however I have
always been a proponent of having a *single consistent REST API* for a
particular service type. I think innovation should happen at the
implementation layer, but the public HTTP APIs should be collated and
reviewed for overlap and inconsistencies.

This was why in the past I haven't raised a stink about multiple
deployment tools, since there was no OpenStack HTTP API for deployment
of OpenStack itself. But I have absolutely raised concerns over overlap
of HTTP APIs, like is the case with Monasca and various Telemetry
project APIs. Again, implementation diversity cool. Public HTTP API
diversity, not cool.

Best,
-jay

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Jay Pipes]

On 07/27/2016 10:10 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:

On 07/27/2016 09:59 AM, Ed Leafe wrote:

On Jul 27, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Joshua Harlow 
wrote:


Whether to have competing projects in the big tent was debated by
the TC
at the time and my recollection is that we decided that was a good
thing
-- if someone wanted to develop a Nova replacement, then let them do it
in public with the community. It would either win or lose based on its
merits. Why is this not something which can happen here as well?


For real, I (or someone) can start a nova replacement without getting
rejected (or yelled at or ...) by the TC saying it's a competing
project??? Wow, this is news to me...


No, you can’t start a Nova replacement and still call yourself OpenStack.

The sense I have gotten over the years from the TC is that gratuitous
competition is strongly discouraged.


I seem to recall that back during the "big tent" discussion people were
talking about allowing competing projects that performed the same task,
and letting natural selection decide which one survived.

For example, at
"http://www.joinfu.com/2014/09/answering-the-existential-question-in-openstack/;
Jay Pipes said that being under the big tent should not mean that the
project is the only/best way to provide a specific function to OpenStack
users.

On the other hand, the OpenStack new projects requirements *do*
explicitly state that "Where it makes sense, the project cooperates with
existing projects rather than gratuitously competing or reinventing the
wheel."

Maybe it boils down to the definition of "gratuitous" competition.


For the record I think I've always been clear that I don't see 
competition as a bad thing within the OpenStack ecosystem however I have 
always been a proponent of having a *single consistent REST API* for a 
particular service type. I think innovation should happen at the 
implementation layer, but the public HTTP APIs should be collated and 
reviewed for overlap and inconsistencies.


This was why in the past I haven't raised a stink about multiple 
deployment tools, since there was no OpenStack HTTP API for deployment 
of OpenStack itself. But I have absolutely raised concerns over overlap 
of HTTP APIs, like is the case with Monasca and various Telemetry 
project APIs. Again, implementation diversity cool. Public HTTP API 
diversity, not cool.


Best,
-jay

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Ed Leafe]

On Jul 27, 2016, at 12:10 PM, Chris Friesen  wrote:

> Maybe it boils down to the definition of "gratuitous" competition.

Precisely, which is why we have humans and not computer algorithms to decide 
these things.

-- Ed Leafe






__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Chris Friesen]

On 07/27/2016 09:59 AM, Ed Leafe wrote:

On Jul 27, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Joshua Harlow  wrote:


Whether to have competing projects in the big tent was debated by the TC
at the time and my recollection is that we decided that was a good thing
-- if someone wanted to develop a Nova replacement, then let them do it
in public with the community. It would either win or lose based on its
merits. Why is this not something which can happen here as well?


For real, I (or someone) can start a nova replacement without getting rejected 
(or yelled at or ...) by the TC saying it's a competing project??? Wow, this is 
news to me...


No, you can’t start a Nova replacement and still call yourself OpenStack.

The sense I have gotten over the years from the TC is that gratuitous 
competition is strongly discouraged.


I seem to recall that back during the "big tent" discussion people were talking 
about allowing competing projects that performed the same task, and letting 
natural selection decide which one survived.


For example, at 
"http://www.joinfu.com/2014/09/answering-the-existential-question-in-openstack/; 
Jay Pipes said that being under the big tent should not mean that the project is 
the only/best way to provide a specific function to OpenStack users.


On the other hand, the OpenStack new projects requirements *do* explicitly state 
that "Where it makes sense, the project cooperates with existing projects rather 
than gratuitously competing or reinventing the wheel."


Maybe it boils down to the definition of "gratuitous" competition.

Chris

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Fox, Kevin M]

Sorry, missed part of this.

I do not believe there is overlap between openstack-ansible which uses lxc 
containerization with thick containers and kolla which uses docker/kubernetes 
with thin containers. These are architecturally very different things and to 
reference my other email, there are technical reasons for doing things each way.

The Fuel CCP case is different, in that it is doing the same technical thing as 
kolla. kubernetes managed, docker based thin containers.

Thanks,
Kevin


From: Michael Still [mi...@stillhq.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 5:30 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting 
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Fox, Kevin M 
<kevin@pnnl.gov<mailto:kevin@pnnl.gov>> wrote:

[snip]

The issue is, as I see it, a parallel activity to one of the that is currently 
accepted into the Big Tent, aka Containerized Deployment

[snip]

This seems to be the crux of the matter as best as I can tell. Is it true to 
say that the concern is that Kolla believes they "own" the containerized 
deployment space inside the Big Tent?

Whether to have competing projects in the big tent was debated by the TC at the 
time and my recollection is that we decided that was a good thing -- if someone 
wanted to develop a Nova replacement, then let them do it in public with the 
community. It would either win or lose based on its merits. Why is this not 
something which can happen here as well?

I guess I should also point out that there is at least one other big tent 
deployment tool deploying containerized openstack components now, so its not 
like this idea is unique or new. Perhaps using kubernetes makes it different 
somehow, but I don't see it.

Michael




--
Rackspace Australia
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Ed Leafe]

On Jul 27, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Joshua Harlow  wrote:

>> Whether to have competing projects in the big tent was debated by the TC
>> at the time and my recollection is that we decided that was a good thing
>> -- if someone wanted to develop a Nova replacement, then let them do it
>> in public with the community. It would either win or lose based on its
>> merits. Why is this not something which can happen here as well?
> 
> For real, I (or someone) can start a nova replacement without getting 
> rejected (or yelled at or ...) by the TC saying it's a competing project??? 
> Wow, this is news to me...

No, you can’t start a Nova replacement and still call yourself OpenStack.

The sense I have gotten over the years from the TC is that gratuitous 
competition is strongly discouraged. When the Monasca project was being 
considered for the big tent, there was a *lot* of concern expressed over the 
partial overlap with Ceilometer. It was only after much reassurance that the 
overlap was not fundamental that these objections were dropped.

I have no stake in either Fuel or Kolla, so my only concern is duplication of 
effort. You can always achieve more working together, though it will never 
happen as fast as when you go it alone. It’s a trade-off: the needs of the 
vendor vs. the health of the community.


-- Ed Leafe






__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Joshua Harlow]

Michael Still wrote:

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Fox, Kevin M > wrote:

[snip]

The issue is, as I see it, a parallel activity to one of the that is
currently accepted into the Big Tent, aka Containerized Deployment


[snip]

This seems to be the crux of the matter as best as I can tell. Is it
true to say that the concern is that Kolla believes they "own" the
containerized deployment space inside the Big Tent?

Whether to have competing projects in the big tent was debated by the TC
at the time and my recollection is that we decided that was a good thing
-- if someone wanted to develop a Nova replacement, then let them do it
in public with the community. It would either win or lose based on its
merits. Why is this not something which can happen here as well?


For real, I (or someone) can start a nova replacement without getting 
rejected (or yelled at or ...) by the TC saying it's a competing 
project??? Wow, this is news to me...




I guess I should also point out that there is at least one other big
tent deployment tool deploying containerized openstack components now,
so its not like this idea is unique or new. Perhaps using kubernetes
makes it different somehow, but I don't see it.

Michael




--
Rackspace Australia

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Fox, Kevin M]

Competition is a good thing, when there are good, technical reasons for it. 
"The architecture of X just doesn't fit for my need Y". "Project X won't 
address my technical need, so I need to fork/spawn a new project Y to get a 
solution." I do not believe we're in this situation here.

If its just competition because developer X doesn't want to work with developer 
Y, thats fine too, provided that the community isn't paying for both.

Our collective resource is somewhat limited. We have a relatively static pool 
of gate resources, and infra folks. Nearing releases, those get particularly 
scarce/valuable. We all notice it during those times and if we are spending 
resource on needlessly competing things, thats bad. Why take the pain?

As I see it, right now Fuel CCP seems separate for political, not technical 
reasons and is consuming OpenStack community resource for what seems to be the 
benefit of only one company. Its fine that Fuel CCP exists. But I think either 
it should have its own non OpenStack infra, or commit to joining the Big Tent 
and we can debate if we want 2 basically identical things inside.

Thanks,
Kevin


From: Michael Still [mi...@stillhq.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 5:30 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting 
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Fox, Kevin M 
<kevin@pnnl.gov<mailto:kevin@pnnl.gov>> wrote:

[snip]

The issue is, as I see it, a parallel activity to one of the that is currently 
accepted into the Big Tent, aka Containerized Deployment

[snip]

This seems to be the crux of the matter as best as I can tell. Is it true to 
say that the concern is that Kolla believes they "own" the containerized 
deployment space inside the Big Tent?

Whether to have competing projects in the big tent was debated by the TC at the 
time and my recollection is that we decided that was a good thing -- if someone 
wanted to develop a Nova replacement, then let them do it in public with the 
community. It would either win or lose based on its merits. Why is this not 
something which can happen here as well?

I guess I should also point out that there is at least one other big tent 
deployment tool deploying containerized openstack components now, so its not 
like this idea is unique or new. Perhaps using kubernetes makes it different 
somehow, but I don't see it.

Michael




--
Rackspace Australia
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Steven Dake (stdake)]

Michael,

Response inline.

From: Michael Still <mi...@stillhq.com<mailto:mi...@stillhq.com>>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 5:30 AM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting 
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Fox, Kevin M 
<kevin@pnnl.gov<mailto:kevin@pnnl.gov>> wrote:

[snip]

The issue is, as I see it, a parallel activity to one of the that is currently 
accepted into the Big Tent, aka Containerized Deployment

[snip]

This seems to be the crux of the matter as best as I can tell. Is it true to 
say that the concern is that Kolla believes they "own" the containerized 
deployment space inside the Big Tent?

I can't give you Kevin's thinking on this, but my thinking is that every 
project has a right to innovate even if it means competing with an established 
project.  Even if that competition involves a straight up fork or serious copy 
and paste from the competitive project.These are permitted things in big 
tent.  Kolla has been forked a few times with people seeding competitive 
projects.  The license permits this, and fwiw I don't see any problem with it.  
There is nothing more appealing to an engineer then forking a code base for 
whatever reason.  Hence I disagree about your assertion that competition is the 
crux of the matter.

It is easier to copy a successful design then to innovate your own the hard way.

I have already stated where the problem is, and I'll state it once again using 
C:

"
Given the strong language around partnership between Intel, Mirantis, and
Google in that press release, and the activity in the review queue (2
pages of outstanding reviews) it seems clear to me that the intent is for
this part of Fuel to participate in the big tent.  The right thing to do
here is for fuel-ccp to submit their repos to TC oversight by adding them
to the official project list.

Fuel requires a mission change, or it may be perceived that Fuel itself
does not adhere to the Four Opens [1] specifically Open Development and
Open Community.
"

[snip]


Michael




--
Rackspace Australia
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Michael Still]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Fox, Kevin M  wrote:

[snip]

The issue is, as I see it, a parallel activity to one of the that is
> currently accepted into the Big Tent, aka Containerized Deployment


[snip]

This seems to be the crux of the matter as best as I can tell. Is it true
to say that the concern is that Kolla believes they "own" the containerized
deployment space inside the Big Tent?

Whether to have competing projects in the big tent was debated by the TC at
the time and my recollection is that we decided that was a good thing -- if
someone wanted to develop a Nova replacement, then let them do it in public
with the community. It would either win or lose based on its merits. Why is
this not something which can happen here as well?

I guess I should also point out that there is at least one other big tent
deployment tool deploying containerized openstack components now, so its
not like this idea is unique or new. Perhaps using kubernetes makes it
different somehow, but I don't see it.

Michael




-- 
Rackspace Australia
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Steven Dake (stdake)]

Jim,

Thinking like Kevin's below are the reason I asked for the two requested
changes.  He isn't the only person to think along these lines.  His
argument is coherent and logical and if you analyze his response he
indicates his perception is the four opens are not being followed by Fuel.

It is the responsibility of every OpenStack community member to protect
the four opens.  The four opens are the founding of OpenStack's
fundamental tenants.  Even if the reality is Fuel is participating in the
OpenStack community using the four opens, people may not perceive it as
such based upon the many reviews linked in this thread.

As can be seen by Kevin's email, perception matters.

Clearly Mirantis is committed to this effort with two pages of Mirantis
reviews outstanding.

What precisely is the harm in acknowledging the _truth_ directly in the
governance repo?

Regards
-steve

On 7/26/16, 4:44 PM, "Fox, Kevin M" <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:

>Hi Jim,
>
>The issue is, as I see it, a parallel activity to one of the that is
>currently accepted into the Big Tent, aka Containerized Deployment:
>Kolla's mission:
>To provide production-ready containers and deployment tools for operating
>OpenStack clouds.
>
>Fuel's mission:
>To streamline and accelerate the process of deploying, testing and
>maintaining various configurations of OpenStack at scale.
>
>To me, this totally lets both projects work together, fuel providing the
>bare metal provisioning/kubernetes provisioning, the k8s orchestration to
>manage pods/deployments/etc, its awesome ui, etc, and using
>kolla-kubernetes/kolla for the container bits/k8s templates. Otherwise
>there's a quite a bit duplication of work. This feels in line with fuel
>trying to reimplement another core openstack project (say, nova)
>
>When fuel-ccp was proposed, it was proposed as more of a proof of concept
>and not a big tent thing: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/331139/
>
>If you look at contributions to each of kolla-kubernetes its a fairly
>diverse set of contributors:
>http://stackalytics.com/?module=kolla-kubernetes
>fuel-ccp doesn't show up in stackalytics but if you check the commit log
>its very heavily dominated by one company. That's not really open
>development.
>
>The kolla-kubernetes project was having discussions about how to work
>with the Fuel team to ensure that their needs were met, when they
>suddenly stopped talking and spawned a new project. This doesn't feel
>like working with the community. Our differences didn't feel unsolvable
>to the point of spawning a new, competing project.
>
>Now its being advertised very openly. This feels like it was snuck in the
>back door, behind the communities back then pushed hard.
>
>OpenStack is already distressingly fractured already. Can we try and work
>together rather then keep making an already pretty bad situation worse?
>Are the technical differences really that far apart to prevent it?
>
>Does that help to clarify the concern?
>
>Thanks,
>Kevin
>
>
>
>
>
>____
>From: Jim Rollenhagen [j...@jimrollenhagen.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 3:28 PM
>To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is
>getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off
>
>On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 09:42:10PM +, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/26/16, 2:13 PM, "Jim Rollenhagen" <j...@jimrollenhagen.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 08:36:01PM +, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>> >> Dims,
>> >>
>> >> The project-config addition was debated by Andreas before this
>> >>partnership
>> >> in this press release was announced and the full intent of the
>>project
>> >>was
>> >> understood.  The argument I see used in the review  is that since
>> >>fuel-ccp
>> >> not part of Newton, it doesn't need to be in the projects.yaml file.
>> >> Given the intent of the project is obvious (to me) from the press
>> >>release
>> >> to join the big tent, my two requests still apply.  At present this
>> >> project may be perceived as "flying under the radar" and further not
>> >> following the four opens as I already stated.
>> >
>> >I'm confused, what specifically is happening that is against the four
>> >opens? What part of the press release implies big tent in the future?
>>
>> My exact words were proceeded by "may be perceived"
>
>Okay, I'm still confused what part of it may be perceived as not
>following the four opens.
>
>>
>> The press r

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Fox, Kevin M]

Hi Jim,

The issue is, as I see it, a parallel activity to one of the that is currently 
accepted into the Big Tent, aka Containerized Deployment:
Kolla's mission:
To provide production-ready containers and deployment tools for operating 
OpenStack clouds.

Fuel's mission:
To streamline and accelerate the process of deploying, testing and maintaining 
various configurations of OpenStack at scale.

To me, this totally lets both projects work together, fuel providing the bare 
metal provisioning/kubernetes provisioning, the k8s orchestration to manage 
pods/deployments/etc, its awesome ui, etc, and using kolla-kubernetes/kolla for 
the container bits/k8s templates. Otherwise there's a quite a bit duplication 
of work. This feels in line with fuel trying to reimplement another core 
openstack project (say, nova)

When fuel-ccp was proposed, it was proposed as more of a proof of concept and 
not a big tent thing: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/331139/

If you look at contributions to each of kolla-kubernetes its a fairly diverse 
set of contributors:
http://stackalytics.com/?module=kolla-kubernetes
fuel-ccp doesn't show up in stackalytics but if you check the commit log its 
very heavily dominated by one company. That's not really open development.

The kolla-kubernetes project was having discussions about how to work with the 
Fuel team to ensure that their needs were met, when they suddenly stopped 
talking and spawned a new project. This doesn't feel like working with the 
community. Our differences didn't feel unsolvable to the point of spawning a 
new, competing project.

Now its being advertised very openly. This feels like it was snuck in the back 
door, behind the communities back then pushed hard.

OpenStack is already distressingly fractured already. Can we try and work 
together rather then keep making an already pretty bad situation worse? Are the 
technical differences really that far apart to prevent it?

Does that help to clarify the concern?

Thanks,
Kevin






From: Jim Rollenhagen [j...@jimrollenhagen.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 3:28 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting 
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 09:42:10PM +, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>
>
> On 7/26/16, 2:13 PM, "Jim Rollenhagen" <j...@jimrollenhagen.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 08:36:01PM +, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> >> Dims,
> >>
> >> The project-config addition was debated by Andreas before this
> >>partnership
> >> in this press release was announced and the full intent of the project
> >>was
> >> understood.  The argument I see used in the review  is that since
> >>fuel-ccp
> >> not part of Newton, it doesn't need to be in the projects.yaml file.
> >> Given the intent of the project is obvious (to me) from the press
> >>release
> >> to join the big tent, my two requests still apply.  At present this
> >> project may be perceived as "flying under the radar" and further not
> >> following the four opens as I already stated.
> >
> >I'm confused, what specifically is happening that is against the four
> >opens? What part of the press release implies big tent in the future?
>
> My exact words were proceeded by "may be perceived"

Okay, I'm still confused what part of it may be perceived as not
following the four opens.

>
> The press release itself implies a big effort with big contributors hence
> big tent.

I guess the big tent means something different to me - that a project is
"one of us" in that they work the same way we do, etc. I don't think
large efforts or large contributor base matter.

>
> >
> >>
> >> The two requests were:
> >>
> >> 1. Please submit the repositories for projects.yaml TC oversight
> >> 2. Please change Fuel's mission statement to match reality of this
> >> announcement
> >
> >Why? The current mission statement is "To streamline and accelerate the
> >process of deploying, testing and maintaining various configurations of
> >OpenStack at scale." I don't see why anything about this announcement
> >doesn't fit into that mission statement.
>
> That mission statement doesn't match intent, which is to produce a
> kubernetes deployment of openstack.  I don't feel "various configurations"
> cuts it.

Well, it's unclear to me if Fuel is pivoting completely to Kubernetes or
adding it as an option. That said, I suspect that many configurations
will still be a thing, just that everything runs on Kubernetes.

>
> But its really up to the Fuel team, not you or I.

In

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Jim Rollenhagen]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 09:42:10PM +, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/26/16, 2:13 PM, "Jim Rollenhagen"  wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 08:36:01PM +, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> >> Dims,
> >> 
> >> The project-config addition was debated by Andreas before this
> >>partnership
> >> in this press release was announced and the full intent of the project
> >>was
> >> understood.  The argument I see used in the review  is that since
> >>fuel-ccp
> >> not part of Newton, it doesn't need to be in the projects.yaml file.
> >> Given the intent of the project is obvious (to me) from the press
> >>release
> >> to join the big tent, my two requests still apply.  At present this
> >> project may be perceived as "flying under the radar" and further not
> >> following the four opens as I already stated.
> >
> >I'm confused, what specifically is happening that is against the four
> >opens? What part of the press release implies big tent in the future?
> 
> My exact words were proceeded by "may be perceived"

Okay, I'm still confused what part of it may be perceived as not
following the four opens.

> 
> The press release itself implies a big effort with big contributors hence
> big tent.

I guess the big tent means something different to me - that a project is
"one of us" in that they work the same way we do, etc. I don't think
large efforts or large contributor base matter.

> 
> >
> >> 
> >> The two requests were:
> >> 
> >> 1. Please submit the repositories for projects.yaml TC oversight
> >> 2. Please change Fuel's mission statement to match reality of this
> >> announcement 
> >
> >Why? The current mission statement is "To streamline and accelerate the
> >process of deploying, testing and maintaining various configurations of
> >OpenStack at scale." I don't see why anything about this announcement
> >doesn't fit into that mission statement.
> 
> That mission statement doesn't match intent, which is to produce a
> kubernetes deployment of openstack.  I don't feel "various configurations"
> cuts it.

Well, it's unclear to me if Fuel is pivoting completely to Kubernetes or
adding it as an option. That said, I suspect that many configurations
will still be a thing, just that everything runs on Kubernetes.

> 
> But its really up to the Fuel team, not you or I.

Indeed, mostly just curious as your email was pretty strongly worded and
I didn't really understand it.

// jim

> 
> Regards
> -steve
> 
> >
> >// jim
> >
> >> 
> >> Regards
> >> -steve
> >> 
> >> On 7/26/16, 1:18 PM, "Davanum Srinivas"  wrote:
> >> 
> >> >Steven,
> >> >
> >> >fyi, This was debated in the project-config review:
> >> >https://review.openstack.org/#/c/335584/
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Thanks,
> >> >Dims
> >> >
> >> >On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Steven Dake (stdake)
> >>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> Dims,
> >> >>
> >> >> Given the strong language around partnership between Intel, Mirantis,
> >> >>and
> >> >> Google in that press release, and the activity in the review queue (2
> >> >> pages of outstanding reviews) it seems clear to me that the intent is
> >> >>for
> >> >> this part of Fuel to participate in the big tent.  The right thing
> >>to do
> >> >> here is for fuel-ccp to submit their repos to TC oversight by adding
> >> >>them
> >> >> to the official project list.
> >> >>
> >> >> Fuel requires a mission change, or it may be perceived that Fuel
> >>itself
> >> >> does not adhere to the Four Opens [1] specifically Open Development
> >>and
> >> >> Open Community.
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards
> >> >> -steve
> >> >>
> >> >> [1] 
> >> 
> https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/reference/opens.rst
> >> >>
> >> >> On 7/26/16, 11:15 AM, "Davanum Srinivas"  wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>And. it's here in OpenStack:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Look for fuel-ccp-* in http://git.openstack.org/cgit/ or the gerrit
> >> >>>search
> >> 
> >https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+branch:master+project:^op
> >en
> >> >>>st
> >> >>>ack/fuel-ccp.*
> >> >>>
> >> >>>-- Dims
> >> >>>
> >> >>>On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Fox, Kevin M 
> >> >>>wrote:
> >>  They are starting their own project.
> >>  
> >>  From: Stephen Hindle [shin...@llnw.com]
> >>  Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 10:35 AM
> >>  To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> >>  Subject: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] Looks like Mirantis is
> >>getting
> >> Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off
> >> 
> >>  So just saw this:
> >> 
> >> 
> >>http://www.computerweekly.com/blog/Open-Source-Insider/OpenStack-on-K
> >>ub
> >> er
> >> netes-Mirantis-fuels-Fuel-with-Google-Intel-heat
> >> 
> >>  Wonder if that means we'll get more devs or maybe some prebuilt
> >>  containers for Kolla?
> >> 
> >> 
> >>  --
> >>  Stephen Hindle - Senior Systems 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Steven Dake (stdake)]

On 7/26/16, 2:13 PM, "Jim Rollenhagen"  wrote:

>On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 08:36:01PM +, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>> Dims,
>> 
>> The project-config addition was debated by Andreas before this
>>partnership
>> in this press release was announced and the full intent of the project
>>was
>> understood.  The argument I see used in the review  is that since
>>fuel-ccp
>> not part of Newton, it doesn't need to be in the projects.yaml file.
>> Given the intent of the project is obvious (to me) from the press
>>release
>> to join the big tent, my two requests still apply.  At present this
>> project may be perceived as "flying under the radar" and further not
>> following the four opens as I already stated.
>
>I'm confused, what specifically is happening that is against the four
>opens? What part of the press release implies big tent in the future?

My exact words were proceeded by "may be perceived"

The press release itself implies a big effort with big contributors hence
big tent.

>
>> 
>> The two requests were:
>> 
>> 1. Please submit the repositories for projects.yaml TC oversight
>> 2. Please change Fuel's mission statement to match reality of this
>> announcement 
>
>Why? The current mission statement is "To streamline and accelerate the
>process of deploying, testing and maintaining various configurations of
>OpenStack at scale." I don't see why anything about this announcement
>doesn't fit into that mission statement.

That mission statement doesn't match intent, which is to produce a
kubernetes deployment of openstack.  I don't feel "various configurations"
cuts it.

But its really up to the Fuel team, not you or I.

Regards
-steve

>
>// jim
>
>> 
>> Regards
>> -steve
>> 
>> On 7/26/16, 1:18 PM, "Davanum Srinivas"  wrote:
>> 
>> >Steven,
>> >
>> >fyi, This was debated in the project-config review:
>> >https://review.openstack.org/#/c/335584/
>> >
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >Dims
>> >
>> >On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Steven Dake (stdake)
>>
>> >wrote:
>> >> Dims,
>> >>
>> >> Given the strong language around partnership between Intel, Mirantis,
>> >>and
>> >> Google in that press release, and the activity in the review queue (2
>> >> pages of outstanding reviews) it seems clear to me that the intent is
>> >>for
>> >> this part of Fuel to participate in the big tent.  The right thing
>>to do
>> >> here is for fuel-ccp to submit their repos to TC oversight by adding
>> >>them
>> >> to the official project list.
>> >>
>> >> Fuel requires a mission change, or it may be perceived that Fuel
>>itself
>> >> does not adhere to the Four Opens [1] specifically Open Development
>>and
>> >> Open Community.
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >> -steve
>> >>
>> >> [1] 
>> 
https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/reference/opens.rst
>> >>
>> >> On 7/26/16, 11:15 AM, "Davanum Srinivas"  wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>And. it's here in OpenStack:
>> >>>
>> >>>Look for fuel-ccp-* in http://git.openstack.org/cgit/ or the gerrit
>> >>>search
>> 
>https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+branch:master+project:^op
>en
>> >>>st
>> >>>ack/fuel-ccp.*
>> >>>
>> >>>-- Dims
>> >>>
>> >>>On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Fox, Kevin M 
>> >>>wrote:
>>  They are starting their own project.
>>  
>>  From: Stephen Hindle [shin...@llnw.com]
>>  Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 10:35 AM
>>  To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>  Subject: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] Looks like Mirantis is
>>getting
>> Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off
>> 
>>  So just saw this:
>> 
>> 
>>http://www.computerweekly.com/blog/Open-Source-Insider/OpenStack-on-K
>>ub
>> er
>> netes-Mirantis-fuels-Fuel-with-Google-Intel-heat
>> 
>>  Wonder if that means we'll get more devs or maybe some prebuilt
>>  containers for Kolla?
>> 
>> 
>>  --
>>  Stephen Hindle - Senior Systems Engineer
>>  480.807.8189 480.807.8189
>>  www.limelight.com Delivering Faster Better
>> 
>>  Join the conversation
>> 
>>  at Limelight Connect
>> 
>>  --
>>  The information in this message may be confidential.  It is
>>intended
>> solely
>>  for
>>  the addressee(s).  If you are not the intended recipient, any
>> disclosure,
>>  copying or distribution of the message, or any action or omission
>> taken
>> by
>>  you
>>  in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.  Please
>> immediately
>>  contact the sender if you have received this message in error.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>_
>>__
>> __
>> _
>>  OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>  Unsubscribe:
>> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>  

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Fox, Kevin M]

+1

From: Steven Dake (stdake) [std...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 12:47 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting 
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

Dims,

Given the strong language around partnership between Intel, Mirantis, and
Google in that press release, and the activity in the review queue (2
pages of outstanding reviews) it seems clear to me that the intent is for
this part of Fuel to participate in the big tent.  The right thing to do
here is for fuel-ccp to submit their repos to TC oversight by adding them
to the official project list.

Fuel requires a mission change, or it may be perceived that Fuel itself
does not adhere to the Four Opens [1] specifically Open Development and
Open Community.

Regards
-steve

[1] https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/reference/opens.rst

On 7/26/16, 11:15 AM, "Davanum Srinivas" <dava...@gmail.com> wrote:

>And. it's here in OpenStack:
>
>Look for fuel-ccp-* in http://git.openstack.org/cgit/ or the gerrit search
>https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+branch:master+project:^openst
>ack/fuel-ccp.*
>
>-- Dims
>
>On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:
>> They are starting their own project.
>> 
>> From: Stephen Hindle [shin...@llnw.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 10:35 AM
>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Subject: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] Looks like Mirantis is getting
>>Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off
>>
>> So just saw this:
>>
>>http://www.computerweekly.com/blog/Open-Source-Insider/OpenStack-on-Kuber
>>netes-Mirantis-fuels-Fuel-with-Google-Intel-heat
>>
>> Wonder if that means we'll get more devs or maybe some prebuilt
>> containers for Kolla?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stephen Hindle - Senior Systems Engineer
>> 480.807.8189 480.807.8189
>> www.limelight.com Delivering Faster Better
>>
>> Join the conversation
>>
>> at Limelight Connect
>>
>> --
>> The information in this message may be confidential.  It is intended
>>solely
>> for
>> the addressee(s).  If you are not the intended recipient, any
>>disclosure,
>> copying or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken
>>by
>> you
>> in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.  Please
>>immediately
>> contact the sender if you have received this message in error.
>>
>>
>>
>>_
>>_
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe:
>>openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>>_
>>_
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe:
>>openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
>--
>Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims
>
>__
>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Jim Rollenhagen]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 08:36:01PM +, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> Dims,
> 
> The project-config addition was debated by Andreas before this partnership
> in this press release was announced and the full intent of the project was
> understood.  The argument I see used in the review  is that since fuel-ccp
> not part of Newton, it doesn't need to be in the projects.yaml file.
> Given the intent of the project is obvious (to me) from the press release
> to join the big tent, my two requests still apply.  At present this
> project may be perceived as "flying under the radar" and further not
> following the four opens as I already stated.

I'm confused, what specifically is happening that is against the four
opens? What part of the press release implies big tent in the future?

> 
> The two requests were:
> 
> 1. Please submit the repositories for projects.yaml TC oversight
> 2. Please change Fuel's mission statement to match reality of this
> announcement 

Why? The current mission statement is "To streamline and accelerate the
process of deploying, testing and maintaining various configurations of
OpenStack at scale." I don't see why anything about this announcement
doesn't fit into that mission statement.

// jim

> 
> Regards
> -steve
> 
> On 7/26/16, 1:18 PM, "Davanum Srinivas"  wrote:
> 
> >Steven,
> >
> >fyi, This was debated in the project-config review:
> >https://review.openstack.org/#/c/335584/
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Dims
> >
> >On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) 
> >wrote:
> >> Dims,
> >>
> >> Given the strong language around partnership between Intel, Mirantis,
> >>and
> >> Google in that press release, and the activity in the review queue (2
> >> pages of outstanding reviews) it seems clear to me that the intent is
> >>for
> >> this part of Fuel to participate in the big tent.  The right thing to do
> >> here is for fuel-ccp to submit their repos to TC oversight by adding
> >>them
> >> to the official project list.
> >>
> >> Fuel requires a mission change, or it may be perceived that Fuel itself
> >> does not adhere to the Four Opens [1] specifically Open Development and
> >> Open Community.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> -steve
> >>
> >> [1] 
> >>https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/reference/opens.rst
> >>
> >> On 7/26/16, 11:15 AM, "Davanum Srinivas"  wrote:
> >>
> >>>And. it's here in OpenStack:
> >>>
> >>>Look for fuel-ccp-* in http://git.openstack.org/cgit/ or the gerrit
> >>>search
> >>>https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+branch:master+project:^open
> >>>st
> >>>ack/fuel-ccp.*
> >>>
> >>>-- Dims
> >>>
> >>>On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Fox, Kevin M 
> >>>wrote:
>  They are starting their own project.
>  
>  From: Stephen Hindle [shin...@llnw.com]
>  Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 10:35 AM
>  To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>  Subject: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] Looks like Mirantis is getting
> Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off
> 
>  So just saw this:
> 
> http://www.computerweekly.com/blog/Open-Source-Insider/OpenStack-on-Kub
> er
> netes-Mirantis-fuels-Fuel-with-Google-Intel-heat
> 
>  Wonder if that means we'll get more devs or maybe some prebuilt
>  containers for Kolla?
> 
> 
>  --
>  Stephen Hindle - Senior Systems Engineer
>  480.807.8189 480.807.8189
>  www.limelight.com Delivering Faster Better
> 
>  Join the conversation
> 
>  at Limelight Connect
> 
>  --
>  The information in this message may be confidential.  It is intended
> solely
>  for
>  the addressee(s).  If you are not the intended recipient, any
> disclosure,
>  copying or distribution of the message, or any action or omission
> taken
> by
>  you
>  in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.  Please
> immediately
>  contact the sender if you have received this message in error.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> __
> _
>  OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>  Unsubscribe:
> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>  http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
> 
> ___
> __
> _
>  OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>  Unsubscribe:
> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>  http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>__
> >>>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for 

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Steven Dake (stdake)]

Dims,

The project-config addition was debated by Andreas before this partnership
in this press release was announced and the full intent of the project was
understood.  The argument I see used in the review  is that since fuel-ccp
not part of Newton, it doesn't need to be in the projects.yaml file.
Given the intent of the project is obvious (to me) from the press release
to join the big tent, my two requests still apply.  At present this
project may be perceived as "flying under the radar" and further not
following the four opens as I already stated.

The two requests were:

1. Please submit the repositories for projects.yaml TC oversight
2. Please change Fuel's mission statement to match reality of this
announcement 

Regards
-steve

On 7/26/16, 1:18 PM, "Davanum Srinivas"  wrote:

>Steven,
>
>fyi, This was debated in the project-config review:
>https://review.openstack.org/#/c/335584/
>
>
>Thanks,
>Dims
>
>On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) 
>wrote:
>> Dims,
>>
>> Given the strong language around partnership between Intel, Mirantis,
>>and
>> Google in that press release, and the activity in the review queue (2
>> pages of outstanding reviews) it seems clear to me that the intent is
>>for
>> this part of Fuel to participate in the big tent.  The right thing to do
>> here is for fuel-ccp to submit their repos to TC oversight by adding
>>them
>> to the official project list.
>>
>> Fuel requires a mission change, or it may be perceived that Fuel itself
>> does not adhere to the Four Opens [1] specifically Open Development and
>> Open Community.
>>
>> Regards
>> -steve
>>
>> [1] 
>>https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/reference/opens.rst
>>
>> On 7/26/16, 11:15 AM, "Davanum Srinivas"  wrote:
>>
>>>And. it's here in OpenStack:
>>>
>>>Look for fuel-ccp-* in http://git.openstack.org/cgit/ or the gerrit
>>>search
>>>https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+branch:master+project:^open
>>>st
>>>ack/fuel-ccp.*
>>>
>>>-- Dims
>>>
>>>On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Fox, Kevin M 
>>>wrote:
 They are starting their own project.
 
 From: Stephen Hindle [shin...@llnw.com]
 Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 10:35 AM
 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
 Subject: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] Looks like Mirantis is getting
Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

 So just saw this:

http://www.computerweekly.com/blog/Open-Source-Insider/OpenStack-on-Kub
er
netes-Mirantis-fuels-Fuel-with-Google-Intel-heat

 Wonder if that means we'll get more devs or maybe some prebuilt
 containers for Kolla?


 --
 Stephen Hindle - Senior Systems Engineer
 480.807.8189 480.807.8189
 www.limelight.com Delivering Faster Better

 Join the conversation

 at Limelight Connect

 --
 The information in this message may be confidential.  It is intended
solely
 for
 the addressee(s).  If you are not the intended recipient, any
disclosure,
 copying or distribution of the message, or any action or omission
taken
by
 you
 in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.  Please
immediately
 contact the sender if you have received this message in error.



___
__
_
 OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
 Unsubscribe:
openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


___
__
_
 OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
 Unsubscribe:
openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims
>>>
>>>
>>>__
>>>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>>Unsubscribe: 
>>>openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>> 
>>_
>>_
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: 
>>openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
>-- 
>Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims
>
>__
>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Davanum Srinivas]

Steven,

fyi, This was debated in the project-config review:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/335584/


Thanks,
Dims

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Steven Dake (stdake)  wrote:
> Dims,
>
> Given the strong language around partnership between Intel, Mirantis, and
> Google in that press release, and the activity in the review queue (2
> pages of outstanding reviews) it seems clear to me that the intent is for
> this part of Fuel to participate in the big tent.  The right thing to do
> here is for fuel-ccp to submit their repos to TC oversight by adding them
> to the official project list.
>
> Fuel requires a mission change, or it may be perceived that Fuel itself
> does not adhere to the Four Opens [1] specifically Open Development and
> Open Community.
>
> Regards
> -steve
>
> [1] https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/reference/opens.rst
>
> On 7/26/16, 11:15 AM, "Davanum Srinivas"  wrote:
>
>>And. it's here in OpenStack:
>>
>>Look for fuel-ccp-* in http://git.openstack.org/cgit/ or the gerrit search
>>https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+branch:master+project:^openst
>>ack/fuel-ccp.*
>>
>>-- Dims
>>
>>On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Fox, Kevin M  wrote:
>>> They are starting their own project.
>>> 
>>> From: Stephen Hindle [shin...@llnw.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 10:35 AM
>>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> Subject: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] Looks like Mirantis is getting
>>>Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off
>>>
>>> So just saw this:
>>>
>>>http://www.computerweekly.com/blog/Open-Source-Insider/OpenStack-on-Kuber
>>>netes-Mirantis-fuels-Fuel-with-Google-Intel-heat
>>>
>>> Wonder if that means we'll get more devs or maybe some prebuilt
>>> containers for Kolla?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Stephen Hindle - Senior Systems Engineer
>>> 480.807.8189 480.807.8189
>>> www.limelight.com Delivering Faster Better
>>>
>>> Join the conversation
>>>
>>> at Limelight Connect
>>>
>>> --
>>> The information in this message may be confidential.  It is intended
>>>solely
>>> for
>>> the addressee(s).  If you are not the intended recipient, any
>>>disclosure,
>>> copying or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken
>>>by
>>> you
>>> in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.  Please
>>>immediately
>>> contact the sender if you have received this message in error.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_
>>>_
>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>_
>>>_
>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims
>>
>>__
>>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



-- 
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

[Steven Dake (stdake)]

Dims,

Given the strong language around partnership between Intel, Mirantis, and
Google in that press release, and the activity in the review queue (2
pages of outstanding reviews) it seems clear to me that the intent is for
this part of Fuel to participate in the big tent.  The right thing to do
here is for fuel-ccp to submit their repos to TC oversight by adding them
to the official project list.

Fuel requires a mission change, or it may be perceived that Fuel itself
does not adhere to the Four Opens [1] specifically Open Development and
Open Community.

Regards
-steve

[1] https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/reference/opens.rst

On 7/26/16, 11:15 AM, "Davanum Srinivas"  wrote:

>And. it's here in OpenStack:
>
>Look for fuel-ccp-* in http://git.openstack.org/cgit/ or the gerrit search
>https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+branch:master+project:^openst
>ack/fuel-ccp.*
>
>-- Dims
>
>On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Fox, Kevin M  wrote:
>> They are starting their own project.
>> 
>> From: Stephen Hindle [shin...@llnw.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 10:35 AM
>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Subject: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] Looks like Mirantis is getting
>>Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off
>>
>> So just saw this:
>>   
>>http://www.computerweekly.com/blog/Open-Source-Insider/OpenStack-on-Kuber
>>netes-Mirantis-fuels-Fuel-with-Google-Intel-heat
>>
>> Wonder if that means we'll get more devs or maybe some prebuilt
>> containers for Kolla?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stephen Hindle - Senior Systems Engineer
>> 480.807.8189 480.807.8189
>> www.limelight.com Delivering Faster Better
>>
>> Join the conversation
>>
>> at Limelight Connect
>>
>> --
>> The information in this message may be confidential.  It is intended
>>solely
>> for
>> the addressee(s).  If you are not the intended recipient, any
>>disclosure,
>> copying or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken
>>by
>> you
>> in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.  Please
>>immediately
>> contact the sender if you have received this message in error.
>>
>>
>> 
>>_
>>_
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: 
>>openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>> 
>>_
>>_
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: 
>>openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
>-- 
>Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims
>
>__
>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev