Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-20
Thierry Carrez [mailto:thie...@openstack.org] > > Graham Hayes wrote: > > Any additional background on why we allowed LCOO to operate like this > > would help a lot. > The group was started back when OPNFV was first getting involved with OpenStack. Many of the members came from that community. They had a "vision" that the members would have to commit to provide developers to address the feature gaps the group was concerned with. There was some interaction between them and the Product WG, and I at least attempted to get them to meet and talk with the Large Deployment Team(?) (an ops group that met at the Ops midcycles and discussed their issues, workarounds, gaps, etc.) Are they still active? Is anyone aware of any docs/code/bugfixes/features that came out of the group? --Rocky > We can't prevent any group of organizations to work in any way they prefer - > - we can, however, deny them the right to be called an OpenStack > workgroup if they fail at openly collaborating. We can raise the topic, but in > the end it is a User Committee decision though, since the LCOO is a User > Committee-blessed working group. > > Source: https://governance.openstack.org/uc/ > > -- > 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] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-20
Graham Hayes wrote: Any additional background on why we allowed LCOO to operate like this would help a lot. We can't prevent any group of organizations to work in any way they prefer -- we can, however, deny them the right to be called an OpenStack workgroup if they fail at openly collaborating. We can raise the topic, but in the end it is a User Committee decision though, since the LCOO is a User Committee-blessed working group. Source: https://governance.openstack.org/uc/ -- 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] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-20
fyi Jay tried to once - http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-February/thread.html#111511 On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Graham Hayes <g...@ham.ie> wrote: > On 15/05/18 17:33, Tim Bell wrote: >> From my memory, the LCOO was started in 2015 or 2016. The UC was started at >> the end of 2012, start of 2013 (https://www.openstack.org/blog/?p=3777) with >> Ryan, JC and I. >> >> Tim > > Yeap - I miss read what mrhillsman said [0]. > > The point still stands - I think this does need to be discussed, and the > outcome published to the list. > > Any additional background on why we allowed LCOO to operate like this > would help a lot. > > - Graham > > 0 - > http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-04-26.log.html#t2018-04-26T15:03:54 > >> -Original Message- >> From: Graham Hayes <g...@ham.ie> >> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" >> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >> Date: Tuesday, 15 May 2018 at 18:22 >> To: "openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-20 >> >> .. >> >> > # LCOO >> > >> > There's been some concern expressed about the The Large Contributing >> > OpenStack Operators (LCOO) group and the way they operate. They use >> > an [Atlassian Wiki](https://openstack-lcoo.atlassian.net/) and >> > Slack, and have restricted membership. These things tend to not >> > align with the norms for tool usage and collaboration in OpenStack. >> > This topic came up in [late >> > >> April](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-04-26.log.html#t2018-04-26T14:39:36) >> > >> > but is worth revisiting in Vancouver. >> >> From what I understand, this group came into being before the UC was >> created - a joint UC/TC/LCOO sync up in Vancouver is probably a good >> idea. >> >> >> >> >> __ >> 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] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-20
fyi Jay tried to once - http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-February/thread.html#111511 On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Graham Hayes <g...@ham.ie> wrote: > On 15/05/18 17:33, Tim Bell wrote: >> From my memory, the LCOO was started in 2015 or 2016. The UC was started at >> the end of 2012, start of 2013 (https://www.openstack.org/blog/?p=3777) with >> Ryan, JC and I. >> >> Tim > > Yeap - I miss read what mrhillsman said [0]. > > The point still stands - I think this does need to be discussed, and the > outcome published to the list. > > Any additional background on why we allowed LCOO to operate like this > would help a lot. > > - Graham > > 0 - > http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-04-26.log.html#t2018-04-26T15:03:54 > >> -Original Message- >> From: Graham Hayes <g...@ham.ie> >> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" >> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >> Date: Tuesday, 15 May 2018 at 18:22 >> To: "openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-20 >> >> .. >> >> > # LCOO >> > >> > There's been some concern expressed about the The Large Contributing >> > OpenStack Operators (LCOO) group and the way they operate. They use >> > an [Atlassian Wiki](https://openstack-lcoo.atlassian.net/) and >> > Slack, and have restricted membership. These things tend to not >> > align with the norms for tool usage and collaboration in OpenStack. >> > This topic came up in [late >> > >> April](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-04-26.log.html#t2018-04-26T14:39:36) >> > >> > but is worth revisiting in Vancouver. >> >> From what I understand, this group came into being before the UC was >> created - a joint UC/TC/LCOO sync up in Vancouver is probably a good >> idea. >> >> >> >> >> __ >> 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] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-20
On 15/05/18 17:33, Tim Bell wrote: > From my memory, the LCOO was started in 2015 or 2016. The UC was started at > the end of 2012, start of 2013 (https://www.openstack.org/blog/?p=3777) with > Ryan, JC and I. > > Tim Yeap - I miss read what mrhillsman said [0]. The point still stands - I think this does need to be discussed, and the outcome published to the list. Any additional background on why we allowed LCOO to operate like this would help a lot. - Graham 0 - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-04-26.log.html#t2018-04-26T15:03:54 > -Original Message- > From: Graham Hayes <g...@ham.ie> > Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Date: Tuesday, 15 May 2018 at 18:22 > To: "openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-20 > > .. > > > # LCOO > > > > There's been some concern expressed about the The Large Contributing > > OpenStack Operators (LCOO) group and the way they operate. They use > > an [Atlassian Wiki](https://openstack-lcoo.atlassian.net/) and > > Slack, and have restricted membership. These things tend to not > > align with the norms for tool usage and collaboration in OpenStack. > > This topic came up in [late > > > April](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-04-26.log.html#t2018-04-26T14:39:36) > > > > but is worth revisiting in Vancouver. > > From what I understand, this group came into being before the UC was > created - a joint UC/TC/LCOO sync up in Vancouver is probably a good > idea. > > > > > __ > 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 > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital 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] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-20
From my memory, the LCOO was started in 2015 or 2016. The UC was started at the end of 2012, start of 2013 (https://www.openstack.org/blog/?p=3777) with Ryan, JC and I. Tim -Original Message- From: Graham Hayes <g...@ham.ie> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Date: Tuesday, 15 May 2018 at 18:22 To: "openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-20 .. > # LCOO > > There's been some concern expressed about the The Large Contributing > OpenStack Operators (LCOO) group and the way they operate. They use > an [Atlassian Wiki](https://openstack-lcoo.atlassian.net/) and > Slack, and have restricted membership. These things tend to not > align with the norms for tool usage and collaboration in OpenStack. > This topic came up in [late > April](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-04-26.log.html#t2018-04-26T14:39:36) > > but is worth revisiting in Vancouver. From what I understand, this group came into being before the UC was created - a joint UC/TC/LCOO sync up in Vancouver is probably a good idea. __ 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] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-20
On 15/05/18 16:31, Chris Dent wrote: > > HTML: https://anticdent.org/tc-report-18-20.html > > Trying to write a TC report after a gap of 3 weeks is hard enough, > but when that gap involves some time off, the TC elections, and the > run up to summit (next week in > [Vancouver](https://www.openstack.org/summit/vancouver-2018/)) then > it gets bewildering. Rather than trying to give anything like a full > summary, I'll go for some highlights. > > Be aware that since next week is summit and I'll be travelling the > week after, there will be another gap in reports. > > # Elections > > The elections were for seven positions. Of those, three are new to > the TC: Graham Hayes, Mohammed Naser, Zane Bitter. Having new people > is _great_. There's a growing sense that the TC needs to take a more > active role in helping adapt the culture of OpenStack to its > changing place in the world (see some of the comments below). Having > new people helps with that greatly. > > Doug Hellman has become the chair of the TC, taking the seat long > held by Thierry. This is the first time (that I'm aware of) that a > non-Foundation-staff individual has been the chair. > > One of the most interesting parts of the election process were the > email threads started by Doug. There's hope that existing TC > members that were not elected in this cycle, those that have > departed, and anyone else will provide their answers to them too. An > [email > reminder](http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-May/130382.html) > > exists. > > # Summit > > Is next week, in Vancouver. The TC has several > [Forum](https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Forum/Vancouver2018) > sessions planned including: > > * [S release > goals](https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-S-release-goals) > * [Project boundaries and what is > > OpenStack](https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-forum-TC-project-boundaries) > > * [TC > Retrospective](https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-tc-retrospective) > * [Cross Community > > Governance](https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-cross-osf-tech-governance) > > # Corporate Foundation Contributions > > There's ongoing discussion about how [to > measure](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-04-24.log.html#t2018-04-24T15:43:59) > > upstream contribution from corporate Foundation members and what to > do if contribution seems lacking. Part of the reason this came up > was because the mode of contribution from new platinum member, > Tencent, is not clear. For a platinum member, it should be > _obvious_. This is a very important point. By adding a company (especially at this level) we grant them a certain amount of our credibility. We need to be sure that this is earned by the new member. > # LCOO > > There's been some concern expressed about the The Large Contributing > OpenStack Operators (LCOO) group and the way they operate. They use > an [Atlassian Wiki](https://openstack-lcoo.atlassian.net/) and > Slack, and have restricted membership. These things tend to not > align with the norms for tool usage and collaboration in OpenStack. > This topic came up in [late > April](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-04-26.log.html#t2018-04-26T14:39:36) > > but is worth revisiting in Vancouver. From what I understand, this group came into being before the UC was created - a joint UC/TC/LCOO sync up in Vancouver is probably a good idea. > # Constellations > > One of the things that came out in election campaigning is that > OpenStack needs to be more clear about the many ways that OpenStack > can be used, in part as a way of being more clear about what > OpenStack _is_. Constellations are one way to do this and work has > begun on one for [Scientific > Computing](https://review.openstack.org/#/c/565466/). There's some > discussion there on what a constellation is supposed to accomplish. > If you have an opinion, you should comment. > > # Board Meeting > > The day before summit there is a "combined leadership" meeting with > the Foundation Board, the User Committee and the Technical > Committee. Doug has posted a [review of the > agenda](http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-May/130336.html). > > These meetings are open to any Foundation members and often involve > a lot of insight into the future of OpenStack. And snacks. > > # Feedback, Leadership and Dictatorship of the Projects > > Zane started [an email > thread](http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-May/130375.html) > > about ways to replace or augment the once large and positive > feedback loop that was present in earlier days of OpenStack. That > now has the potential to trap us into what he describes as a "local > maximum". The thread eventually evolved into concerns that the > individual sub-projects in OpenStack can sometimes have too much > power and identity compared to the overarching project, leading to > isolation and difficulty
[openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-20
HTML: https://anticdent.org/tc-report-18-20.html Trying to write a TC report after a gap of 3 weeks is hard enough, but when that gap involves some time off, the TC elections, and the run up to summit (next week in [Vancouver](https://www.openstack.org/summit/vancouver-2018/)) then it gets bewildering. Rather than trying to give anything like a full summary, I'll go for some highlights. Be aware that since next week is summit and I'll be travelling the week after, there will be another gap in reports. # Elections The elections were for seven positions. Of those, three are new to the TC: Graham Hayes, Mohammed Naser, Zane Bitter. Having new people is _great_. There's a growing sense that the TC needs to take a more active role in helping adapt the culture of OpenStack to its changing place in the world (see some of the comments below). Having new people helps with that greatly. Doug Hellman has become the chair of the TC, taking the seat long held by Thierry. This is the first time (that I'm aware of) that a non-Foundation-staff individual has been the chair. One of the most interesting parts of the election process were the email threads started by Doug. There's hope that existing TC members that were not elected in this cycle, those that have departed, and anyone else will provide their answers to them too. An [email reminder](http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-May/130382.html) exists. # Summit Is next week, in Vancouver. The TC has several [Forum](https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Forum/Vancouver2018) sessions planned including: * [S release goals](https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-S-release-goals) * [Project boundaries and what is OpenStack](https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-forum-TC-project-boundaries) * [TC Retrospective](https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-tc-retrospective) * [Cross Community Governance](https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-cross-osf-tech-governance) # Corporate Foundation Contributions There's ongoing discussion about how [to measure](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-04-24.log.html#t2018-04-24T15:43:59) upstream contribution from corporate Foundation members and what to do if contribution seems lacking. Part of the reason this came up was because the mode of contribution from new platinum member, Tencent, is not clear. For a platinum member, it should be _obvious_. # LCOO There's been some concern expressed about the The Large Contributing OpenStack Operators (LCOO) group and the way they operate. They use an [Atlassian Wiki](https://openstack-lcoo.atlassian.net/) and Slack, and have restricted membership. These things tend to not align with the norms for tool usage and collaboration in OpenStack. This topic came up in [late April](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-04-26.log.html#t2018-04-26T14:39:36) but is worth revisiting in Vancouver. # Constellations One of the things that came out in election campaigning is that OpenStack needs to be more clear about the many ways that OpenStack can be used, in part as a way of being more clear about what OpenStack _is_. Constellations are one way to do this and work has begun on one for [Scientific Computing](https://review.openstack.org/#/c/565466/). There's some discussion there on what a constellation is supposed to accomplish. If you have an opinion, you should comment. # Board Meeting The day before summit there is a "combined leadership" meeting with the Foundation Board, the User Committee and the Technical Committee. Doug has posted a [review of the agenda](http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-May/130336.html). These meetings are open to any Foundation members and often involve a lot of insight into the future of OpenStack. And snacks. # Feedback, Leadership and Dictatorship of the Projects Zane started [an email thread](http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-May/130375.html) about ways to replace or augment the once large and positive feedback loop that was present in earlier days of OpenStack. That now has the potential to trap us into what he describes as a "local maximum". The thread eventually evolved into concerns that the individual sub-projects in OpenStack can sometimes have too much power and identity compared to the overarching project, leading to isolation and difficulty getting overarching things done. There was a bit of discussion about this [in IRC](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-05-11.log.html#t2018-05-11T19:13:02) but the important parts are in the several messages in the thread. Some people think that the community goals help to fill some of this void. Others thinks this is not quite enough and perhaps project teams as a point of emphasis is ["no longer optimal"](http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-May/130436.html). But in all this talk of change, how do we do the work if we're
