Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 48

[gordon chung]

On 2017-11-29 12:34 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
> Sufficent answer?

speaking for myself, yes.

-- 
gord
__
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 48

[gordon chung]

On 2017-11-29 12:31 PM, Anne Bertucio wrote:
> Rereading your question, Gord, the tl;dr of my message is that current 
> roadmap is not intended to dictate work or what future features should 
> be—just captures and communicates work already in motion.

ah, i see. i was mainly curious to see how different the roadmap was vs 
reality. thanks for the explanation and link to resources.

cheers,

-- 
gord
__
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 48

[Chris Dent]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2017, gordon chung wrote:

On 2017-11-28 11:36 AM, Chris Dent wrote:

* A somewhat bizarre presentation suggesting the Board and the TC
   manage the OpenStack roadmap. There wasn't time to actually discuss
   this as previous topics ran _way_ over, but at a superficial glance
   it appeared to involve a complete misunderstanding of not just how
   open source works in OpenStack, but how open source works in
   general.


was this topic to discuss how to implement an existing roadmap or how
the board/tc should build a roadmap or something else completely? if the
first, is there a link to this 'roadmap'?


As usual your trenchant insights are welcome and put the lie to your
claims of disaffection and disability.

The "roadmap, what/which roadmap?" was part of what made things
"bizarre". As we didn't actually get deeply into the presentation,
the slides or the discussion it's hard to be sure so what follows is
entirely speculation, I really have no idea.

However, if I were to guess, the roadmap in this case is a sort of
notional or platonic roadmap standing in for the idea of "wouldn't
it be great if there were a unified direction for OpenStack?" With
that in place you can then come around to the idea of "wouldn't
it be great if that direction was somehow effectively managed?"

When you put it like that it doesn't sound half bad, but when
sourced from a place that often smells of "OpenStack is not
addressing the needs of telcos and NFV fast enough" it gets a taint
on it.

Sufficent answer?

--
Chris Dent  (⊙＿⊙') https://anticdent.org/
freenode: cdent tw: @anticdent__
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 48

[Anne Bertucio]

Rereading your question, Gord, the tl;dr of my message is that current roadmap 
is not intended to dictate work or what future features should be—just captures 
and communicates work already in motion. 


Anne Bertucio
Marketing and Certification, OpenStack Foundation
a...@openstack.org | 206-992-7961




> On Nov 29, 2017, at 9:27 AM, Anne Bertucio  wrote:
> 
> The community does have an existing Roadmap, albeit this cycle we decided we 
> need to change how we design the Roadmap and its final form. We have a small 
> community Roadmap team (anyone want to join?!) who compiles this information. 
>  
> 
> In the past, the Roadmap aimed to be a document for both project teams, end 
> users, and anyone in between. It tried to capture what was coming in the next 
> release as well as predict up to 3 releases forward. We decided this was 
> biting off far too much—trying to be all things to all people. 
> 
> What we’re trying to do now is be a user-focused document that communicates 
> critical changes and exciting features coming in the next release. We want to 
> help people who are evaluating OpenStack see future features, and help people 
> who are less privy to the day-to-day dev channels be aware of features that 
> may affect them. 
> 
> The Roadmap that was presented in Sydney lives here: 
> https://www.openstack.org/software/roadmap 
> 
> 
>  
> Anne Bertucio
> OpenStack Foundation
> a...@openstack.org  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 9:10 AM, gordon chung > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2017-11-28 11:36 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
>>> * A somewhat bizarre presentation suggesting the Board and the TC
>>>   manage the OpenStack roadmap. There wasn't time to actually discuss
>>>   this as previous topics ran _way_ over, but at a superficial glance
>>>   it appeared to involve a complete misunderstanding of not just how
>>>   open source works in OpenStack, but how open source works in
>>>   general.
>> 
>> was this topic to discuss how to implement an existing roadmap or how 
>> the board/tc should build a roadmap or something else completely? if the 
>> first, is there a link to this 'roadmap'?
>> 
>> cheers,
>> 
>> -- 
>> gord
>> __
>> 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] [tc] [all] TC Report 48

[Anne Bertucio]

The community does have an existing Roadmap, albeit this cycle we decided we 
need to change how we design the Roadmap and its final form. We have a small 
community Roadmap team (anyone want to join?!) who compiles this information.  

In the past, the Roadmap aimed to be a document for both project teams, end 
users, and anyone in between. It tried to capture what was coming in the next 
release as well as predict up to 3 releases forward. We decided this was biting 
off far too much—trying to be all things to all people. 

What we’re trying to do now is be a user-focused document that communicates 
critical changes and exciting features coming in the next release. We want to 
help people who are evaluating OpenStack see future features, and help people 
who are less privy to the day-to-day dev channels be aware of features that may 
affect them. 

The Roadmap that was presented in Sydney lives here: 
https://www.openstack.org/software/roadmap 


 
Anne Bertucio
OpenStack Foundation
a...@openstack.org 




> On Nov 29, 2017, at 9:10 AM, gordon chung  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2017-11-28 11:36 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
>> * A somewhat bizarre presentation suggesting the Board and the TC
>>   manage the OpenStack roadmap. There wasn't time to actually discuss
>>   this as previous topics ran _way_ over, but at a superficial glance
>>   it appeared to involve a complete misunderstanding of not just how
>>   open source works in OpenStack, but how open source works in
>>   general.
> 
> was this topic to discuss how to implement an existing roadmap or how 
> the board/tc should build a roadmap or something else completely? if the 
> first, is there a link to this 'roadmap'?
> 
> cheers,
> 
> -- 
> gord
> __
> 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] [tc] [all] TC Report 48

[gordon chung]

On 2017-11-28 11:36 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
> * A somewhat bizarre presentation suggesting the Board and the TC
>    manage the OpenStack roadmap. There wasn't time to actually discuss
>    this as previous topics ran _way_ over, but at a superficial glance
>    it appeared to involve a complete misunderstanding of not just how
>    open source works in OpenStack, but how open source works in
>    general.

was this topic to discuss how to implement an existing roadmap or how 
the board/tc should build a roadmap or something else completely? if the 
first, is there a link to this 'roadmap'?

cheers,

-- 
gord
__
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-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 48

[Chris Dent]

https://anticdent.org/tc-report-48.html>

Due to the recent Summit in Sydney, related travel, and Thanksgiving,
it has been a while since I put a TC Report together. It is hard to
get back in the groove. Much of the recent discussion has either been
reflecting on Summit-initiated discussions or trying to integrate
results from those discussions into plans for the future.

#  Summit Reflections

A lot of my TC-related summit thinking is in a series of blog posts I
made last week. This isn't the "Chris promotes his blog report" but I
do think that these represent some important OpenStack issues, related
to stuff the TC talks about often, so here they are:

* [OpenStack Developer
  Satisfaction](https://anticdent.org/openstack-developer-satisfaction.html)
* [OpenStack Casual
  Contribution](https://anticdent.org/openstack-casual-contribution.html)
* [OpenStack Forum
  View](https://anticdent.org/openstack-forum-view.html)

Some other summit summaries that might be of interest:

* [Sydney OpenStack
  Summit](http://graham.hayes.ie/posts/sydney-openstack-summit/)
* [Sydney Summit Recap](https://blog.leafe.com/sydney-summit-recap/)
* [OpenStack Summit Sydney
  Recap](http://www.gazlene.net/sydney-summit.html)

Graham mentions a few things of interest from the joint leadership
meeting that happened the Sunday before summit:

* The potential expansion of the Foundation to include other projects,
  separate from OpenStack and with separate governance, to address the
  complexities of integrating all the pieces that get involved in
  doing stuff with clouds. OpenStack itself continues with its focus
  on the base infrastructure. There's a [press
  
release](https://www.openstack.org/news/view/359/openstack-summit-sydney-spotlights-open-infrastructure-integration)
  with a bit more information, and it was talked about during the
  
[keynote](https://www.openstack.org/videos/sydney-2017/tackling-the-biggest-challenge-in-open-source-integration).

* A somewhat bizarre presentation suggesting the Board and the TC
  manage the OpenStack roadmap. There wasn't time to actually discuss
  this as previous topics ran _way_ over, but at a superficial glance
  it appeared to involve a complete misunderstanding of not just how
  open source works in OpenStack, but how open source works in
  general.

# A Tech/Dev/? Blog

Throughout the past week there's been a lot of discussion of how to
address the desire for a blog that's been variously described as a "dev
blog" (news of what's going on with OpenStack development) or a "tech
blog" (a kind of "humble brag" about any cool (dev-related) stuff going
on, to remind people that OpenStack does interesting things).

On
[Thursday](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2017-11-23.log.html#t2017-11-23T15:01:54)
there was talk about technology to use, differences of opinion on
what content should be present, and the extent to which curation should
be involved. If none, why not just carry on with
[planet](http://planet.openstack.org/)?

There was more on
[Monday](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2017-11-27.log.html#t2017-11-27T14:41:02)
and then [an email
thread](http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-November/124902.html).

The eventual outcome is that the existing but rarely used [OpenStack
Blog](https://www.openstack.org/blog/) would make sense for this but
only if there were human involvement in choosing what content should be
present. An Acquisitions Editor was suggested. Josh Harlow was press
ganged, but it's not clear if the hook set.

# PTL Meeting (or tech leadership void filling)

Another topic on
[Thursday](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2017-11-23.log.html#t2017-11-23T15:26:03)
was the notion of having some kind of formal process whereby project
roadmaps were more actively visible to other projects in the OpenStack
ecosystem. There's an
[etherpad](https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ptl-meeting) started but
probably best to start with the log which also links to some twitter
discussion. A summary (common throughout all the discussion this past
week) is "maybe we should get people talking to each other more
often?"

The topic evolved and went what might look like two ways: how do we
address the perceived void of technical leadership and


I think underlying all of this is that there are people in the
commu[n]ity who are concerned that sometimes we have bad or at least
not on the same page actors, and we have no mechanism for dealing
with that.
[_me_](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2017-11-23.log.html#t2017-11-23T15:44:48)


but to some extent that's part and parcel of the same thing.

# PTG Timing

Yet more on
[Thursday](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2017-11-23.log.html#t2017-11-23T15:44:31):
initial discussion of how to divide up time and otherwise format
things at the forth