Re: [openstack-dev] Large Contributing OpenStack Operators working group?

[Steven Dake (stdake)]

Jay,

I don’t see a reference to the wiki page in your email and don’t immediately 
see the LCOO working group wiki.  From what you describe this working group is 
not working within the framework of the 4 opens which is one of OpenStack’s 
fundamental philosophies.

Thanks for bringing up your questions; I hope someone that represents this 
group can at least get this working group operating within the 4 opens 
framework if they are not already.

Regards
-steve


-Original Message-
From: Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Date: Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 1:14 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>, 
"openstack-operat...@lists.openstack.org" 
<openstack-operat...@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: [openstack-dev] Large Contributing OpenStack Operators working group?

Hi,

I was told about this group today. I have a few questions. Hopefully 
someone from this team can illuminate me with some answers.

1) What is the purpose of this group? The wiki states that the team 
"aims to define the use cases and identify and prioritise the 
requirements which are needed to deploy, manage, and run services on top 
of OpenStack. This work includes identifying functional gaps, creating 
blueprints, submitting and reviewing patches to the relevant OpenStack 
projects, contributing to working those items, tracking their completion."

What is the difference between the LCOO and the following existing 
working groups?

  * Large Deployment Team
  * Massively Distributed Team
  * Product Working Group
  * Telco/NFV Working Group

2) According to the wiki page, only companies that are "Multi-Cloud 
Operator[s] and/or Network Service Provider[s]" are welcome in this 
team. Why is the team called "Large Contributing OpenStack Operators" if 
it's only for Telcos? Further, if this is truly only for Telcos, why 
isn't the Telco/NFV working group appropriate?

3) Under the "Guiding principles" section of the above wiki, the top 
principle is "Align with the OpenStack Foundation". If this is the case, 
why did the group move its content to the closed Atlassian Confuence 
platform? Why does the group have a set of separate Slack channels 
instead of using the OpenStack mailing lists and IRC channels? Why is 
the OPNFV Jira used for tracking work items for the LCOO agenda?

See https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Gluon/Tasks-Ocata for examples.

4) I see a lot of agenda items around projects like Gluon, Craton, 
Watcher, and Blazar. I don't see any concrete ideas about talking with 
the developers of the key infrastructure services that OpenStack is 
built around. How does the LCOO plan on reaching out to the developers 
of the long-standing OpenStack projects like Nova, Neutron, Cinder, and 
Keystone to drive their shared agenda?

Thanks for reading and (hopefully) answering.

-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] Large Contributing OpenStack Operators working group?

[Dean Troyer]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Sean M. Collins  wrote:
> I suppose I am also philosophically opposed to having all these special
> snowflake working groups. If you want to get things done in OpenStack
> the best thing to do is roll up your sleeves and start participating
> directly in the project where you need work done. I know for a fact that
> in the Neutron community, we had RFE bugs and other processes so that
> operators could submit requirements, and they weren't expected to do all
> the work by themselves.

I read through the LCOO[0] etherpad meeting notes last night and it
does appear that this group is bringing some resources to "do work",
there was a 2 FTE per member requirement initially.  From reading the
notes I got the feel of a very corporate-style project in that there
is still a lot of planning and organizing going on but there were
notes pointing to things being proposed and merged into existing
projects in addition to the aspirations of new ones.

My primary concern in this instance is the model being used here.  The
members of the group want to control the scope (approval to add a
topic) and membership (justification and approval of members).  Often
this is done to prevent scope creep and maintaining focus.  But it
contrary to the founding principles of OpenStack.  The notes talked
about getting Foundation buy-in but I didn't see anything of the
outcomes of that.

LCOO also appears to be a collection of companies that have brought
some internal projects out into the twilight (searching for sunlight?)
and looking for a way to upstream that work.  Even today many
companies that have names familiar in the Open Source/Free Software
world struggle with how to actually operate in this world.  We need to
help them, both from the community side and from within.

I do think there needs to be a lot of encouragement for LCOO and other
groups that are actually more like trade associations to fully commit
to an open development model, specifically OpenStack's established
model since there is an explicit desire for their work product to be
included in OpenStack directly. They will greatly benefit form
starting out in our development and operation style.

[[There is another entirely separate subject regarding the direction
that LCOO wants to go and the sustainability in making a single
OpenStack fit all sizes and types of deployments.  I'll leave that for
$SUMMIT_COLD_BEVERAGE conversations for now.]]

dt

[0] Am I the only one who simply can not read 'LCOO' as anything other
than 'loco'? :)

-- 

Dean Troyer
dtro...@gmail.com

__
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] Large Contributing OpenStack Operators working group?

[Sean M. Collins]

Jay Pipes wrote:
> 4) I see a lot of agenda items around projects like Gluon, Craton, Watcher,
> and Blazar. I don't see any concrete ideas about talking with the developers
> of the key infrastructure services that OpenStack is built around. How does
> the LCOO plan on reaching out to the developers of the long-standing
> OpenStack projects like Nova, Neutron, Cinder, and Keystone to drive their
> shared agenda?

To expand on this point:

How effective are these teams at actually communicating with the
developers of OpenStack components? My concern is that all these working
teams collect a lot of information, then it is left in these silos and
never makes their way back to projects like Neutron, Nova, etc...

I suppose I am also philosophically opposed to having all these special
snowflake working groups. If you want to get things done in OpenStack
the best thing to do is roll up your sleeves and start participating
directly in the project where you need work done. I know for a fact that
in the Neutron community, we had RFE bugs and other processes so that
operators could submit requirements, and they weren't expected to do all
the work by themselves.

I didn't emerge from the void, fully formed, as a Neutron developer. I
was part of a team that had pain points in Neutron that we needed to
alleviate, so we jumped into the Neutron community, participated in
the weekly IRC meetings, filed bugs, started contributing patches,
etc...

So why have these groups?

-- 
Sean M. Collins

__
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] Large Contributing OpenStack Operators working group?

[Hayes, Graham]

On 02/02/2017 20:17, Jay Pipes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was told about this group today. I have a few questions. Hopefully
> someone from this team can illuminate me with some answers.
>
> 1) What is the purpose of this group? The wiki states that the team
> "aims to define the use cases and identify and prioritise the
> requirements which are needed to deploy, manage, and run services on top
> of OpenStack. This work includes identifying functional gaps, creating
> blueprints, submitting and reviewing patches to the relevant OpenStack
> projects, contributing to working those items, tracking their completion."
>
> What is the difference between the LCOO and the following existing
> working groups?
>
>   * Large Deployment Team
>   * Massively Distributed Team
>   * Product Working Group
>   * Telco/NFV Working Group
>
> 2) According to the wiki page, only companies that are "Multi-Cloud
> Operator[s] and/or Network Service Provider[s]" are welcome in this
> team. Why is the team called "Large Contributing OpenStack Operators" if
> it's only for Telcos? Further, if this is truly only for Telcos, why
> isn't the Telco/NFV working group appropriate?
>
> 3) Under the "Guiding principles" section of the above wiki, the top
> principle is "Align with the OpenStack Foundation". If this is the case,
> why did the group move its content to the closed Atlassian Confuence
> platform? Why does the group have a set of separate Slack channels
> instead of using the OpenStack mailing lists and IRC channels? Why is
> the OPNFV Jira used for tracking work items for the LCOO agenda?
>
> See https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Gluon/Tasks-Ocata for examples.
>
> 4) I see a lot of agenda items around projects like Gluon, Craton,
> Watcher, and Blazar. I don't see any concrete ideas about talking with
> the developers of the key infrastructure services that OpenStack is
> built around. How does the LCOO plan on reaching out to the developers
> of the long-standing OpenStack projects like Nova, Neutron, Cinder, and
> Keystone to drive their shared agenda?
>
> Thanks for reading and (hopefully) answering.
>
> -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
>

The entire wiki page [0] for this group is  worrying.

For example:

 > If a member should fail to continue to meet these minimum criteria 
after joining, their membership may be revoked through an action of the 
board.

and no, that is not the OpenStack board.

 From the etherpad [1] -

 > Reminder that our etherpad documents should document what was 
discussed and our decisions but should not contain organizational 
sensitive information or similar in process items.


It does seem to be not fully "open" by our 4 opens. It says it is under
the user committee - but I do not see it listed on their page [2]


0 - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/LCOO
1 - 
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/Large_Contributing_OpenStack_Operators_Master
2 - https://governance.openstack.org/uc/#working-groups

__
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] Large Contributing OpenStack Operators working group?

[Jay Pipes]

Hi,

I was told about this group today. I have a few questions. Hopefully 
someone from this team can illuminate me with some answers.


1) What is the purpose of this group? The wiki states that the team 
"aims to define the use cases and identify and prioritise the 
requirements which are needed to deploy, manage, and run services on top 
of OpenStack. This work includes identifying functional gaps, creating 
blueprints, submitting and reviewing patches to the relevant OpenStack 
projects, contributing to working those items, tracking their completion."


What is the difference between the LCOO and the following existing 
working groups?


 * Large Deployment Team
 * Massively Distributed Team
 * Product Working Group
 * Telco/NFV Working Group

2) According to the wiki page, only companies that are "Multi-Cloud 
Operator[s] and/or Network Service Provider[s]" are welcome in this 
team. Why is the team called "Large Contributing OpenStack Operators" if 
it's only for Telcos? Further, if this is truly only for Telcos, why 
isn't the Telco/NFV working group appropriate?


3) Under the "Guiding principles" section of the above wiki, the top 
principle is "Align with the OpenStack Foundation". If this is the case, 
why did the group move its content to the closed Atlassian Confuence 
platform? Why does the group have a set of separate Slack channels 
instead of using the OpenStack mailing lists and IRC channels? Why is 
the OPNFV Jira used for tracking work items for the LCOO agenda?


See https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Gluon/Tasks-Ocata for examples.

4) I see a lot of agenda items around projects like Gluon, Craton, 
Watcher, and Blazar. I don't see any concrete ideas about talking with 
the developers of the key infrastructure services that OpenStack is 
built around. How does the LCOO plan on reaching out to the developers 
of the long-standing OpenStack projects like Nova, Neutron, Cinder, and 
Keystone to drive their shared agenda?


Thanks for reading and (hopefully) answering.

-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