Re: Follow up on OKD 4
Hi Christian, Welcome and thanks for volunteering on kicking off this effort. My vote goes to #openshift-dev slack too, OpenShift Commons Slack scope was/is a bit different geared towards ISVs. IRC - personally have no problem, however the chances to attract more folks (especially non RH employees) who might be willing to help growing OKD community are higher on slack. On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 9:33 PM Christian Glombek wrote: > +1 for using kubernetes #openshift-dev slack for the OKD WG meetings > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 6:49 PM Clayton Coleman > wrote: > >> The kube #openshift-dev slack might also make sense, since we have 518 >> people there right now >> >> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:46 PM Christian Glombek >> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> first of all, I'd like to thank Clayton for kicking this off! >>> >>> As I only just joined this ML, let me quickly introduce myself: >>> >>> I am an Associate Software Engineer on the OpenShift >>> machine-config-operator (mco) team and I'm based out of Berlin, Germany. >>> Last year, I participated in Google Summer of Code as a student with >>> Fedora IoT and joined Red Hat shortly thereafter to work on the Fedora >>> CoreOS (FCOS) team. >>> I joined the MCO team when it was established earlier this year. >>> >>> Having been a Fedora/Atomic community member for some years, I'm a >>> strong proponent of using FCOS as base OS for OKD and would like to see it >>> enabled :) >>> As I work on the team that looks after the MCO, which is one of the >>> parts of OpenShift that will need some adaptation in order to support >>> another base OS, I am confident I can help with contributions there >>> (of course I don't want to shut the door for other OSes to be used as >>> base if people are interested in that :). >>> >>> Proposal: Create WG and hold regular meetings >>> >>> I'd like to propose the creation of the OKD Working Group that will hold >>> bi-weekly meetings. >>> (or should we call it a SIG? Also open to suggestions to find the right >>> venue: IRC?, OpenShift Commons Slack?). >>> >>> I'll survey some people in the coming days to find a suitable meeting >>> time. >>> >>> If you have any feedback or suggestions, please feel free to reach out, >>> either via this list or personally! >>> I can be found as lorbus on IRC/Fedora, @lorbus42 on Twitter, or simply >>> via email :) >>> >>> I'll send out more info here ASAP. Stay tuned! >>> >>> With kind regards >>> >>> CHRISTIAN GLOMBEK >>> Associate Software Engineer >>> >>> Red Hat GmbH, registred seat: Grassbrunn >>> Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243 >>> Managing directors: Charles Cachera, Michael O'Neill, Thomas Savage, Eric >>> Shander >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 10:45 PM Clayton Coleman >>> wrote: >>> Thanks for everyone who provided feedback over the last few weeks. There's been a lot of good feedback, including some things I'll try to capture here: * More structured working groups would be good * Better public roadmap * Concrete schedule for OKD 4 * Concrete proposal for OKD 4 I've heard generally positive comments about the suggestions and philosophy in the last email, with a desire for more details around what the actual steps might look like, so I think it's safe to say that the idea of "continuously up to date Kubernetes distribution" resonated. We'll continue to take feedback along this direction (private or public). Since 4 was the kickoff for this discussion, and with the recent release of the Fedora CoreOS beta ( https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora-coreos/getting-started/) figuring prominently in the discussions so far, I got some volunteers from that team to take point on setting up a working group (SIG?) around the initial level of integration and drafting a proposal. Steve and Christian have both been working on Fedora CoreOS and graciously agreed to help drive the next steps on Fedora CoreOS and OKD potential integration into a proposal. There's a rough level draft doc they plan to share - but for now I will turn this over to them and they'll help organize time / forum / process for kicking off this effort. As that continues, we'll identify new SIGs to spawn off as necessary to cover other topics, including initial CI and release automation to deliver any necessary changes. Thanks to everyone who gave feedback, and stay tuned here for more! >>> ___ >>> users mailing list >>> users@lists.openshift.redhat.com >>> http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/users >>> >> ___ > dev mailing list > d...@lists.openshift.redhat.com > http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev > ___ users mailing list
Re: Follow up on OKD 4
+1 for using kubernetes #openshift-dev slack for the OKD WG meetings On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 6:49 PM Clayton Coleman wrote: > The kube #openshift-dev slack might also make sense, since we have 518 > people there right now > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:46 PM Christian Glombek > wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> first of all, I'd like to thank Clayton for kicking this off! >> >> As I only just joined this ML, let me quickly introduce myself: >> >> I am an Associate Software Engineer on the OpenShift >> machine-config-operator (mco) team and I'm based out of Berlin, Germany. >> Last year, I participated in Google Summer of Code as a student with >> Fedora IoT and joined Red Hat shortly thereafter to work on the Fedora >> CoreOS (FCOS) team. >> I joined the MCO team when it was established earlier this year. >> >> Having been a Fedora/Atomic community member for some years, I'm a strong >> proponent of using FCOS as base OS for OKD and would like to see it enabled >> :) >> As I work on the team that looks after the MCO, which is one of the parts >> of OpenShift that will need some adaptation in order to support another >> base OS, I am confident I can help with contributions there >> (of course I don't want to shut the door for other OSes to be used as >> base if people are interested in that :). >> >> Proposal: Create WG and hold regular meetings >> >> I'd like to propose the creation of the OKD Working Group that will hold >> bi-weekly meetings. >> (or should we call it a SIG? Also open to suggestions to find the right >> venue: IRC?, OpenShift Commons Slack?). >> >> I'll survey some people in the coming days to find a suitable meeting >> time. >> >> If you have any feedback or suggestions, please feel free to reach out, >> either via this list or personally! >> I can be found as lorbus on IRC/Fedora, @lorbus42 on Twitter, or simply >> via email :) >> >> I'll send out more info here ASAP. Stay tuned! >> >> With kind regards >> >> CHRISTIAN GLOMBEK >> Associate Software Engineer >> >> Red Hat GmbH, registred seat: Grassbrunn >> Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243 >> Managing directors: Charles Cachera, Michael O'Neill, Thomas Savage, Eric >> Shander >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 10:45 PM Clayton Coleman >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks for everyone who provided feedback over the last few weeks. >>> There's been a lot of good feedback, including some things I'll try to >>> capture here: >>> >>> * More structured working groups would be good >>> * Better public roadmap >>> * Concrete schedule for OKD 4 >>> * Concrete proposal for OKD 4 >>> >>> I've heard generally positive comments about the suggestions and >>> philosophy in the last email, with a desire for more details around what >>> the actual steps might look like, so I think it's safe to say that the idea >>> of "continuously up to date Kubernetes distribution" resonated. We'll >>> continue to take feedback along this direction (private or public). >>> >>> Since 4 was the kickoff for this discussion, and with the recent release >>> of the Fedora CoreOS beta ( >>> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora-coreos/getting-started/) >>> figuring >>> prominently in the discussions so far, I got some volunteers from that team >>> to take point on setting up a working group (SIG?) around the initial level >>> of integration and drafting a proposal. >>> >>> Steve and Christian have both been working on Fedora CoreOS and >>> graciously agreed to help drive the next steps on Fedora CoreOS and OKD >>> potential integration into a proposal. There's a rough level draft doc >>> they plan to share - but for now I will turn this over to them and they'll >>> help organize time / forum / process for kicking off this effort. As that >>> continues, we'll identify new SIGs to spawn off as necessary to cover other >>> topics, including initial CI and release automation to deliver any >>> necessary changes. >>> >>> Thanks to everyone who gave feedback, and stay tuned here for more! >>> >> ___ >> users mailing list >> users@lists.openshift.redhat.com >> http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/users >> > ___ users mailing list users@lists.openshift.redhat.com http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/users
Re: Follow up on OKD 4
The kube #openshift-dev slack might also make sense, since we have 518 people there right now On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:46 PM Christian Glombek wrote: > Hi everyone, > > first of all, I'd like to thank Clayton for kicking this off! > > As I only just joined this ML, let me quickly introduce myself: > > I am an Associate Software Engineer on the OpenShift > machine-config-operator (mco) team and I'm based out of Berlin, Germany. > Last year, I participated in Google Summer of Code as a student with > Fedora IoT and joined Red Hat shortly thereafter to work on the Fedora > CoreOS (FCOS) team. > I joined the MCO team when it was established earlier this year. > > Having been a Fedora/Atomic community member for some years, I'm a strong > proponent of using FCOS as base OS for OKD and would like to see it enabled > :) > As I work on the team that looks after the MCO, which is one of the parts > of OpenShift that will need some adaptation in order to support another > base OS, I am confident I can help with contributions there > (of course I don't want to shut the door for other OSes to be used as base > if people are interested in that :). > > Proposal: Create WG and hold regular meetings > > I'd like to propose the creation of the OKD Working Group that will hold > bi-weekly meetings. > (or should we call it a SIG? Also open to suggestions to find the right > venue: IRC?, OpenShift Commons Slack?). > > I'll survey some people in the coming days to find a suitable meeting time. > > If you have any feedback or suggestions, please feel free to reach out, > either via this list or personally! > I can be found as lorbus on IRC/Fedora, @lorbus42 on Twitter, or simply > via email :) > > I'll send out more info here ASAP. Stay tuned! > > With kind regards > > CHRISTIAN GLOMBEK > Associate Software Engineer > > Red Hat GmbH, registred seat: Grassbrunn > Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243 > Managing directors: Charles Cachera, Michael O'Neill, Thomas Savage, Eric > Shander > > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 10:45 PM Clayton Coleman > wrote: > >> Thanks for everyone who provided feedback over the last few weeks. >> There's been a lot of good feedback, including some things I'll try to >> capture here: >> >> * More structured working groups would be good >> * Better public roadmap >> * Concrete schedule for OKD 4 >> * Concrete proposal for OKD 4 >> >> I've heard generally positive comments about the suggestions and >> philosophy in the last email, with a desire for more details around what >> the actual steps might look like, so I think it's safe to say that the idea >> of "continuously up to date Kubernetes distribution" resonated. We'll >> continue to take feedback along this direction (private or public). >> >> Since 4 was the kickoff for this discussion, and with the recent release >> of the Fedora CoreOS beta ( >> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora-coreos/getting-started/) figuring >> prominently in the discussions so far, I got some volunteers from that team >> to take point on setting up a working group (SIG?) around the initial level >> of integration and drafting a proposal. >> >> Steve and Christian have both been working on Fedora CoreOS and >> graciously agreed to help drive the next steps on Fedora CoreOS and OKD >> potential integration into a proposal. There's a rough level draft doc >> they plan to share - but for now I will turn this over to them and they'll >> help organize time / forum / process for kicking off this effort. As that >> continues, we'll identify new SIGs to spawn off as necessary to cover other >> topics, including initial CI and release automation to deliver any >> necessary changes. >> >> Thanks to everyone who gave feedback, and stay tuned here for more! >> > ___ > users mailing list > users@lists.openshift.redhat.com > http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/users > ___ users mailing list users@lists.openshift.redhat.com http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/users
