On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 5:27 PM Clayton Coleman wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 12:40 PM Justin Cook wrote:
>
>> Once upon a time Freenode #openshift-dev was vibrant with loads of
>> activity and publicly available logs. I jumped in asked questions and Red
>> Hatters came from the woodwork and some amazing work was done.
>>
>> Perfect.
>>
>> Slack not so much. Since Monday there have been three comments with two
>> reply threads. All this with 524 people. Crickets.
>>
>> Please explain how this is better. I’d really love to know why IRC
>> ceased. It worked and worked brilliantly.
>>
>
> Is your concern about volume or location (irc vs slack)?
>
> Re volume: It should be relatively easy to move some common discussion
> types into the #openshift-dev slack channel (especially triage / general
> QA) that might be distributed to other various slack channels today (both
> private and public), and I can take the follow up to look into that. Some
> of the volume that was previously in IRC moved to these slack channels, but
> they're not anything private (just convenient).
>
> Re location: I don't know how many people want to go back to IRC from
> slack, but that's a fairly easy survey to do here if someone can volunteer
> to drive that, and I can run the same one internally. Some of it is
> inertia - people have to be in slack sig-* channels - and some of it is
> preference (in that IRC is an inferior experience for long running
> communication).
>
[DC]: i've already reached out to Christian over the weekend and we are
going to have a 1:1 early next week to sort out some logistics and
hopefully we'll have something to share more mid next week in terms of
survey comms and process moving forward.
>
>>
>> There are mentions of sigs and bits and pieces, but absolutely no
>> progress. I fail to see why anyone would want to regress. OCP4 maybe
>> brilliant, but as I said in a private email, without upstream there is no
>> culture or insurance we’ve come to love from decades of heart and soul.
>>
>> Ladies and gentlemen, this is essentially getting to the point the
>> community is being abandoned. Man years of work acknowledged with the
>> roadmap pulled out from under us.
>>
>
> I don't think that's a fair characterization, but I understand why you
> feel that way and we are working to get the 4.x work moving. The FCoS team
> as mentioned just released their first preview last week, I've been working
> with Diane and others to identify who on the team is going to take point on
> the design work, and there's a draft in flight that I saw yesterday. Every
> component of OKD4 *besides* the FCoS integration is public and has been
> public for months.
>
> [DC]: Clayton, was that drat you mentioned circulated internally or is
public available?
> I do want to make sure we can get a basic preview up as quickly as
> possible - one option I was working on with the legal side was whether we
> could offer a short term preview of OKD4 based on top of RHCoS. That is
> possible if folks are willing to accept the terms on try.openshift.com in
> order to access it in the very short term (and then once FCoS is available
> that would not be necessary). If that's an option you or anyone on this
> thread are interested in please let me know, just as something we can do to
> speed up.
>
>
[DC]: my suggestion is that we should hold on this at least until we get
the SIG and the meeting going to at least have an open debate with the
folks who are willing to stick around and help out. Once we've get a quorum
we can then ask for a waiver on OKDv4 with RHCoS
>> I completely understand the disruption caused by the acquisition. But,
>> after kicking the tyres and our meeting a few weeks back, it’s been pretty
>> quiet. The clock is ticking on corporate long-term strategies. Some of
>> those corporates spent plenty of dosh on licensing OCP and hiring
>> consultants to implement.
>>
>
>> Red Hat need to lead from the front. Get IRC revived, throw us a bone,
>> and have us put our money where our mouth is — we’ll get involved. We’re
>> begging for it.
>>
>> Until then we’re running out of patience via clientele and will need to
>> start a community effort perhaps by forking OKD3 and integrating upstream.
>> I am not interested in doing that. We shouldn’t have to.
>>
>
> In the spirit of full transparency, FCoS integrated into OKD is going to
> take several months to get to the point where it meets the quality bar I'd
> expect for OKD4. If that timeframe doesn't work for folks, we can
> definitely consider other options like having RHCoS availability behind a
> terms agreement, a franken-OKD without host integration (which might take
> just as long to get and not really be a step forward for folks vs 3), or
> other, more dramatic options. Have folks given FCoS a try this week?
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora-coreos/getting-started/.
> That's a great place to get started
>
> As always PRs and fixes to 3.x will
