Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] Technical Committee Vision draft
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > It's intentionally ambitious, yes, because we want to inspire and be > inspired to great achievements. I generally don't think that that approach works for a large community, except in the rare cases of where you have both an utterly awe-inspiring goal and a one-sentence definition of what "done" means — like "before this decade is out, land a man on the moon and return him safely to the earth" —, but I fully appreciate that people will strongly disagree with me on that one. So let's not get into that discussion. :) > At the same time, the comment period > and public review process are totally about getting some grounding > in reality from the community, keeping us honest with ourselves as > to what is or is not a reasonable goal (seeking exactly the sorts of > analysis you've provided here). We want to be sure both that our > choices of focus reflect the people we've been elected to represent, > and that those same people can see some possibility for reaching > these goals. > > So to turn this around, if we were to keep it at a 2-year vision > do you believe we should lower our target metrics or reduce the > number of things we're seeking to accomplish through the technical > community (or a bit of both)? I don't like to think in "target metrics", but looking through the draft there are several items which look like ambitious 2-year goals by themselves: - Constellations. This is an extremely impactful goal where, I believe, some organizations with entrenched business practices would take 2 years to come aboard *even if upstream had already completely decided right now.* OpenStack distributions as offered by vendors are, currently, normally general-purpose, and to tailor this to specific reference architectures is a massive undertaking for an organization (including its support engineers, QA/QE people, presales, and sales people). Consider that the vision draft talks about a world where constellations already "have become the new standard way to start exploring OpenStack." If in 2 years constellations are already meant to the new and accepted standard, that requires all hands on deck right now. - Multi-language outreach. Yes we do have OpenStack and OpenStack-related code in other languages like Go and Erlang, but adjacent communities perceive OpenStack as primarily a Python project. Many non-Python OpenStack SDKs were lagging behind the Python ones for so long that they were barely usable, and we need to win back a lot of trust from non-Python communities even after "Go, Nodejs, or Java" support is on par with, or comparable to, Python. Again, if you want to convince those communities that they are now first-class citizens in OpenStack land, that would take 2 years by itself, I'd imagine. - Adjacent communities, and using OpenStack code in non-OpenStack environments. The vision calls for "thinking differently about adjacent communities". Again, this is a massive community-wide undertaking, and much more easily said than done. Yes, some projects (Swift comes to mind, as does Ironic) have made a conscious effort to be valuable independent of an OpenStack environment. In others, we've seen an effort that has since died down somewhat — the last time I heard serious discussions about standalone Heat, for example, was in 2014. Now, you could argue that it's a big community, we can do all those things in parallel. Parallelization is problematic to take for granted in collaboration (cf. Fred Brooks, The Mythical Man-Month, 1975), but even if we assert that it can be done (with a lot of effort), then it only makes sense for goals that do not run counter to each other. Constellations are all about standardization, which cuts down on flexibility, multi-language outreach is the opposite. Incorporation of OpenStack code into non-OpenStack projects is also counter to standardization, or rather requires going by the rules of said projects, not OpenStack, and thus again runs counter to the goals of constellations. My humble opinion here is pick one goal. As for the others, you'll have to see how they play out. Then, in two years, reassess and pick the next goal. Thus, to answer your question, I'd say reduce not the number of things you're seeking to accomplish through the technical community, but through the explicit guidance of the technical *committee.* Cheers, Florian __ 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] [all] [tc] Technical Committee Vision draft
On 04/14/2017 06:55 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2017-04-14 12:32:50 +0200 (+0200), Florian Haas wrote: > [...] >> I am not sure whether Gerrit is the appropriate place to make >> the following comment, so I'm taking the liberty to post this here. > > We are paying attention pretty much everywhere, so comments where > and when feels most appropriate to you are perfectly welcome. Thanks > for going through it! > > [...] >> To me, it looks more like a 5-year vision than a 2-year one. In other >> words, the changes staked out, to me, are more comparable to what >> happened in OpenStack between 2012 and now, not between 2015 and now, >> and so I have my doubts about how they would fit between now and 2019. >> >> Now I have absolutely no objections to aiming high, and many goals in >> the vision are entirely worthy of pursuit. But if you were to set out >> to do something that is fundamentally infeasible in the time allotted, >> then all you'd be heading for is frustration. In fact, it would run >> the risk of largely discounting the vision as a whole — people are far >> less likely to buy into something where compared to what is staked >> out, the realistic expectation is to achieve maybe half of it, or to >> take twice the time. I think this vision runs a considerable risk of >> that. > [...] > > It's intentionally ambitious, yes, because we want to inspire and be > inspired to great achievements. At the same time, the comment period > and public review process are totally about getting some grounding > in reality from the community, keeping us honest with ourselves as > to what is or is not a reasonable goal (seeking exactly the sorts of > analysis you've provided here). We want to be sure both that our > choices of focus reflect the people we've been elected to represent, > and that those same people can see some possibility for reaching > these goals. > > So to turn this around, if we were to keep it at a 2-year vision > do you believe we should lower our target metrics or reduce the > number of things we're seeking to accomplish through the technical > community (or a bit of both)? I think another follow up question is are there parts that feel like they are strategically sound in the 2 year horizon, and other parts that are more like 5 year ones. Or is that the whole picture to you feels like it's only a 5 year view? The more specifics the better. And as Jeremy said, feedback is welcomed in any forum (gerrit, ML, the survey, direct conversations with folks working on it), as we'd like to collect feedback from as many folks as possible in whatever way they are most comfortable giving it. -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net __ 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] [all] [tc] Technical Committee Vision draft
On 2017-04-14 12:32:50 +0200 (+0200), Florian Haas wrote: [...] > I am not sure whether Gerrit is the appropriate place to make > the following comment, so I'm taking the liberty to post this here. We are paying attention pretty much everywhere, so comments where and when feels most appropriate to you are perfectly welcome. Thanks for going through it! [...] > To me, it looks more like a 5-year vision than a 2-year one. In other > words, the changes staked out, to me, are more comparable to what > happened in OpenStack between 2012 and now, not between 2015 and now, > and so I have my doubts about how they would fit between now and 2019. > > Now I have absolutely no objections to aiming high, and many goals in > the vision are entirely worthy of pursuit. But if you were to set out > to do something that is fundamentally infeasible in the time allotted, > then all you'd be heading for is frustration. In fact, it would run > the risk of largely discounting the vision as a whole — people are far > less likely to buy into something where compared to what is staked > out, the realistic expectation is to achieve maybe half of it, or to > take twice the time. I think this vision runs a considerable risk of > that. [...] It's intentionally ambitious, yes, because we want to inspire and be inspired to great achievements. At the same time, the comment period and public review process are totally about getting some grounding in reality from the community, keeping us honest with ourselves as to what is or is not a reasonable goal (seeking exactly the sorts of analysis you've provided here). We want to be sure both that our choices of focus reflect the people we've been elected to represent, and that those same people can see some possibility for reaching these goals. So to turn this around, if we were to keep it at a 2-year vision do you believe we should lower our target metrics or reduce the number of things we're seeking to accomplish through the technical community (or a bit of both)? -- Jeremy Stanley __ 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] [all] [tc] Technical Committee Vision draft
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Last year in Ann Arbor, a group of OpenStack community members > (including 6 current TC members) attended a Servant Leadership training > at ZingTrain organized by Colette Alexander and funded by the OpenStack > Foundation. We found that these concepts adapted quite well to our > unique environment. The Stewardship working group was created to try to > further those and decided to further those efforts. One of the tools we > learned about there is the concept of building a "vision" to define a > desirable future for a group of people, and to inform future choices on > our way there. > > In any virtual and global community, there are challenges around > confusion, isolation and fragmentation. OpenStack does not escape those, > and confusion on where we are going and what we are trying to achieve is > common. Vision is a tool that can help with that. We decided to start > with creating a vision for the Technical Committee. What would success > for that group of people look like ? If that exercise is successful (and > useful), we could move on to write a vision for OpenStack itself. > > Members of the Technical Committee met in person around a Board+TC > meeting in Boston last month, to start building this vision. Then over > the last month we refined this document with the TC members that could > not make it in person in Boston. Sean Dague polished the wording and > posted the resulting draft at: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/453262/ > > Now we are entering a (long) comment phase. This includes comments on > the review, face-to-face discussions at the Forum, but also (soon) an > open survey for confidential feedback. We'd very much like to hear your > opinion on it. Thanks for sharing this Thierry, and thanks to everyone putting it together. As many others, I have received the survey asking for feedback, and I've also taken a look at the Gerrit change and the ensuing discussion there. I am not sure whether Gerrit is the appropriate place to make the following comment, so I'm taking the liberty to post this here. This is a vision that is set out for the next couple of years. Taking into account the size (and thus inherent inertia) of the OpenStack community, I wonder if the goals staked out in the vision are in any way realistic to achieve in the time allotted. To me, it looks more like a 5-year vision than a 2-year one. In other words, the changes staked out, to me, are more comparable to what happened in OpenStack between 2012 and now, not between 2015 and now, and so I have my doubts about how they would fit between now and 2019. Now I have absolutely no objections to aiming high, and many goals in the vision are entirely worthy of pursuit. But if you were to set out to do something that is fundamentally infeasible in the time allotted, then all you'd be heading for is frustration. In fact, it would run the risk of largely discounting the vision as a whole — people are far less likely to buy into something where compared to what is staked out, the realistic expectation is to achieve maybe half of it, or to take twice the time. I think this vision runs a considerable risk of that. I wasn't at the leadership training and I don't know what was discussed there. So I'm wondering if you could share whether this was a topic of discussion, and whether perhaps people spoke up and said that this is more of a five year plan that should now be broken down into achievable goals with a time frame of 1-2 years each. Thank you! Cheers, Florian __ 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] [all] [tc] Technical Committee Vision draft
On 04/05/2017 05:46 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Last year in Ann Arbor, a group of OpenStack community members > (including 6 current TC members) attended a Servant Leadership training > at ZingTrain organized by Colette Alexander and funded by the OpenStack > Foundation. We found that these concepts adapted quite well to our > unique environment. The Stewardship working group was created to try to > further those and decided to further those efforts. One of the tools we > learned about there is the concept of building a "vision" to define a > desirable future for a group of people, and to inform future choices on > our way there. > > In any virtual and global community, there are challenges around > confusion, isolation and fragmentation. OpenStack does not escape those, > and confusion on where we are going and what we are trying to achieve is > common. Vision is a tool that can help with that. We decided to start > with creating a vision for the Technical Committee. What would success > for that group of people look like ? If that exercise is successful (and > useful), we could move on to write a vision for OpenStack itself. > > Members of the Technical Committee met in person around a Board+TC > meeting in Boston last month, to start building this vision. Then over > the last month we refined this document with the TC members that could > not make it in person in Boston. Sean Dague polished the wording and > posted the resulting draft at: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/453262/ > > Now we are entering a (long) comment phase. This includes comments on > the review, face-to-face discussions at the Forum, but also (soon) an > open survey for confidential feedback. We'd very much like to hear your > opinion on it. > An important addendum. It was a group effort with Dims, John Garbutt, and myself to do merge all the piece part documents into one flow. -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net __ 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] [all] [tc] Technical Committee Vision draft
Hi everyone, Last year in Ann Arbor, a group of OpenStack community members (including 6 current TC members) attended a Servant Leadership training at ZingTrain organized by Colette Alexander and funded by the OpenStack Foundation. We found that these concepts adapted quite well to our unique environment. The Stewardship working group was created to try to further those and decided to further those efforts. One of the tools we learned about there is the concept of building a "vision" to define a desirable future for a group of people, and to inform future choices on our way there. In any virtual and global community, there are challenges around confusion, isolation and fragmentation. OpenStack does not escape those, and confusion on where we are going and what we are trying to achieve is common. Vision is a tool that can help with that. We decided to start with creating a vision for the Technical Committee. What would success for that group of people look like ? If that exercise is successful (and useful), we could move on to write a vision for OpenStack itself. Members of the Technical Committee met in person around a Board+TC meeting in Boston last month, to start building this vision. Then over the last month we refined this document with the TC members that could not make it in person in Boston. Sean Dague polished the wording and posted the resulting draft at: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/453262/ Now we are entering a (long) comment phase. This includes comments on the review, face-to-face discussions at the Forum, but also (soon) an open survey for confidential feedback. We'd very much like to hear your opinion on it. -- 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
