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

2017-02-06 Thread Jay Pipes 

Just responding to the openstack-dev@ ML thread...

On 02/06/2017 11:37 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:

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.

wiki page is here:

https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/LCOO


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.

A number of folks have responded on the openstack-operators@ ML thread. 
My bad for posting to both MLs.


The openstack-operators@ thread is here:

http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/2017-February/012567.html

Please do use the -operators@ thread for continued discussion.

Best,
-jay


Regards -steve >

-Original Message-
From: Jay Pipes 
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" 

Date: Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 1:14 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List , 
"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-operators mailing list
openstack-operat...@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators



__
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] [Openstack-operators] Large Contributing OpenStack Operators working group?

2017-02-02 Thread Curtis 
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 1:14 PM, 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

I just wanted to add one thing here, and that is that the Telco/NFV
Working Group you mention above is really the Operators Telecom/NFV
Working Group, which is not the same group that had existed before,
and is meant to have an OpenStack Operators perspective. We have been
having some good meetings recently, and some of what we are hoping to
do is bring together various communities, eg. OpenStack Operators,
telecoms, OPNFV, and others, and act as a sort of bridge, as well as
actually generate some useful artifacts, though likely not any code
other than what we might get into something like osops.

The LCOO seems different to me b/c they will have actual human
resources to put into developing code. Or at least that is my
impression of what they are doing. I do think they should try to
adhere to more of the OpenStack community guidelines, eg. IRC and
such, but I was also recently on a 8 hour conference call with a
telecom; they love their conference calls. ;)

Thanks,
Curtis.

>
> 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-operators mailing list
> openstack-operat...@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators



-- 
Blog: serverascode.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