Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

Hi, all, Thanks to intiate the architecture working group, would be glad to join the group if there is still a place to stand. According to the comment from Thierry in the Tricircle big-tent application https://review.openstack.org/#/c/338796/: "From an OpenStack community standpoint, we

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

+1 -Original Message- From: Nikhil Komawar [mailto:nik.koma...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 10:37 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group +1 , great idea. if we can add

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

Excerpts from Mike Perez's message of 2016-06-30 14:10:30 -0700: > On 09:02 Jun 30, Clint Byrum wrote: > > Excerpts from Mike Perez's message of 2016-06-30 07:50:42 -0700: > > > On 11:31 Jun 20, Clint Byrum wrote: > > > > Excerpts from Joshua Harlow's message of 2016-06-17 15:33:25 -0700: > > > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

On 09:02 Jun 30, Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Mike Perez's message of 2016-06-30 07:50:42 -0700: > > On 11:31 Jun 20, Clint Byrum wrote: > > > Excerpts from Joshua Harlow's message of 2016-06-17 15:33:25 -0700: > > > > Thanks for getting this started Clint, > > > > > > > > I'm happy and

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

Okay I'll bite. I'm a working owner; Cloud/OpenStack/SDN architect slash OpenStack SI business owner working with companies trying to extract value from technology they don't understand. Or in ways they aren't familiar with. Or with code they don't have time to build/maintain themselves. This

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

Mike Perez wrote: On 11:31 Jun 20, Clint Byrum wrote: Excerpts from Joshua Harlow's message of 2016-06-17 15:33:25 -0700: Thanks for getting this started Clint, I'm happy and excited to be involved in helping try to guide the whole ecosystem together (it's also why I like being in oslo) to a

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

Excerpts from Mike Perez's message of 2016-06-30 07:50:42 -0700: > On 11:31 Jun 20, Clint Byrum wrote: > > Excerpts from Joshua Harlow's message of 2016-06-17 15:33:25 -0700: > > > Thanks for getting this started Clint, > > > > > > I'm happy and excited to be involved in helping try to guide the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

On 11:31 Jun 20, Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Joshua Harlow's message of 2016-06-17 15:33:25 -0700: > > Thanks for getting this started Clint, > > > > I'm happy and excited to be involved in helping try to guide the whole > > ecosystem together (it's also why I like being in oslo) to a >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

Thanks everyone for participating and remaining positive and focused on improving OpenStack. I've posted a review, and I'd like to encourage everyone to move any future discussion of the Architecture Working group to that review. https://review.openstack.org/335141 Excerpts from Clint Byrum's

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

It appears this group could assist with the Architecture Design Guide, which is undergoing a content restructure. We are looking for more technical contributors to provide guidance and contribute information to the guide. Shaun O'Meara has written a spec:

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

Excerpts from Zhipeng Huang's message of 2016-06-24 18:15:30 +0200: > Hi Clint and Amrith, > > Are you guys already working on the proposal ? Is there any public access > to see the first draft ? > I've started writing something up, and I hope to submit it for review next week.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

Hi Clint and Amrith, Are you guys already working on the proposal ? Is there any public access to see the first draft ? On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Mike Perez wrote: > On 10:27 Jun 20, Clint Byrum wrote: > > Excerpts from Doug Wiegley's message of 2016-06-20 10:40:56

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

On 10:27 Jun 20, Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Doug Wiegley's message of 2016-06-20 10:40:56 -0600: > > So, it sounds like you’ve just described the job of the TC. And they have > > so far refused to define OpenStack, leading to a series of derivative > > decisions that seem … inconsistent

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

> -Original Message- > From: Clint Byrum [mailto:cl...@fewbar.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 2:25 PM > To: openstack-dev <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group > > Excerpts from Amrith

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

Excerpts from Amrith Kumar's message of 2016-06-22 13:15:03 +: > Clint, > > In your original email, you proposed "So, with that, I'd like to propose the > creation of an Architecture Working Group. This group's charge would not be > design by committee, but a place for architects to share

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

On 20/06/16 11:31 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote: Excerpts from Joshua Harlow's message of 2016-06-17 15:33:25 -0700: Thanks for getting this started Clint, I'm happy and excited to be involved in helping try to guide the whole ecosystem together (it's also why I like being in oslo) to a

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

On 21/06/16 12:12 -0600, Doug Wiegley wrote: On Jun 21, 2016, at 11:29 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: [snip] Perhaps you weren't around for the endless (and pointless) discussions around what is "the core of OpenStack"? Or you weren't around for the endless (and conflicting,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

to propose a spec in Gerrit with a draft charter for this working group and a review there. -amrith > -Original Message- > From: Clint Byrum [mailto:cl...@fewbar.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 2:34 PM > To: openstack-dev <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Subj

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

On 22/06/16 10:52 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: Doug Wiegley wrote: So I'd argue that you need both. You need the TC whenever a hard call has to be made, but in order to minimize the number of those hard calls (and favor consensus building) you also need working groups to build a bottom-up

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

Doug Wiegley wrote: So I'd argue that you need both. You need the TC whenever a hard call has to be made, but in order to minimize the number of those hard calls (and favor consensus building) you also need working groups to build a bottom-up reasonable way forward. This reads very strange

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

> On Jun 21, 2016, at 2:56 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > Chris Dent wrote: >> On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Doug Wiegley wrote: >>> On Jun 21, 2016, at 2:19 PM, Carol Barrett >>> wrote: >>> So, it sounds like you've just described the job of the TC. And

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2016-06-21 12:47:46 -0400: > On 06/21/2016 04:25 AM, Chris Dent wrote: > > However, I worry deeply that it could become astronauts with finger > > paints. > > Yes. This. > > I will happily take software design suggestions from people that > demonstrate with

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2016-06-21 13:29:32 -0400: > On 06/21/2016 12:53 PM, Doug Wiegley wrote: > > Don’t get me wrong, I welcome this initiative. I find it mildly > > disconcerting that the folks that I thought we were electing to fill > > this role will instead be filled by others,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

> On Jun 21, 2016, at 11:29 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: > > On 06/21/2016 12:53 PM, Doug Wiegley wrote: >>> On Jun 21, 2016, at 2:56 AM, Thierry Carrez >>> wrote: >>> Chris Dent wrote: On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Doug Wiegley wrote: > So, it sounds like

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

; Date: June 21, 2016 at 10:18:25 > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:59 AM Clint Byrum wrote: >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

On 06/21/2016 12:53 PM, Doug Wiegley wrote: On Jun 21, 2016, at 2:56 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Chris Dent wrote: On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Doug Wiegley wrote: So, it sounds like you’ve just described the job of the TC. And they have so far refused to define OpenStack,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

> On Jun 21, 2016, at 2:56 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > Chris Dent wrote: >> On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Doug Wiegley wrote: >>> So, it sounds like you’ve just described the job of the TC. And they >>> have so far refused to define OpenStack, leading to a series of >>>

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

On 06/21/2016 04:25 AM, Chris Dent wrote: However, I worry deeply that it could become astronauts with finger paints. Yes. This. I will happily take software design suggestions from people that demonstrate with code and benchmarks that their suggestion actually works outside of the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

t;openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:59 AM Clint Byrum wrote: > > > > > As you should be, and we all must be. It's not going to happen if we > > just dream it. That's ki

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:59 AM Clint Byrum wrote: > > As you should be, and we all must be. It's not going to happen if we > just dream it. That's kind of the point. Let's write down a design _for > the group that writes down designs_. > If I had any confidence that this

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-06-21 09:25:44 +0100: > On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Doug Wiegley wrote: > > > So, it sounds like you’ve just described the job of the TC. And they > > have so far refused to define OpenStack, leading to a series of > > derivative decisions that seem …

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

On 20/06/16 19:27, Clint Byrum wrote: Excerpts from Doug Wiegley's message of 2016-06-20 10:40:56 -0600: So, it sounds like you’ve just described the job of the TC. It may sound like that, but the TC have repeatedly (and perhaps wisely) disclaimed that as part of their job. So any attempt to

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

On 06/20/2016 08:07 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Jesse Cook's message of 2016-06-20 16:58:48 +: >> +1 >> >> The points about the PWG and TC are worth some consideration. >> >> From my perspective, I think it would make sense for the PWG to define the >> expected behaviors of the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

Chris Dent wrote: On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Doug Wiegley wrote: So, it sounds like you’ve just described the job of the TC. And they have so far refused to define OpenStack, leading to a series of derivative decisions that seem … inconsistent over time. Thanks for writing down what I was thinking.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Doug Wiegley wrote: So, it sounds like you’ve just described the job of the TC. And they have so far refused to define OpenStack, leading to a series of derivative decisions that seem … inconsistent over time. Thanks for writing down what I was thinking. I agree that

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

int Byrum [cl...@fewbar.com] Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 11:31 AM To: openstack-dev Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group Excerpts from Joshua Harlow's message of 2016-06-17 15:33:25 -0700: > Thanks for getting this started Clint, > > I'm happy and exci

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

+1 From: Clint Byrum [cl...@fewbar.com] Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 10:27 AM To: openstack-dev Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group Excerpts from Doug Wiegley's message of 2016-06-20 10:40:56 -0600: > So, it sounds l

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

Excerpts from Joshua Harlow's message of 2016-06-17 15:33:25 -0700: > Thanks for getting this started Clint, > > I'm happy and excited to be involved in helping try to guide the whole > ecosystem together (it's also why I like being in oslo) to a > architecture that is more cohesive (and is

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

Excerpts from Jesse Cook's message of 2016-06-20 16:58:48 +: > +1 > > The points about the PWG and TC are worth some consideration. > > From my perspective, I think it would make sense for the PWG to define the > expected behaviors of the system, which would be an input to the > architecture

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

Excerpts from Michael Krotscheck's message of 2016-06-20 15:26:20 +: > I like the idea in principle, but am bullish on the implementation. > As you should be, and we all must be. It's not going to happen if we just dream it. That's kind of the point. Let's write down a design _for the group

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

Excerpts from Doug Wiegley's message of 2016-06-20 10:40:56 -0600: > So, it sounds like you’ve just described the job of the TC. And they have so > far refused to define OpenStack, leading to a series of derivative decisions > that seem … inconsistent over time. > > How is this body going to be

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

+1 The points about the PWG and TC are worth some consideration. >From my perspective, I think it would make sense for the PWG to define the expected behaviors of the system, which would be an input to the architecture group. The architecture group would define both prescriptive (where we'd like

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

So, it sounds like you’ve just described the job of the TC. And they have so far refused to define OpenStack, leading to a series of derivative decisions that seem … inconsistent over time. How is this body going to be different? How will it have any teeth, and not just end up with the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

+1 , great idea. if we can add a mission/objective based on the nice definitions you added, will help a long way in cross-project architecture evolution. moreover, I'd like this to be a integration point for openstack projects (and not a silo) so that we can build the shared understanding we

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

I like the idea in principle, but am bullish on the implementation. For example: we have the API-WG which fulfills part of an Architectural mission, as well as the Cross-Project WG which fulfills a different part. Yet there's no incentive, carrot or stick, that drives adoption of the approved

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

Hello Clint. I'd like to take part as well, so count me in. Kind regards, Denys Makogon 2016-06-20 10:23 GMT+03:00 Ghe Rivero : > Hi all! > I really like the idea of the group, so count me in! > > Ghe Rivero > > Quoting Clint Byrum (2016-06-17 23:52:43) > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

Hi all! I really like the idea of the group, so count me in! Ghe Rivero Quoting Clint Byrum (2016-06-17 23:52:43) > ar·chi·tec·ture > ˈärkəˌtek(t)SHər/ > noun > noun: architecture > > 1. > > the art or practice of designing and constructing buildings. > > synonyms:building

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

Thanks for getting this started Clint, I'm happy and excited to be involved in helping try to guide the whole ecosystem together (it's also why I like being in oslo) to a architecture that is more cohesive (and is more of something that we can say to our current or future children that we