Re: [openstack-dev] How to improve the specs review process (was Re: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward)

2014-08-06 Thread Kyle Mestery
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Stefano Maffulli stef...@openstack.org wrote:
 On 08/06/2014 11:19 AM, Edgar Magana wrote:
 That is the beauty of the open source projects, there is always a smartest
 reviewer catching out the facts that you don¹t.

 And yet, the specification clearly talks about 'endpoints' and nobody
 caught it where it supposed to be caught so I fear that something failed
 badly here:

 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/89469/10

 What failed and how we make sure this doesn't happen again? This to me
 is the most important question to answer.  If I remember correctly we
 introduced the concept of Specs exactly to discuss on the ideas *before*
 the implementation starts. We wanted things like architecture, naming
 conventions and other important decisions to be socialized and agreed
 upon *before* code was proposed. We wanted to avoid developers to spend
 time implementing features in ways that are incompatible and likely to
 be rejected at code review time. And yet, here we are.

 Something failed and I would ask for all core reviewers to sit down and
 do an exercise to identify the root cause. If you want we can start from
 this specific case, do some simple root cause analysis together and take
 GBP as an example. Thoughts?

+100

I'm willing to dedicate part of the Neutron meeting Monday to do a
public post-mortem on GBP here. Stefano, can you attend this meeting
Monday and be there to help guide the conversation as a third party to
the entire process?

Thanks,
Kyle

 /stef

 ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] How to improve the specs review process (was Re: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward)

2014-08-06 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Stefano Maffulli stef...@openstack.org
wrote:

 On 08/06/2014 11:19 AM, Edgar Magana wrote:
  That is the beauty of the open source projects, there is always a
 smartest
  reviewer catching out the facts that you don¹t.

 And yet, the specification clearly talks about 'endpoints' and nobody
 caught it where it supposed to be caught so I fear that something failed
 badly here:


I know that there's whole other thread on naming.
I believe everybody has reviewed this having keystone's endpoint in mind
and understanding that those are different terms where keystone endpoints
should have been named 'service_endpoints' or something.
There's no UX or technical reasons to not to reuse terms used in different
projects and in different domains.

So I don't think it's fair to blame reviewers here.

Thanks,
Eugene.


 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/89469/10

 What failed and how we make sure this doesn't happen again? This to me
 is the most important question to answer.  If I remember correctly we
 introduced the concept of Specs exactly to discuss on the ideas *before*
 the implementation starts. We wanted things like architecture, naming
 conventions and other important decisions to be socialized and agreed
 upon *before* code was proposed. We wanted to avoid developers to spend
 time implementing features in ways that are incompatible and likely to
 be rejected at code review time. And yet, here we are.

 Something failed and I would ask for all core reviewers to sit down and
 do an exercise to identify the root cause. If you want we can start from
 this specific case, do some simple root cause analysis together and take
 GBP as an example. Thoughts?

 /stef

 ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] How to improve the specs review process (was Re: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward)

2014-08-06 Thread Ivar Lazzaro
+1 Eugene,

Still, there's a point in Stefano's thread:

There's a time for discussing merging strategies, models, and naming
conventions... And this time is called BP approval :)

Just saying.
Ivar.



On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:21 PM, Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com
wrote:




 On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Stefano Maffulli stef...@openstack.org
 wrote:

 On 08/06/2014 11:19 AM, Edgar Magana wrote:
  That is the beauty of the open source projects, there is always a
 smartest
  reviewer catching out the facts that you don¹t.

 And yet, the specification clearly talks about 'endpoints' and nobody
 caught it where it supposed to be caught so I fear that something failed
 badly here:


 I know that there's whole other thread on naming.
 I believe everybody has reviewed this having keystone's endpoint in mind
 and understanding that those are different terms where keystone endpoints
 should have been named 'service_endpoints' or something.
 There's no UX or technical reasons to not to reuse terms used in different
 projects and in different domains.

 So I don't think it's fair to blame reviewers here.

 Thanks,
 Eugene.


 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/89469/10

 What failed and how we make sure this doesn't happen again? This to me
 is the most important question to answer.  If I remember correctly we
 introduced the concept of Specs exactly to discuss on the ideas *before*
 the implementation starts. We wanted things like architecture, naming
 conventions and other important decisions to be socialized and agreed
 upon *before* code was proposed. We wanted to avoid developers to spend
 time implementing features in ways that are incompatible and likely to
 be rejected at code review time. And yet, here we are.

 Something failed and I would ask for all core reviewers to sit down and
 do an exercise to identify the root cause. If you want we can start from
 this specific case, do some simple root cause analysis together and take
 GBP as an example. Thoughts?

 /stef

 ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



 ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] How to improve the specs review process (was Re: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward)

2014-08-06 Thread Stefano Maffulli
On Wed 06 Aug 2014 01:21:26 PM PDT, Eugene Nikanorov wrote:
 So I don't think it's fair to blame reviewers here.

Just want to be super clear: there is no 'blaming' here. This is a
request to regroup and look at why we are having this conversation about
GBP now, this late in cycle, and about such fundamental topics (the
choice of 'endpoint' as name is only one of them), after in-person
conversations over more than one release cycle and summits.

I am available for the meeting on Monday, Kyle.

In order to prepare for the meeting we should agree on the scope of the
root cause analysis. I think the problem should be framed around the
message Mark McClain sent, especially the Why this email which I quote
below:

 Our community has been discussing and working on Group Based Policy
 (GBP) for many months.  I think the discussion has reached a point
 where we need to openly discuss a few issues before moving forward.
[...]

I think the fact that this very fair question has been raised so late is
the problem we need to find the cause for. Would you agree?

We'll use time during the meeting on Monday to use a simple technique to
investigate this deeply, no need to spend time now and via email.

/stef

-- 
Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] How to improve the specs review process (was Re: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward)

2014-08-06 Thread Mohammad Banikazemi

Yes, indeed.
I do not want to be over dramatic but the discussion on the original Group
Based Policy and the way forward thread is nothing short of heartbreaking.
After months and months of discussions, three presentations at the past
three summits, a design session at the last summit, and (most relevant to
this thread) the approval of the spec, why are we talking about the merits
of the work now?

I understand if people think this is not a good idea or this is not a good
time. What I do not understand is why these concerns were not raised
clearly and openly earlier.

Best,

Mohammad




From:   Stefano Maffulli stef...@openstack.org
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Date:   08/06/2014 04:47 PM
Subject:Re: [openstack-dev] How to improve the specs review process
(was Re: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward)



On Wed 06 Aug 2014 01:21:26 PM PDT, Eugene Nikanorov wrote:
 So I don't think it's fair to blame reviewers here.

Just want to be super clear: there is no 'blaming' here. This is a
request to regroup and look at why we are having this conversation about
GBP now, this late in cycle, and about such fundamental topics (the
choice of 'endpoint' as name is only one of them), after in-person
conversations over more than one release cycle and summits.

I am available for the meeting on Monday, Kyle.

In order to prepare for the meeting we should agree on the scope of the
root cause analysis. I think the problem should be framed around the
message Mark McClain sent, especially the Why this email which I quote
below:

 Our community has been discussing and working on Group Based Policy
 (GBP) for many months.  I think the discussion has reached a point
 where we need to openly discuss a few issues before moving forward.
[...]

I think the fact that this very fair question has been raised so late is
the problem we need to find the cause for. Would you agree?

We'll use time during the meeting on Monday to use a simple technique to
investigate this deeply, no need to spend time now and via email.

/stef

--
Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] How to improve the specs review process (was Re: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward)

2014-08-06 Thread Carlino, Chuck (OpenStack TripleO, Neutron)
Given how this discussion has gone, I understand Mohammad's despair.  But it 
seems like people are treating the Stackforge proposal as really nothing more 
than a black hole.  I'm a relative newcomer to this community, so that's 
probably why I took Mark at his word when he presented it as a way to quickly 
improve API design.  Well, that, and I'm a complete believer that iterating on 
running code is 10x better than any form of doc review.

Chuck


On Aug 6, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Mohammad Banikazemi 
m...@us.ibm.commailto:m...@us.ibm.com
 wrote:


Yes, indeed.
I do not want to be over dramatic but the discussion on the original Group 
Based Policy and the way forward thread is nothing short of heartbreaking. 
After months and months of discussions, three presentations at the past three 
summits, a design session at the last summit, and (most relevant to this 
thread) the approval of the spec, why are we talking about the merits of the 
work now?

I understand if people think this is not a good idea or this is not a good 
time. What I do not understand is why these concerns were not raised clearly 
and openly earlier.

Best,

Mohammad


graycol.gifStefano Maffulli ---08/06/2014 04:47:21 PM---On Wed 06 Aug 2014 
01:21:26 PM PDT, Eugene Nikanorov wrote:  So I don't think it's fair to blame 
re

From: Stefano Maffulli stef...@openstack.orgmailto:stef...@openstack.org
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Date: 08/06/2014 04:47 PM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] How to improve the specs review process (was Re: 
[Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward)





On Wed 06 Aug 2014 01:21:26 PM PDT, Eugene Nikanorov wrote:
 So I don't think it's fair to blame reviewers here.

Just want to be super clear: there is no 'blaming' here. This is a
request to regroup and look at why we are having this conversation about
GBP now, this late in cycle, and about such fundamental topics (the
choice of 'endpoint' as name is only one of them), after in-person
conversations over more than one release cycle and summits.

I am available for the meeting on Monday, Kyle.

In order to prepare for the meeting we should agree on the scope of the
root cause analysis. I think the problem should be framed around the
message Mark McClain sent, especially the Why this email which I quote
below:

 Our community has been discussing and working on Group Based Policy
 (GBP) for many months.  I think the discussion has reached a point
 where we need to openly discuss a few issues before moving forward.
[...]

I think the fact that this very fair question has been raised so late is
the problem we need to find the cause for. Would you agree?

We'll use time during the meeting on Monday to use a simple technique to
investigate this deeply, no need to spend time now and via email.

/stef

--
Ask and answer questions on 
https://ask.openstack.orghttps://ask.openstack.org/

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] How to improve the specs review process (was Re: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward)

2014-08-06 Thread Ivar Lazzaro
+1 Mohammad.
On Aug 6, 2014 11:08 PM, Mohammad Banikazemi m...@us.ibm.com wrote:

 Yes, indeed.
 I do not want to be over dramatic but the discussion on the original Group
 Based Policy and the way forward thread is nothing short of heartbreaking.
 After months and months of discussions, three presentations at the past
 three summits, a design session at the last summit, and (most relevant to
 this thread) the approval of the spec, why are we talking about the merits
 of the work now?

 I understand if people think this is not a good idea or this is not a good
 time. What I do not understand is why these concerns were not raised
 clearly and openly earlier.

 Best,

 Mohammad


 [image: Inactive hide details for Stefano Maffulli ---08/06/2014 04:47:21
 PM---On Wed 06 Aug 2014 01:21:26 PM PDT, Eugene Nikanorov wro]Stefano
 Maffulli ---08/06/2014 04:47:21 PM---On Wed 06 Aug 2014 01:21:26 PM PDT,
 Eugene Nikanorov wrote:  So I don't think it's fair to blame re

 From: Stefano Maffulli stef...@openstack.org
 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
 openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 Date: 08/06/2014 04:47 PM
 Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] How to improve the specs review process (was
 Re: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward)
 --



 On Wed 06 Aug 2014 01:21:26 PM PDT, Eugene Nikanorov wrote:
  So I don't think it's fair to blame reviewers here.

 Just want to be super clear: there is no 'blaming' here. This is a
 request to regroup and look at why we are having this conversation about
 GBP now, this late in cycle, and about such fundamental topics (the
 choice of 'endpoint' as name is only one of them), after in-person
 conversations over more than one release cycle and summits.

 I am available for the meeting on Monday, Kyle.

 In order to prepare for the meeting we should agree on the scope of the
 root cause analysis. I think the problem should be framed around the
 message Mark McClain sent, especially the Why this email which I quote
 below:

  Our community has been discussing and working on Group Based Policy
  (GBP) for many months.  I think the discussion has reached a point
  where we need to openly discuss a few issues before moving forward.
 [...]

 I think the fact that this very fair question has been raised so late is
 the problem we need to find the cause for. Would you agree?

 We'll use time during the meeting on Monday to use a simple technique to
 investigate this deeply, no need to spend time now and via email.

 /stef

 --
 Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org

 ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



 ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] How to improve the specs review process (was Re: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward)

2014-08-06 Thread Richard Woo
+1,

I think in future we should invite the other project(i.e. Nova) core member
to review the blueprint if it is related to that specific project.





On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Mohammad Banikazemi m...@us.ibm.com wrote:

 Yes, indeed.
 I do not want to be over dramatic but the discussion on the original Group
 Based Policy and the way forward thread is nothing short of heartbreaking.
 After months and months of discussions, three presentations at the past
 three summits, a design session at the last summit, and (most relevant to
 this thread) the approval of the spec, why are we talking about the merits
 of the work now?

 I understand if people think this is not a good idea or this is not a good
 time. What I do not understand is why these concerns were not raised
 clearly and openly earlier.

 Best,

 Mohammad


 [image: Inactive hide details for Stefano Maffulli ---08/06/2014 04:47:21
 PM---On Wed 06 Aug 2014 01:21:26 PM PDT, Eugene Nikanorov wro]Stefano
 Maffulli ---08/06/2014 04:47:21 PM---On Wed 06 Aug 2014 01:21:26 PM PDT,
 Eugene Nikanorov wrote:  So I don't think it's fair to blame re

 From: Stefano Maffulli stef...@openstack.org
 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
 openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 Date: 08/06/2014 04:47 PM
 Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] How to improve the specs review process (was
 Re: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward)
 --



 On Wed 06 Aug 2014 01:21:26 PM PDT, Eugene Nikanorov wrote:
  So I don't think it's fair to blame reviewers here.

 Just want to be super clear: there is no 'blaming' here. This is a
 request to regroup and look at why we are having this conversation about
 GBP now, this late in cycle, and about such fundamental topics (the
 choice of 'endpoint' as name is only one of them), after in-person
 conversations over more than one release cycle and summits.

 I am available for the meeting on Monday, Kyle.

 In order to prepare for the meeting we should agree on the scope of the
 root cause analysis. I think the problem should be framed around the
 message Mark McClain sent, especially the Why this email which I quote
 below:

  Our community has been discussing and working on Group Based Policy
  (GBP) for many months.  I think the discussion has reached a point
  where we need to openly discuss a few issues before moving forward.
 [...]

 I think the fact that this very fair question has been raised so late is
 the problem we need to find the cause for. Would you agree?

 We'll use time during the meeting on Monday to use a simple technique to
 investigate this deeply, no need to spend time now and via email.

 /stef

 --
 Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org

 ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



 ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] How to improve the specs review process (was Re: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward)

2014-08-06 Thread CARVER, PAUL
On Aug 6, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Mohammad Banikazemi 
m...@us.ibm.commailto:m...@us.ibm.com
 wrote:

Yes, indeed.
I do not want to be over dramatic but the discussion on the original Group
Based Policy and the way forward thread is nothing short of heartbreaking.
After months and months of discussions, three presentations at the past three
summits, a design session at the last summit, and (most relevant to this
thread) the approval of the spec, why are we talking about the merits of the
work now?

I understand if people think this is not a good idea or this is not a good
time. What I do not understand is why these concerns were not raised clearly
and openly earlier.

I have to agree here. I'm not sure whether my organization needs GBP or not.
It's certainly not our top priority for Neutron given a variety of other more
important functional gaps. However, I saw their demo at the summit and it was
clear that a lot of work had gone into it even before Icehouse. From the demo
it was clearly a useful enhancement to Neutron even if it wasn't at the top
of my priority list.

For people to be asking to justify the why this far into the Juno cycle
when the spec was approved and the code was demoed at the summit really
brings the OpenStack process into question. It's one thing to discuss
technical merits of contributions but it's totally different to pull the rug
out from under a group of contributors at the last minute after such a long
period of development, discussion, and demo.

Seeing this sort of last minute rejection of a contribution after so much
time has been invested in it could very easily have a chilling effect on
contributors.

~

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] How to improve the specs review process (was Re: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward)

2014-08-06 Thread Jay Pipes

On 08/06/2014 07:08 PM, CARVER, PAUL wrote:

On Aug 6, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Mohammad Banikazemi 
m...@us.ibm.commailto:m...@us.ibm.com
  wrote:


Yes, indeed.
I do not want to be over dramatic but the discussion on the original Group
Based Policy and the way forward thread is nothing short of heartbreaking.
After months and months of discussions, three presentations at the past three
summits, a design session at the last summit, and (most relevant to this
thread) the approval of the spec, why are we talking about the merits of the
work now?

I understand if people think this is not a good idea or this is not a good
time. What I do not understand is why these concerns were not raised clearly
and openly earlier.


I have to agree here. I'm not sure whether my organization needs GBP or not.
It's certainly not our top priority for Neutron given a variety of other more
important functional gaps. However, I saw their demo at the summit and it was
clear that a lot of work had gone into it even before Icehouse. From the demo
it was clearly a useful enhancement to Neutron even if it wasn't at the top
of my priority list.

For people to be asking to justify the why this far into the Juno cycle
when the spec was approved and the code was demoed at the summit really
brings the OpenStack process into question. It's one thing to discuss
technical merits of contributions but it's totally different to pull the rug
out from under a group of contributors at the last minute after such a long
period of development, discussion, and demo.

Seeing this sort of last minute rejection of a contribution after so much
time has been invested in it could very easily have a chilling effect on
contributors.


I don't disagree with you, Paul.

I blame myself for not paying the attention I should have to this 
earlier in the process.


FWIW, I had a good conversation with Sumit and Kevin on 
#openstack-neutron this afternoon about this particular topic. We agree 
on some things; disagree on others.


Bottom line, I go back to what I said in a previous email: the Nova and 
Neutron development teams need to do a much better job in being directly 
involved in each other's spec discussions and design conversations.


Best,
-jay

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] How to improve the specs review process (was Re: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward)

2014-08-06 Thread Kevin Benton
I'm curious, how would having Nova reviewers look at this have helped?


On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 08/06/2014 07:08 PM, CARVER, PAUL wrote:

 On Aug 6, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Mohammad Banikazemi m...@us.ibm.commailto:
 m...@us.ibm.com
   wrote:

  Yes, indeed.
 I do not want to be over dramatic but the discussion on the original
 Group
 Based Policy and the way forward thread is nothing short of
 heartbreaking.
 After months and months of discussions, three presentations at the past
 three
 summits, a design session at the last summit, and (most relevant to this
 thread) the approval of the spec, why are we talking about the merits of
 the
 work now?

 I understand if people think this is not a good idea or this is not a
 good
 time. What I do not understand is why these concerns were not raised
 clearly
 and openly earlier.


 I have to agree here. I'm not sure whether my organization needs GBP or
 not.
 It's certainly not our top priority for Neutron given a variety of other
 more
 important functional gaps. However, I saw their demo at the summit and it
 was
 clear that a lot of work had gone into it even before Icehouse. From the
 demo
 it was clearly a useful enhancement to Neutron even if it wasn't at the
 top
 of my priority list.

 For people to be asking to justify the why this far into the Juno cycle
 when the spec was approved and the code was demoed at the summit really
 brings the OpenStack process into question. It's one thing to discuss
 technical merits of contributions but it's totally different to pull the
 rug
 out from under a group of contributors at the last minute after such a
 long
 period of development, discussion, and demo.

 Seeing this sort of last minute rejection of a contribution after so much
 time has been invested in it could very easily have a chilling effect on
 contributors.


 I don't disagree with you, Paul.

 I blame myself for not paying the attention I should have to this earlier
 in the process.

 FWIW, I had a good conversation with Sumit and Kevin on #openstack-neutron
 this afternoon about this particular topic. We agree on some things;
 disagree on others.

 Bottom line, I go back to what I said in a previous email: the Nova and
 Neutron development teams need to do a much better job in being directly
 involved in each other's spec discussions and design conversations.

 Best,
 -jay


 ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev




-- 
Kevin Benton
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] How to improve the specs review process (was Re: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward)

2014-08-06 Thread Jay Pipes

On 08/06/2014 07:54 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:

I'm curious, how would having Nova reviewers look at this have helped?


As I mentioned on a previous email, Nova is the pre-eminent consumer of 
Neutron's API.


Best,
-jay


On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com
mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:

On 08/06/2014 07:08 PM, CARVER, PAUL wrote:

On Aug 6, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Mohammad Banikazemi m...@us.ibm.com
mailto:m...@us.ibm.commailto:mb@us.__ibm.com
mailto:m...@us.ibm.com
   wrote:

Yes, indeed.
I do not want to be over dramatic but the discussion on the
original Group
Based Policy and the way forward thread is nothing short of
heartbreaking.
After months and months of discussions, three presentations
at the past three
summits, a design session at the last summit, and (most
relevant to this
thread) the approval of the spec, why are we talking about
the merits of the
work now?

I understand if people think this is not a good idea or this
is not a good
time. What I do not understand is why these concerns were
not raised clearly
and openly earlier.


I have to agree here. I'm not sure whether my organization needs
GBP or not.
It's certainly not our top priority for Neutron given a variety
of other more
important functional gaps. However, I saw their demo at the
summit and it was
clear that a lot of work had gone into it even before Icehouse.
 From the demo
it was clearly a useful enhancement to Neutron even if it wasn't
at the top
of my priority list.

For people to be asking to justify the why this far into the
Juno cycle
when the spec was approved and the code was demoed at the summit
really
brings the OpenStack process into question. It's one thing to
discuss
technical merits of contributions but it's totally different to
pull the rug
out from under a group of contributors at the last minute after
such a long
period of development, discussion, and demo.

Seeing this sort of last minute rejection of a contribution
after so much
time has been invested in it could very easily have a chilling
effect on
contributors.


I don't disagree with you, Paul.

I blame myself for not paying the attention I should have to this
earlier in the process.

FWIW, I had a good conversation with Sumit and Kevin on
#openstack-neutron this afternoon about this particular topic. We
agree on some things; disagree on others.

Bottom line, I go back to what I said in a previous email: the Nova
and Neutron development teams need to do a much better job in being
directly involved in each other's spec discussions and design
conversations.

Best,
-jay


_
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.__org
mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/__cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/__openstack-dev 
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev




--
Kevin Benton


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] How to improve the specs review process (was Re: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward)

2014-08-06 Thread Richard Woo
I agreed with Jay. Nova is one of the consumer of Neutron project, someone
from Nova project should participate reviewing related blueprint in neutron
project.

Richard


On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 08/06/2014 07:54 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:

 I'm curious, how would having Nova reviewers look at this have helped?


 As I mentioned on a previous email, Nova is the pre-eminent consumer of
 Neutron's API.

 Best,
 -jay

  On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com
 mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 08/06/2014 07:08 PM, CARVER, PAUL wrote:

 On Aug 6, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Mohammad Banikazemi m...@us.ibm.com
 mailto:m...@us.ibm.commailto:mb@us.__ibm.com

 mailto:m...@us.ibm.com
wrote:

 Yes, indeed.
 I do not want to be over dramatic but the discussion on the
 original Group
 Based Policy and the way forward thread is nothing short of
 heartbreaking.
 After months and months of discussions, three presentations
 at the past three
 summits, a design session at the last summit, and (most
 relevant to this
 thread) the approval of the spec, why are we talking about
 the merits of the
 work now?

 I understand if people think this is not a good idea or this
 is not a good
 time. What I do not understand is why these concerns were
 not raised clearly
 and openly earlier.


 I have to agree here. I'm not sure whether my organization needs
 GBP or not.
 It's certainly not our top priority for Neutron given a variety
 of other more
 important functional gaps. However, I saw their demo at the
 summit and it was
 clear that a lot of work had gone into it even before Icehouse.
  From the demo
 it was clearly a useful enhancement to Neutron even if it wasn't
 at the top
 of my priority list.

 For people to be asking to justify the why this far into the
 Juno cycle
 when the spec was approved and the code was demoed at the summit
 really
 brings the OpenStack process into question. It's one thing to
 discuss
 technical merits of contributions but it's totally different to
 pull the rug
 out from under a group of contributors at the last minute after
 such a long
 period of development, discussion, and demo.

 Seeing this sort of last minute rejection of a contribution
 after so much
 time has been invested in it could very easily have a chilling
 effect on
 contributors.


 I don't disagree with you, Paul.

 I blame myself for not paying the attention I should have to this
 earlier in the process.

 FWIW, I had a good conversation with Sumit and Kevin on
 #openstack-neutron this afternoon about this particular topic. We
 agree on some things; disagree on others.

 Bottom line, I go back to what I said in a previous email: the Nova
 and Neutron development teams need to do a much better job in being
 directly involved in each other's spec discussions and design
 conversations.

 Best,
 -jay


 _
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.__org
 mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/__cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/__openstack-dev
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev





 --
 Kevin Benton


 ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


 ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] How to improve the specs review process (was Re: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward)

2014-08-06 Thread Sumit Naiksatam
I definitely agree that such cross-pollination across projects is ideal.

However, I think (and not to deviate from the general discussion on
making blueprint specs review more effective), Kevin's question was
specifically in the context of the GBP blueprint. It is not clear in
that case that a Nova reviewer would have caught the terminology
overlap. Or in other words, anyone else could have caught that, and it
did not have to be a Nova reviewer (perhaps a Keystone reviewer might
have been more perceptive).

Also the model being proposed in the GBP extensions is more
user-centrci (user being the app deployer). Nova's interaction with
Neutron is more in the consumption of the current network/port level
imperative APIs.

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Richard Woo richardwoo2...@gmail.com wrote:
 I agreed with Jay. Nova is one of the consumer of Neutron project, someone
 from Nova project should participate reviewing related blueprint in neutron
 project.

 Richard


 On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 08/06/2014 07:54 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:

 I'm curious, how would having Nova reviewers look at this have helped?


 As I mentioned on a previous email, Nova is the pre-eminent consumer of
 Neutron's API.

 Best,
 -jay

 On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com
 mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 08/06/2014 07:08 PM, CARVER, PAUL wrote:

 On Aug 6, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Mohammad Banikazemi m...@us.ibm.com
 mailto:m...@us.ibm.commailto:mb@us.__ibm.com

 mailto:m...@us.ibm.com
wrote:

 Yes, indeed.
 I do not want to be over dramatic but the discussion on the
 original Group
 Based Policy and the way forward thread is nothing short of
 heartbreaking.
 After months and months of discussions, three presentations
 at the past three
 summits, a design session at the last summit, and (most
 relevant to this
 thread) the approval of the spec, why are we talking about
 the merits of the
 work now?

 I understand if people think this is not a good idea or this
 is not a good
 time. What I do not understand is why these concerns were
 not raised clearly
 and openly earlier.


 I have to agree here. I'm not sure whether my organization needs
 GBP or not.
 It's certainly not our top priority for Neutron given a variety
 of other more
 important functional gaps. However, I saw their demo at the
 summit and it was
 clear that a lot of work had gone into it even before Icehouse.
  From the demo
 it was clearly a useful enhancement to Neutron even if it wasn't
 at the top
 of my priority list.

 For people to be asking to justify the why this far into the
 Juno cycle
 when the spec was approved and the code was demoed at the summit
 really
 brings the OpenStack process into question. It's one thing to
 discuss
 technical merits of contributions but it's totally different to
 pull the rug
 out from under a group of contributors at the last minute after
 such a long
 period of development, discussion, and demo.

 Seeing this sort of last minute rejection of a contribution
 after so much
 time has been invested in it could very easily have a chilling
 effect on
 contributors.


 I don't disagree with you, Paul.

 I blame myself for not paying the attention I should have to this
 earlier in the process.

 FWIW, I had a good conversation with Sumit and Kevin on
 #openstack-neutron this afternoon about this particular topic. We
 agree on some things; disagree on others.

 Bottom line, I go back to what I said in a previous email: the Nova
 and Neutron development teams need to do a much better job in being
 directly involved in each other's spec discussions and design
 conversations.

 Best,
 -jay


 _
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.__org
 mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/__cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/__openstack-dev
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev





 --
 Kevin Benton


 ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


 ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



 ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 

Re: [openstack-dev] How to improve the specs review process (was Re: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward)

2014-08-06 Thread Baohua Yang
+1.
And the review process should be more efficient!



On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Stefano Maffulli stef...@openstack.org
wrote:

 On 08/06/2014 11:19 AM, Edgar Magana wrote:
  That is the beauty of the open source projects, there is always a
 smartest
  reviewer catching out the facts that you don¹t.

 And yet, the specification clearly talks about 'endpoints' and nobody
 caught it where it supposed to be caught so I fear that something failed
 badly here:

 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/89469/10

 What failed and how we make sure this doesn't happen again? This to me
 is the most important question to answer.  If I remember correctly we
 introduced the concept of Specs exactly to discuss on the ideas *before*
 the implementation starts. We wanted things like architecture, naming
 conventions and other important decisions to be socialized and agreed
 upon *before* code was proposed. We wanted to avoid developers to spend
 time implementing features in ways that are incompatible and likely to
 be rejected at code review time. And yet, here we are.

 Something failed and I would ask for all core reviewers to sit down and
 do an exercise to identify the root cause. If you want we can start from
 this specific case, do some simple root cause analysis together and take
 GBP as an example. Thoughts?

 /stef

 ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev




-- 
Best wishes!
Baohua
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev