Jay, I am including the WG chairs to make sure they answers your questions and addresses your concerns. In Barcelona the UC asked exactly the same questions and recommended to the co-chairs of the LCOO WG to work with the existing WG to identify overlapping activities and either to work together or go ahead with the WG if there were not overlapping on goals and deliverables.
I will let the co-chairs to follow up yours questions. BTW. I do not think this topic should be posted in the openstack-dev mailing list. So, I will BCC it. Andrew and Jamey, Please, address these questions. Let’s work all together to make sure that we have all groups aligned and coordinated. Thanks, Edgar On 2/2/17, 12:14 PM, "Jay Pipes" <jaypi...@gmail.com> 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 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.openstack.org_wiki_Gluon_Tasks-2DOcata&d=DwICAg&c=DS6PUFBBr_KiLo7Sjt3ljp5jaW5k2i9ijVXllEdOozc&r=G0XRJfDQsuBvqa_wpWyDAUlSpeMV4W1qfWqBfctlWwQ&m=haOSpIhsa6KyDvuhRFigFVTLrTJxJ1Zv3kfm0JwTTtY&s=kntt00JEwpizTxQus4U9FhnwF_7WicJ7oRncGmkYPGc&e= 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 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.openstack.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_openstack-2Ddev&d=DwICAg&c=DS6PUFBBr_KiLo7Sjt3ljp5jaW5k2i9ijVXllEdOozc&r=G0XRJfDQsuBvqa_wpWyDAUlSpeMV4W1qfWqBfctlWwQ&m=haOSpIhsa6KyDvuhRFigFVTLrTJxJ1Zv3kfm0JwTTtY&s=RzyOgrwm1BfJXW8SdeBdAOpYEAXsisGKWvj_Lk3iEec&e= _______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators