Hi Andy, thanks very much for your response. I appreciate it. Comments
and questions inline.
On 02/02/2017 09:44 PM, UKASICK, ANDREW wrote:
Hi Jay.
It's already getting late here and I still have to do my farm chores
but I want to acknowledge your request. I think you've developed
quite a wrong impression of things and clearly some of that is on us
because in the early stages of forming the LCOO working group, we
were all still trying to find our feet and in an effort to just get
started, we wrote some things that in hind sight we would probably
change today. Our group has been maturing and evolving as we have
been discussing our shared purpose and also as a result of our
collaboration with other working groups. The UC, EWG and PWG are all
represented in LCOO and vice versa.
That is comforting to hear, thank you Andy. I am still curious what the
LCOO's purpose is, though, in relation to those working groups and
committees. Please forgive me for being thick-headed! I just don't
understand whether the LCOO is intended to be a driver of contribution
*within* those existing working groups, or whether the LCOO is intended
to be a *separate* driver of contribution that would pick
efforts/blueprints/use cases from those existing working groups and have
contributors work on those? Or is the idea to have LCOO be a sort of
aggregator of use cases for Telcos and operate more as a status and
roadmap tracking body? Or something else entirely?
> Much of what you mention from the
Confluence site, which we've only been using for about a month, is I
think also being taken out of context. You called it "closed" but
just as you were able to quickly and easily create an account, get
access, and browse around, so can anyone else.
Sorry, when I said "closed" I meant that Atlassian products are not
open-source. Atlassian owns the code and owns the content, which is why
OpenStack teams don't use Jira and Confluence for work tracking.
> In fact you also had
the complete ability to create your own pages, read and comment on
the pages, edit or even delete the pages, put things on the calendar,
whatever. The pages work like etherpads allowing simultaneous editing
but with much more powerful tools and the convenience of a wiki
format. And hey, it was free. The site is completely open except for
one small section and that is explained if you stumbled across it.
Other working groups routinely put things in secured Google docs and
such. I don't think we're out of line but just this morning we
discussed ways to be more open. We were not publishing all our
meetings in the User Committee email list which was an oversight that
we're correcting. I'd encourage you to just reach out to us with any
questions or concerns before taking what certainly feels like a
confrontational posture in such a broadly public forum.
I recognize that I have a tendency to be ideological and rigid in
certain of my viewpoints, and I am sorry to have offended. Please accept
my apologies, Andy. I sincerely wish to see open and productive
collaboration between contributors and users of OpenStack.
> We're all
community members and we're exploring how best to make a significant,
positive contribution. That is what everyone wants to do.
Cheers to that.
I'm not a co-chair of LCOO, but I am a co-chair of a sub-team that we
recently formed to begin laying the groundwork for what we hope will
eventually become some significant contributions from a working group
perspective. I don't speak for the group, I'm just telling you my
opinion. First of all I cannot understand why the community would not
want to welcome people who want to contribute?
Two points here.
Firstly, I certainly do not represent the entire OpenStack community :)
I am but one (sometimes blunt, certainly emotional, but often wrong)
opinion out of many. Please don't equate my questions with the broader
OpenStack community not being welcoming.
Secondly, I absolutely *do* want to welcome people who want to
contribute! And I'm not just talking about development contributions. I
value documentation, bug reporting, spec writing, use case development,
architectural research, marketing and all sorts of other contributions.
My goal is not to put up walls to contribution. Instead, my goal is to
ensure that the avenues by which the OpenStack community gathers
contributions (of all forms) don't overlap, since such overlap
inevitably leads to missed opportunities and duplicated efforts.
A secondary goal of mine is to reduce bureaucracy in our governance and
ensure that we have as unimpeded a pipeline as possible between the
folks describing work that needs done, and the folks that are doing that
work. Please take my questions as an effort to examine whether the
additional process and structure of the LCOO is indeed warranted in
order to accomplish the goals the LCOO member companies have.
> I don't think that we
deserve to be called about and have our right to exist challenged.
You all work alongside the companies that have come together under
LCOO every day. We're all community members. There is nothing
nefarious going on, no hidden agenda, no secret bid for power or any
other such thing.
Yes, I do work alongside the member companies of the LCOO every day. I'm
close colleagues and friends with a number of folks in the LCOO.
However, I am not questioning anyone's right to existence. I am merely
questioning whether the LCOO is set up in a way to ensure the success of
its member companies' roadmaps.
> There is no need for fear and anyone is welcome to
attend meetings, view agendas and minutes, comment on and add to
them. IMO, our identity could be best characterized as large
operators whose companies are also committed to being significant
contributors to the development effort. That brings some unique
character to LCOO. We wanted to avoid creating a forum where everyone
comes with their complaints, demands and wish lists. We wanted to
create a group in which everyone has real skin in the game. In which
everyone is a contributor. Our identity is also as USERS of
openstack.
I think all of the above is awesome! That said, I don't think there are
things about the existing OpenStack contributor ecosystem that have
*prevented* any of the LCOO member company's contributors from actively
participating in the development of OpenStack projects. If there *are*
things about the contributor ecosystem that have inhibited participation
from Intel, Orange, AT&T, Reliance, NTT, etc, then let us address those
issues directly. I personally would be pleased to have a discussion on
those topics, as I'm sure the User Committee would as well.
<snip>
Another aspect of what we've been doing is providing a forum in which
participants can discuss the challenges they're experiencing from a
USER perspective. Share information, solutions, help one another. For
example we had some meetings where AT&T presented about Gluon which
you seem to have keyed in on. But the Gluon project is not being
managed from within LCOO meetings. Gluon is a project that AT&T
initiated, but as you saw, it's being managed separately. LCOO does
not have an OPNFV jira instance. We do have an LCOO Jira instance,
but we're still getting it ready to begin using it. You could have
jumped right into it when you were in our Confluence site. They're
integrated. We also dedicated many sessions to sharing what each
other is working on in the community. But none of that work has been
planned or driven from within LCOO thus far and that is not our
focus. We want to be aware of one another's efforts, offer feedback
and support, but LCOO is not the BORG. That said though, we are
hoping to take on a small number of efforts for the Community of the
nature I described earlier under the PWG Process linked above. I'm
optimistic that we may be able to do that in time to (if all goes
smoothly) see actual development underway in Queens. That's something
that we'll need JIRA for, to help with the planning and tracking
across the broad openstack portfolio. That's the same way that many
others in the community use JIRA, including OSIC who we recently had
meetings with to explore how they were using it.
Personally I resent having our right to form a working group like
this challenged at all. But I hope I've been able to lay some of your
concerns to rest. The bottom line is that we're all in this together.
Politics be damned, let's pull together and do all that we can to
make OpenStack as great as it can be and make the world a better
place along the way.
Trust me, politics was the last thing I had in mind when I wrote my
questions about the LCOO!
> Here in the USA where I live, I find myself
rather disgusted with politics right now. Let's move forward.
You and me both, Andy. And I'm happy to move the conversation forward
with you, constructively.
Best,
-jay
-Andy >
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 7:23 PM
To: Edgar Magana <edgar.mag...@workday.com>;
openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org; user-commit...@lists.openstack.org
Cc: MCCABE, JAMEY A <jm6...@att.com>; UKASICK, ANDREW <au3...@att.com>
Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] Large Contributing OpenStack
Operators working group?
On 02/02/2017 05:02 PM, Edgar Magana wrote:
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.
Was there any follow-on from that request from the UC?
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.
Sure, no problem.
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, appreciated. Andrew and Jamey, please do let me know if you
would like me to rephrase or elaborate on any questions. Happy to do so. I
genuinely want to see alignment with other groups in this effort.
Best,
-jay
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.or
g_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_openstack-2Ddev&d=DwICAg&c=DS6PUFBBr_KiLo
7Sjt3ljp5jaW5k2i9ijVXllEdOozc&r=G0XRJfDQsuBvqa_wpWyDAUlSpeMV4W1qfWqBfc
tlWwQ&m=haOSpIhsa6KyDvuhRFigFVTLrTJxJ1Zv3kfm0JwTTtY&s=RzyOgrwm1BfJXW8S
deBdAOpYEAXsisGKWvj_Lk3iEec&e=
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operator
s
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
