Re: [openstack-dev] stackforge projects are not second class citizens
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Georgy Okrokvertskhov gokrokvertsk...@mirantis.com wrote: In Murano project we do see a positive impact of BigTent model. Since Murano was accepted as a part of BigTent community we had a lot of conversations with potential users. They were driven exactly by the fact that Murano is now officially recognized in OpenStack community. It might be a wrong perception, but this is a perception they have. Most of the guys we met are enterprises for whom catalog functionality is interesting. The problem with enterprises is that their thinking periods are often more than 6-9 months. They are not individuals who can start contributing over a night. They need some time to create proper org structure changes to organize development process. The benefits of that is more stable and predictable development over time as soon as they start contributing. Sure, I was ignoring the question about potential users, and only looking at 'development resources'. Although I am interested in seeing how the user's view of being official changes now that it means something very different (governance wise) in the big tent. Thanks Gosha On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote: You may also find my explanation about the Big Tent helpful in this interview with Niki Acosta and Jeff Dickey: http://blogs.cisco.com/cloud/ospod-29-jay-pipes Best, -jay On 06/16/2015 06:09 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote: On 16/06/15 04:39 -0400, gordon chung wrote: i won't speak to whether this confirms/refutes the usefulness of the big tent. that said, probably as a by-product of being in non-stop meetings with sales/ marketing/managers for last few days, i think there needs to be better definitions (or better publicised definitions) of what the goals of the big tent are. from my experience, they've heard of the big tent and they are, to varying degrees, critical of it. one common point is that they see it as greater fragmentation to a process that is already too slow. Not saying this is the final answer to all the questions but at least it's a good place to start from: https://www.openstack.org/summit/vancouver-2015/summit-videos/presentation/the-big-tent-a-look-at-the-new-openstack-projects-governance That said, this is great feedback and we may indeed need to do a better job to explain the big tent. That presentation, I believe, was an attempt to do so. Flavio just giving my fly-on-the-wall view from the other side. On 15/06/2015 6:20 AM, Joe Gordon wrote: One of the stated problems the 'big tent' is supposed to solve is: 'The binary nature of the integrated release results in projects outside the integrated release failing to get the recognition they deserve. Non-official projects are second- or third-class citizens which can't get development resources. Alternative solutions can't emerge in the shadow of the blessed approach. Becoming part of the integrated release, which was originally designed to be a technical decision, quickly became a life-or-death question for new projects, and a political/community minefield.' [0] Meaning projects should see an uptick in development once they drop their second-class citizenship and join OpenStack. Now that we have been living in the world of the big tent for several months now, we can see if this claim is true. Below is a list of the first few few projects to join OpenStack after the big tent, All of which have now been part of OpenStack for at least two months.[1] * Mangum - Tue Mar 24 20:17:36 2015 * Murano - Tue Mar 24 20:48:25 2015 * Congress - Tue Mar 31 20:24:04 2015 * Rally - Tue Apr 7 21:25:53 2015 When looking at stackalytics [2] for each project, we don't see any noticeably change in number of reviews, contributors, or number of commits from before and after each project joined OpenStack. So what does this mean? At least in the short term moving from Stackforge to OpenStack does not result in an increase in development resources (too early to know about the long term). One of the three reasons for the big tent appears to be unfounded, but the other two reasons hold. The only thing I think this information changes is what peoples expectations should be when applying to join OpenStack. [0] https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/resolutions/ 20141202-project-structure-reform-spec.rst [1] Ignoring OpenStackClent since the repos were always in OpenStack it just didn't have a formal home in the governance repo. [2] h http://stackalytics.com/?module=magnum-groupmetric=commits __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
Re: [openstack-dev] stackforge projects are not second class citizens
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote: One of the stated problems the 'big tent' is supposed to solve is: 'The binary nature of the integrated release results in projects outside the integrated release failing to get the recognition they deserve. Non-official projects are second- or third-class citizens which can't get development resources. Alternative solutions can't emerge in the shadow of the blessed approach. Becoming part of the integrated release, which was originally designed to be a technical decision, quickly became a life-or-death question for new projects, and a political/community minefield.' [0] Meaning projects should see an uptick in development once they drop their second-class citizenship and join OpenStack. Now that we have been living in the world of the big tent for several months now, we can see if this claim is true. Below is a list of the first few few projects to join OpenStack after the big tent, All of which have now been part of OpenStack for at least two months.[1] * Mangum - Tue Mar 24 20:17:36 2015 * Murano - Tue Mar 24 20:48:25 2015 * Congress - Tue Mar 31 20:24:04 2015 * Rally - Tue Apr 7 21:25:53 2015 When looking at stackalytics [2] for each project, we don't see any noticeably change in number of reviews, contributors, or number of commits from before and after each project joined OpenStack. Looks like my previous analysis was a bit off. Stackalytics is less useful for gathering statistics on contributons then I originally thought. Both the UX and REST APIs are very limited. Instead I looked at the number of commits and contributors directly from git (looking only the main repo for each project, ignoring clients etc). Of the projects listed above, all of them have the most contribuors after joining OpenStack. In comparison projects already in OpenStack saw the most number of contributors in the two months before the first big tent additions. I think this is due to the Kilo release. So it looks like there is a measurable bump in the number of contributors once a project joins OpenStack (although I am finding it diffucult to draw any conclusion about the number of commits). But when looking further into the data we see a different story. * Magnums large spike on contributors (10 additional contributors) but when looking at the contributor diff, the number should really be closer to 5. * The 5 additional contributors in Murano can be attributed to new developers from an existing company plus single patches from from two developers about sql driver and oslo. It is hard to read into the jump in contributors after joining the big tent. But there is definitly something going on, just unclear what it means over a longer period of time. data: http://paste.openstack.org/show/310710 code: http://paste.openstack.org/show/310711 What really matters should be diversity, it is easy to see a bump in development as compaines already involved in a project add more resources too it. IMHO one of the hopes for a project joining the big tent is to get new companies to join. Thankfully this is where stackalytics is very useful. We can compare contributions by company from kilo and liberty. * Magnum -- clear jump in corporate diversity for both reviews and commits (with new companies getting involved) * Kilo reviews http://stackalytics.com/?project_type=allmetric=marksmodule=magnum-grouprelease=kilo * Liberty reviews http://stackalytics.com/?project_type=allmetric=marksmodule=magnum-grouprelease=liberty * Kio commit: http://stackalytics.com/?project_type=allmetric=commitsmodule=magnum-grouprelease=kilo * Liberty commits: http://stackalytics.com/?project_type=allmetric=commitsmodule=magnum-grouprelease=liberty * Murano -- Slight decrese in diversity for both commits and reviews * Congress -- Liberty numbers are too small to draw any conclusions on * Rally - Slight increase in review diversity (with a new company joining), commit diversity had no major change (but it is already pretty good). From the little data we have so far, here are my revised conclusions: * Joining the big tent doesn't automatically mean new companies will contribute * Projects that were fairly diverse when in stackforge get new contributing companies after joining the big tent. * At this point it is unclear to me if the inverse (projects that weren't very diverse before, don't gain new contributors) is true as well. So it looks like joining 'OpenStack' sometimes has a clearly measurable correlation with a projects corporate diversity. It will be very interesting to re-analyize the numbers once Liberty is released. So what does this mean? At least in the short term moving from Stackfokeystonerge to OpenStack does not result in an increase in development resources (too early to know about the long term). One of the three reasons for the big tent appears to be unfounded, but the other two reasons hold. The only thing I think
Re: [openstack-dev] stackforge projects are not second class citizens
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote: On 06/15/2015 06:20 AM, Joe Gordon wrote: One of the stated problems the 'big tent' is supposed to solve is: 'The binary nature of the integrated release results in projects outside the integrated release failing to get the recognition they deserve. Non-official projects are second- or third-class citizens which can't get development resources. Alternative solutions can't emerge in the shadow of the blessed approach. Becoming part of the integrated release, which was originally designed to be a technical decision, quickly became a life-or-death question for new projects, and a political/community minefield.' [0] Meaning projects should see an uptick in development once they drop their second-class citizenship and join OpenStack. Now that we have been living in the world of the big tent for several months now, we can see if this claim is true. Below is a list of the first few few projects to join OpenStack after the big tent, All of which have now been part of OpenStack for at least two months.[1] * Mangum - Tue Mar 24 20:17:36 2015 * Murano - Tue Mar 24 20:48:25 2015 * Congress - Tue Mar 31 20:24:04 2015 * Rally - Tue Apr 7 21:25:53 2015 When looking at stackalytics [2] for each project, we don't see any noticeably change in number of reviews, contributors, or number of commits from before and after each project joined OpenStack. So what does this mean? At least in the short term moving from Stackforge to OpenStack does not result in an increase in development resources (too early to know about the long term). One of the three reasons for the big tent appears to be unfounded, but the other two reasons hold. You have not given enough time to see the effects of the Big Tent, IMHO. Lots of folks in the corporate world just found out about it at the design summit, frankly. As I responded in a different email, I tend to agree with you. Although there are some clear trends towards new contributing companies already. The only thing I think this information changes is what peoples expectations should be when applying to join OpenStack. What is your assumption of what people's expectations are when applying to join OpenStack? That joining OpenStack will result in more companies contributing to a given project. Best, -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 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] stackforge projects are not second class citizens
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Adrian Otto adrian.o...@rackspace.com wrote: Joe, I must respectfully disagree. The statistics you used to indicate that Magnum did not benefit from joining the tent are not telling the whole story. Facts: Agreed, after looking at the numbers some more, I don't know if i would call stackforge second class, but it is definitely not 100% first class. 1) When we had our Midcycle just before joining OpenStack in March we had 24 contributors from 13 affiliations when we joined. You were there, remember? We now have 55 contributors from 22 affiliations. 2) There is a ramp time in the number of reviews and commits that newcomers offer. You don't just show up and drop 10 new commits a day. Most of our new contributors have just joined the effort. I can tell by their behavior that they are gearing up to participate in a more meaningful way. They are showing up at team meetings, discussing blueprints, discussing issues on the ML, and just staring to work on a few bugs. I am sure that commits are are trailing indicator of engagement, not a leading one. Agreed, we only have very preliminary numbers right now. 3) Contributors who participated the most in the last cycle are not producing as many reviews this time around. Several of them are working on productization strategy and execution to bring related next generation cloud services to market. This focus happens downstream, not upstream. The top commit contributors this cycle are from HP and Intel, who were only minimally involved before we joined OpenStack. Yup, the new contributions from HP and Intel appear to have a strong correlation with joining OpenStack. 4) As a project proceeds through maturation, commit velocity decreases as the complexity of new features increases. We picked the low hanging fruit for Magnum, and now we are focusing on harder work that requires more planning and collaboration, and less blasting out of try this code. Our quality expectations are higher now. Joining worked for Magnum. after revisiting this issue, I tend to agree. But I am still struggling to go beyond correlation and reach causality. Since this could simply be attributed to Magnum's growth (it already attracted 13 companies in stackforge. Furthermore why do you think joining worked for Magnum? Joining doesn't appear to work for every project. When you stay in Stackforge, you have a limited window of time to build community, and then it fades. You don't need to look far to find examples of that. Our community certainly I don't think this is unique to stackforge, I think this is true in OpenStack as well. OpenStack is littered with projects that lack a diverse set of contributors. does treat Stackforge projects as second class. The process of starting Magnum reaffirmed that fact for me. I even have reviews where I was explicitly told in -1 vote comments that Stackforge was a second class and that was the point of it. Unfortunately Stackforge's reputation has been fouled because of the way we have treated it. I don't think that can be fixed. Once you are labeled a tramp, you don't recover from that socially. Stackforge is our tramp now, like it or not. Big Tent is our opportunity to build an inclusive community right. Let's not go changing it before we have given it a fair chance first. I never intended this email to call for change. I was simply trying to evaluate one of the big tent motivations, now that we have preliminary numbers on it. And my initial analysis was wrong. Thanks, Adrian On Jun 15, 2015, at 3:25 AM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote: One of the stated problems the 'big tent' is supposed to solve is: 'The binary nature of the integrated release results in projects outside the integrated release failing to get the recognition they deserve. Non-official projects are second- or third-class citizens which can't get development resources. Alternative solutions can't emerge in the shadow of the blessed approach. Becoming part of the integrated release, which was originally designed to be a technical decision, quickly became a life-or-death question for new projects, and a political/community minefield.' [0] Meaning projects should see an uptick in development once they drop their second-class citizenship and join OpenStack. Now that we have been living in the world of the big tent for several months now, we can see if this claim is true. Below is a list of the first few few projects to join OpenStack after the big tent, All of which have now been part of OpenStack for at least two months.[1] * Mangum - Tue Mar 24 20:17:36 2015 * Murano - Tue Mar 24 20:48:25 2015 * Congress - Tue Mar 31 20:24:04 2015 * Rally - Tue Apr 7 21:25:53 2015 When looking at stackalytics [2] for each project, we don't see any noticeably change in number of reviews, contributors, or number of commits from before and after each
Re: [openstack-dev] stackforge projects are not second class citizens
On 06/16/2015 08:16 PM, Georgy Okrokvertskhov wrote: In Murano project we do see a positive impact of BigTent model. Since Murano was accepted as a part of BigTent community we had a lot of conversations with potential users. They were driven exactly by the fact that Murano is now officially recognized in OpenStack community. It might be a wrong perception, but this is a perception they have. +1, the same experience as we had with ironic-inspector (former ironic-discoverd) Most of the guys we met are enterprises for whom catalog functionality is interesting. The problem with enterprises is that their thinking periods are often more than 6-9 months. They are not individuals who can start contributing over a night. They need some time to create proper org structure changes to organize development process. The benefits of that is more stable and predictable development over time as soon as they start contributing. Thanks Gosha On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com wrote: You may also find my explanation about the Big Tent helpful in this interview with Niki Acosta and Jeff Dickey: http://blogs.cisco.com/cloud/ospod-29-jay-pipes Best, -jay On 06/16/2015 06:09 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote: On 16/06/15 04:39 -0400, gordon chung wrote: i won't speak to whether this confirms/refutes the usefulness of the big tent. that said, probably as a by-product of being in non-stop meetings with sales/ marketing/managers for last few days, i think there needs to be better definitions (or better publicised definitions) of what the goals of the big tent are. from my experience, they've heard of the big tent and they are, to varying degrees, critical of it. one common point is that they see it as greater fragmentation to a process that is already too slow. Not saying this is the final answer to all the questions but at least it's a good place to start from: https://www.openstack.org/summit/vancouver-2015/summit-videos/presentation/the-big-tent-a-look-at-the-new-openstack-projects-governance That said, this is great feedback and we may indeed need to do a better job to explain the big tent. That presentation, I believe, was an attempt to do so. Flavio just giving my fly-on-the-wall view from the other side. On 15/06/2015 6:20 AM, Joe Gordon wrote: One of the stated problems the 'big tent' is supposed to solve is: 'The binary nature of the integrated release results in projects outside the integrated release failing to get the recognition they deserve. Non-official projects are second- or third-class citizens which can't get development resources. Alternative solutions can't emerge in the shadow of the blessed approach. Becoming part of the integrated release, which was originally designed to be a technical decision, quickly became a life-or-death question for new projects, and a political/community minefield.' [0] Meaning projects should see an uptick in development once they drop their second-class citizenship and join OpenStack. Now that we have been living in the world of the big tent for several months now, we can see if this claim is true. Below is a list of the first few few projects to join OpenStack after the big tent, All of which have now been part of OpenStack for at least two months.[1] * Mangum - Tue Mar 24 20:17:36 2015 * Murano - Tue Mar 24 20:48:25 2015 * Congress - Tue Mar 31 20:24:04 2015 * Rally - Tue Apr 7 21:25:53 2015 When looking at stackalytics [2] for each project, we don't see any noticeably change in number of reviews, contributors, or number of commits from before and after each project joined OpenStack. So what does this mean? At least in the short term moving from Stackforge to OpenStack does not result in an increase in development resources (too early to know about the long term). One of the three reasons for the big
Re: [openstack-dev] stackforge projects are not second class citizens
Joe, I must respectfully disagree. The statistics you used to indicate that Magnum did not benefit from joining the tent are not telling the whole story. Facts: 1) When we had our Midcycle just before joining OpenStack in March we had 24 contributors from 13 affiliations when we joined. You were there, remember? We now have 55 contributors from 22 affiliations. 2) There is a ramp time in the number of reviews and commits that newcomers offer. You don't just show up and drop 10 new commits a day. Most of our new contributors have just joined the effort. I can tell by their behavior that they are gearing up to participate in a more meaningful way. They are showing up at team meetings, discussing blueprints, discussing issues on the ML, and just staring to work on a few bugs. I am sure that commits are are trailing indicator of engagement, not a leading one. 3) Contributors who participated the most in the last cycle are not producing as many reviews this time around. Several of them are working on productization strategy and execution to bring related next generation cloud services to market. This focus happens downstream, not upstream. The top commit contributors this cycle are from HP and Intel, who were only minimally involved before we joined OpenStack. 4) As a project proceeds through maturation, commit velocity decreases as the complexity of new features increases. We picked the low hanging fruit for Magnum, and now we are focusing on harder work that requires more planning and collaboration, and less blasting out of try this code. Our quality expectations are higher now. Joining worked for Magnum. When you stay in Stackforge, you have a limited window of time to build community, and then it fades. You don't need to look far to find examples of that. Our community certainly does treat Stackforge projects as second class. The process of starting Magnum reaffirmed that fact for me. I even have reviews where I was explicitly told in -1 vote comments that Stackforge was a second class and that was the point of it. Unfortunately Stackforge's reputation has been fouled because of the way we have treated it. I don't think that can be fixed. Once you are labeled a tramp, you don't recover from that socially. Stackforge is our tramp now, like it or not. Big Tent is our opportunity to build an inclusive community right. Let's not go changing it before we have given it a fair chance first. Thanks, Adrian On Jun 15, 2015, at 3:25 AM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.commailto:joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote: One of the stated problems the 'big tent' is supposed to solve is: 'The binary nature of the integrated release results in projects outside the integrated release failing to get the recognition they deserve. Non-official projects are second- or third-class citizens which can't get development resources. Alternative solutions can't emerge in the shadow of the blessed approach. Becoming part of the integrated release, which was originally designed to be a technical decision, quickly became a life-or-death question for new projects, and a political/community minefield.' [0] Meaning projects should see an uptick in development once they drop their second-class citizenship and join OpenStack. Now that we have been living in the world of the big tent for several months now, we can see if this claim is true. Below is a list of the first few few projects to join OpenStack after the big tent, All of which have now been part of OpenStack for at least two months.[1] * Mangum - Tue Mar 24 20:17:36 2015 * Murano - Tue Mar 24 20:48:25 2015 * Congress - Tue Mar 31 20:24:04 2015 * Rally - Tue Apr 7 21:25:53 2015 When looking at stackalytics [2] for each project, we don't see any noticeably change in number of reviews, contributors, or number of commits from before and after each project joined OpenStack. So what does this mean? At least in the short term moving from Stackforge to OpenStack does not result in an increase in development resources (too early to know about the long term). One of the three reasons for the big tent appears to be unfounded, but the other two reasons hold. The only thing I think this information changes is what peoples expectations should be when applying to join OpenStack. [0] https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/resolutions/20141202-project-structure-reform-spec.rst [1] Ignoring OpenStackClent since the repos were always in OpenStack it just didn't have a formal home in the governance repo. [2] hhttp://stackalytics.com/?module=openstackclient-groupmetric=commitshttp://stackalytics.com/?module=magnum-groupmetric=commits __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
Re: [openstack-dev] stackforge projects are not second class citizens
In Murano project we do see a positive impact of BigTent model. Since Murano was accepted as a part of BigTent community we had a lot of conversations with potential users. They were driven exactly by the fact that Murano is now officially recognized in OpenStack community. It might be a wrong perception, but this is a perception they have. Most of the guys we met are enterprises for whom catalog functionality is interesting. The problem with enterprises is that their thinking periods are often more than 6-9 months. They are not individuals who can start contributing over a night. They need some time to create proper org structure changes to organize development process. The benefits of that is more stable and predictable development over time as soon as they start contributing. Thanks Gosha On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote: You may also find my explanation about the Big Tent helpful in this interview with Niki Acosta and Jeff Dickey: http://blogs.cisco.com/cloud/ospod-29-jay-pipes Best, -jay On 06/16/2015 06:09 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote: On 16/06/15 04:39 -0400, gordon chung wrote: i won't speak to whether this confirms/refutes the usefulness of the big tent. that said, probably as a by-product of being in non-stop meetings with sales/ marketing/managers for last few days, i think there needs to be better definitions (or better publicised definitions) of what the goals of the big tent are. from my experience, they've heard of the big tent and they are, to varying degrees, critical of it. one common point is that they see it as greater fragmentation to a process that is already too slow. Not saying this is the final answer to all the questions but at least it's a good place to start from: https://www.openstack.org/summit/vancouver-2015/summit-videos/presentation/the-big-tent-a-look-at-the-new-openstack-projects-governance That said, this is great feedback and we may indeed need to do a better job to explain the big tent. That presentation, I believe, was an attempt to do so. Flavio just giving my fly-on-the-wall view from the other side. On 15/06/2015 6:20 AM, Joe Gordon wrote: One of the stated problems the 'big tent' is supposed to solve is: 'The binary nature of the integrated release results in projects outside the integrated release failing to get the recognition they deserve. Non-official projects are second- or third-class citizens which can't get development resources. Alternative solutions can't emerge in the shadow of the blessed approach. Becoming part of the integrated release, which was originally designed to be a technical decision, quickly became a life-or-death question for new projects, and a political/community minefield.' [0] Meaning projects should see an uptick in development once they drop their second-class citizenship and join OpenStack. Now that we have been living in the world of the big tent for several months now, we can see if this claim is true. Below is a list of the first few few projects to join OpenStack after the big tent, All of which have now been part of OpenStack for at least two months.[1] * Mangum - Tue Mar 24 20:17:36 2015 * Murano - Tue Mar 24 20:48:25 2015 * Congress - Tue Mar 31 20:24:04 2015 * Rally - Tue Apr 7 21:25:53 2015 When looking at stackalytics [2] for each project, we don't see any noticeably change in number of reviews, contributors, or number of commits from before and after each project joined OpenStack. So what does this mean? At least in the short term moving from Stackforge to OpenStack does not result in an increase in development resources (too early to know about the long term). One of the three reasons for the big tent appears to be unfounded, but the other two reasons hold. The only thing I think this information changes is what peoples expectations should be when applying to join OpenStack. [0] https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/resolutions/ 20141202-project-structure-reform-spec.rst [1] Ignoring OpenStackClent since the repos were always in OpenStack it just didn't have a formal home in the governance repo. [2] h http://stackalytics.com/?module=magnum-groupmetric=commits __ 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 -- gord __ 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] stackforge projects are not second class citizens
i won't speak to whether this confirms/refutes the usefulness of the big tent. that said, probably as a by-product of being in non-stop meetings with sales/marketing/managers for last few days, i think there needs to be better definitions (or better publicised definitions) of what the goals of the big tent are. from my experience, they've heard of the big tent and they are, to varying degrees, critical of it. one common point is that they see it as greater fragmentation to a process that is already too slow. just giving my fly-on-the-wall view from the other side. On 15/06/2015 6:20 AM, Joe Gordon wrote: One of the stated problems the 'big tent' is supposed to solve is: 'The binary nature of the integrated release results in projects outside the integrated release failing to get the recognition they deserve. Non-official projects are second- or third-class citizens which can't get development resources. Alternative solutions can't emerge in the shadow of the blessed approach. Becoming part of the integrated release, which was originally designed to be a technical decision, quickly became a life-or-death question for new projects, and a political/community minefield.' [0] Meaning projects should see an uptick in development once they drop their second-class citizenship and join OpenStack. Now that we have been living in the world of the big tent for several months now, we can see if this claim is true. Below is a list of the first few few projects to join OpenStack after the big tent, All of which have now been part of OpenStack for at least two months.[1] * Mangum - Tue Mar 24 20:17:36 2015 * Murano - Tue Mar 24 20:48:25 2015 * Congress - Tue Mar 31 20:24:04 2015 * Rally - Tue Apr 7 21:25:53 2015 When looking at stackalytics [2] for each project, we don't see any noticeably change in number of reviews, contributors, or number of commits from before and after each project joined OpenStack. So what does this mean? At least in the short term moving from Stackforge to OpenStack does not result in an increase in development resources (too early to know about the long term). One of the three reasons for the big tent appears to be unfounded, but the other two reasons hold. The only thing I think this information changes is what peoples expectations should be when applying to join OpenStack. [0] https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/resolutions/20141202-project-structure-reform-spec.rst [1] Ignoring OpenStackClent since the repos were always in OpenStack it just didn't have a formal home in the governance repo. [2] h http://stackalytics.com/?module=openstackclient-groupmetric=commits_http://stackalytics.com/?module=magnum-groupmetric=commits_ __ 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 -- gord __ 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] stackforge projects are not second class citizens
On 16/06/15 04:39 -0400, gordon chung wrote: i won't speak to whether this confirms/refutes the usefulness of the big tent. that said, probably as a by-product of being in non-stop meetings with sales/ marketing/managers for last few days, i think there needs to be better definitions (or better publicised definitions) of what the goals of the big tent are. from my experience, they've heard of the big tent and they are, to varying degrees, critical of it. one common point is that they see it as greater fragmentation to a process that is already too slow. Not saying this is the final answer to all the questions but at least it's a good place to start from: https://www.openstack.org/summit/vancouver-2015/summit-videos/presentation/the-big-tent-a-look-at-the-new-openstack-projects-governance That said, this is great feedback and we may indeed need to do a better job to explain the big tent. That presentation, I believe, was an attempt to do so. Flavio just giving my fly-on-the-wall view from the other side. On 15/06/2015 6:20 AM, Joe Gordon wrote: One of the stated problems the 'big tent' is supposed to solve is: 'The binary nature of the integrated release results in projects outside the integrated release failing to get the recognition they deserve. Non-official projects are second- or third-class citizens which can't get development resources. Alternative solutions can't emerge in the shadow of the blessed approach. Becoming part of the integrated release, which was originally designed to be a technical decision, quickly became a life-or-death question for new projects, and a political/community minefield.' [0] Meaning projects should see an uptick in development once they drop their second-class citizenship and join OpenStack. Now that we have been living in the world of the big tent for several months now, we can see if this claim is true. Below is a list of the first few few projects to join OpenStack after the big tent, All of which have now been part of OpenStack for at least two months.[1] * Mangum - Tue Mar 24 20:17:36 2015 * Murano - Tue Mar 24 20:48:25 2015 * Congress - Tue Mar 31 20:24:04 2015 * Rally - Tue Apr 7 21:25:53 2015 When looking at stackalytics [2] for each project, we don't see any noticeably change in number of reviews, contributors, or number of commits from before and after each project joined OpenStack. So what does this mean? At least in the short term moving from Stackforge to OpenStack does not result in an increase in development resources (too early to know about the long term). One of the three reasons for the big tent appears to be unfounded, but the other two reasons hold. The only thing I think this information changes is what peoples expectations should be when applying to join OpenStack. [0] https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/resolutions/ 20141202-project-structure-reform-spec.rst [1] Ignoring OpenStackClent since the repos were always in OpenStack it just didn't have a formal home in the governance repo. [2] h http://stackalytics.com/?module=magnum-groupmetric=commits __ 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 -- gord __ 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 -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco pgpSIDs5U2kZD.pgp Description: PGP signature __ 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] stackforge projects are not second class citizens
You may also find my explanation about the Big Tent helpful in this interview with Niki Acosta and Jeff Dickey: http://blogs.cisco.com/cloud/ospod-29-jay-pipes Best, -jay On 06/16/2015 06:09 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote: On 16/06/15 04:39 -0400, gordon chung wrote: i won't speak to whether this confirms/refutes the usefulness of the big tent. that said, probably as a by-product of being in non-stop meetings with sales/ marketing/managers for last few days, i think there needs to be better definitions (or better publicised definitions) of what the goals of the big tent are. from my experience, they've heard of the big tent and they are, to varying degrees, critical of it. one common point is that they see it as greater fragmentation to a process that is already too slow. Not saying this is the final answer to all the questions but at least it's a good place to start from: https://www.openstack.org/summit/vancouver-2015/summit-videos/presentation/the-big-tent-a-look-at-the-new-openstack-projects-governance That said, this is great feedback and we may indeed need to do a better job to explain the big tent. That presentation, I believe, was an attempt to do so. Flavio just giving my fly-on-the-wall view from the other side. On 15/06/2015 6:20 AM, Joe Gordon wrote: One of the stated problems the 'big tent' is supposed to solve is: 'The binary nature of the integrated release results in projects outside the integrated release failing to get the recognition they deserve. Non-official projects are second- or third-class citizens which can't get development resources. Alternative solutions can't emerge in the shadow of the blessed approach. Becoming part of the integrated release, which was originally designed to be a technical decision, quickly became a life-or-death question for new projects, and a political/community minefield.' [0] Meaning projects should see an uptick in development once they drop their second-class citizenship and join OpenStack. Now that we have been living in the world of the big tent for several months now, we can see if this claim is true. Below is a list of the first few few projects to join OpenStack after the big tent, All of which have now been part of OpenStack for at least two months.[1] * Mangum - Tue Mar 24 20:17:36 2015 * Murano - Tue Mar 24 20:48:25 2015 * Congress - Tue Mar 31 20:24:04 2015 * Rally - Tue Apr 7 21:25:53 2015 When looking at stackalytics [2] for each project, we don't see any noticeably change in number of reviews, contributors, or number of commits from before and after each project joined OpenStack. So what does this mean? At least in the short term moving from Stackforge to OpenStack does not result in an increase in development resources (too early to know about the long term). One of the three reasons for the big tent appears to be unfounded, but the other two reasons hold. The only thing I think this information changes is what peoples expectations should be when applying to join OpenStack. [0] https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/resolutions/ 20141202-project-structure-reform-spec.rst [1] Ignoring OpenStackClent since the repos were always in OpenStack it just didn't have a formal home in the governance repo. [2] h http://stackalytics.com/?module=magnum-groupmetric=commits __ 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 -- gord __ 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 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 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] stackforge projects are not second class citizens
Joe, When looking at stackalytics [2] for each project, we don't see any noticeably change in number of reviews, contributors, or number of commits from before and after each project joined OpenStack. I can't agree on this. *) Rally is facing core-reviewers bottleneck currently. We have about 130 (40 at the begging on kilo) patches on review. *) In IRC +15 online members in average *) We merged about x2 if we compare to kilo-1 vs liberty-1 *) I see a lot of interest from various companies to use Rally (because it is *official* now) Best regards, Boris Pavlovic On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote: On 06/15/2015 06:20 AM, Joe Gordon wrote: One of the stated problems the 'big tent' is supposed to solve is: 'The binary nature of the integrated release results in projects outside the integrated release failing to get the recognition they deserve. Non-official projects are second- or third-class citizens which can't get development resources. Alternative solutions can't emerge in the shadow of the blessed approach. Becoming part of the integrated release, which was originally designed to be a technical decision, quickly became a life-or-death question for new projects, and a political/community minefield.' [0] Meaning projects should see an uptick in development once they drop their second-class citizenship and join OpenStack. Now that we have been living in the world of the big tent for several months now, we can see if this claim is true. Below is a list of the first few few projects to join OpenStack after the big tent, All of which have now been part of OpenStack for at least two months.[1] * Mangum - Tue Mar 24 20:17:36 2015 * Murano - Tue Mar 24 20:48:25 2015 * Congress - Tue Mar 31 20:24:04 2015 * Rally - Tue Apr 7 21:25:53 2015 When looking at stackalytics [2] for each project, we don't see any noticeably change in number of reviews, contributors, or number of commits from before and after each project joined OpenStack. So what does this mean? At least in the short term moving from Stackforge to OpenStack does not result in an increase in development resources (too early to know about the long term). One of the three reasons for the big tent appears to be unfounded, but the other two reasons hold. You have not given enough time to see the effects of the Big Tent, IMHO. Lots of folks in the corporate world just found out about it at the design summit, frankly. The only thing I think this information changes is what peoples expectations should be when applying to join OpenStack. What is your assumption of what people's expectations are when applying to join OpenStack? Best, -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 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-dev] stackforge projects are not second class citizens
One of the stated problems the 'big tent' is supposed to solve is: 'The binary nature of the integrated release results in projects outside the integrated release failing to get the recognition they deserve. Non-official projects are second- or third-class citizens which can't get development resources. Alternative solutions can't emerge in the shadow of the blessed approach. Becoming part of the integrated release, which was originally designed to be a technical decision, quickly became a life-or-death question for new projects, and a political/community minefield.' [0] Meaning projects should see an uptick in development once they drop their second-class citizenship and join OpenStack. Now that we have been living in the world of the big tent for several months now, we can see if this claim is true. Below is a list of the first few few projects to join OpenStack after the big tent, All of which have now been part of OpenStack for at least two months.[1] * Mangum - Tue Mar 24 20:17:36 2015 * Murano - Tue Mar 24 20:48:25 2015 * Congress - Tue Mar 31 20:24:04 2015 * Rally - Tue Apr 7 21:25:53 2015 When looking at stackalytics [2] for each project, we don't see any noticeably change in number of reviews, contributors, or number of commits from before and after each project joined OpenStack. So what does this mean? At least in the short term moving from Stackforge to OpenStack does not result in an increase in development resources (too early to know about the long term). One of the three reasons for the big tent appears to be unfounded, but the other two reasons hold. The only thing I think this information changes is what peoples expectations should be when applying to join OpenStack. [0] https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/resolutions/20141202-project-structure-reform-spec.rst [1] Ignoring OpenStackClent since the repos were always in OpenStack it just didn't have a formal home in the governance repo. [2] h http://stackalytics.com/?module=openstackclient-groupmetric=commits*http://stackalytics.com/?module=magnum-groupmetric=commits http://stackalytics.com/?module=magnum-groupmetric=commits* __ 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] stackforge projects are not second class citizens
On 06/15/2015 07:30 AM, Boris Pavlovic wrote: Joe, When looking at stackalytics [2] for each project, we don't see any noticeably change in number of reviews, contributors, or number of commits from before and after each project joined OpenStack. I can't agree on this. *) Rally is facing core-reviewers bottleneck currently. We have about 130 (40 at the begging on kilo) patches on review. *) In IRC +15 online members in average *) We merged about x2 if we compare to kilo-1 vs liberty-1 *) I see a lot of interest from various companies to use Rally (because it is *official* now) I'd also like to note that Rally is the only project in openstack/ that has independent, non-affiliated contributors in the top 5 contributors to the project. I think that is an excellent sign that the Rally contributor community is growing slowly but surely in ways that we (as a community) want to encourage. What degree the Big Tent has to do with this is, of course, up for debate. Just wanted to point out something that differentiates the Rally contributor team from other openstack/ project teams. Best, -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
Re: [openstack-dev] stackforge projects are not second class citizens
On 06/15/2015 06:20 AM, Joe Gordon wrote: One of the stated problems the 'big tent' is supposed to solve is: 'The binary nature of the integrated release results in projects outside the integrated release failing to get the recognition they deserve. Non-official projects are second- or third-class citizens which can't get development resources. Alternative solutions can't emerge in the shadow of the blessed approach. Becoming part of the integrated release, which was originally designed to be a technical decision, quickly became a life-or-death question for new projects, and a political/community minefield.' [0] Meaning projects should see an uptick in development once they drop their second-class citizenship and join OpenStack. Now that we have been living in the world of the big tent for several months now, we can see if this claim is true. Below is a list of the first few few projects to join OpenStack after the big tent, All of which have now been part of OpenStack for at least two months.[1] * Mangum - Tue Mar 24 20:17:36 2015 * Murano - Tue Mar 24 20:48:25 2015 * Congress - Tue Mar 31 20:24:04 2015 * Rally - Tue Apr 7 21:25:53 2015 When looking at stackalytics [2] for each project, we don't see any noticeably change in number of reviews, contributors, or number of commits from before and after each project joined OpenStack. So what does this mean? At least in the short term moving from Stackforge to OpenStack does not result in an increase in development resources (too early to know about the long term). One of the three reasons for the big tent appears to be unfounded, but the other two reasons hold. You have not given enough time to see the effects of the Big Tent, IMHO. Lots of folks in the corporate world just found out about it at the design summit, frankly. The only thing I think this information changes is what peoples expectations should be when applying to join OpenStack. What is your assumption of what people's expectations are when applying to join OpenStack? Best, -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
Re: [openstack-dev] stackforge projects are not second class citizens
On 15/06/15 19:20 +0900, Joe Gordon wrote: One of the stated problems the 'big tent' is supposed to solve is: 'The binary nature of the integrated release results in projects outside the integrated release failing to get the recognition they deserve. Non-official projects are second- or third-class citizens which can't get development resources. Alternative solutions can't emerge in the shadow of the blessed approach. Becoming part of the integrated release, which was originally designed to be a technical decision, quickly became a life-or-death question for new projects, and a political/community minefield.' [0] Meaning projects should see an uptick in development once they drop their second-class citizenship and join OpenStack. Now that we have been living in the world of the big tent for several months now, we can see if this claim is true. Below is a list of the first few few projects to join OpenStack after the big tent, All of which have now been part of OpenStack for at least two months.[1] * Mangum - Tue Mar 24 20:17:36 2015 * Murano - Tue Mar 24 20:48:25 2015 * Congress - Tue Mar 31 20:24:04 2015 * Rally - Tue Apr 7 21:25:53 2015 We should also add Zaqar to this list. It was *incubated* when the Big Tent came in and that's the only (?) reason why the project was not requested to go through the Big Tent request process. Zaqar has gotten more contributors - most of them at the end of Kilo - from the OpenStack community. Some of them without affiliation. I don't believe it's completely related to the Big Tent change but I do think not having that integrated tag helped the project to gain more attention from the rest of the community. Cheers, Flavio When looking at stackalytics [2] for each project, we don't see any noticeably change in number of reviews, contributors, or number of commits from before and after each project joined OpenStack. So what does this mean? At least in the short term moving from Stackforge to OpenStack does not result in an increase in development resources (too early to know about the long term). One of the three reasons for the big tent appears to be unfounded, but the other two reasons hold. The only thing I think this information changes is what peoples expectations should be when applying to join OpenStack. [0] https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/resolutions/ 20141202-project-structure-reform-spec.rst [1] Ignoring OpenStackClent since the repos were always in OpenStack it just didn't have a formal home in the governance repo. [2] hhttp://stackalytics.com/?module=magnum-groupmetric=commits __ 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 -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco pgpDKL5YxNa0r.pgp Description: PGP signature __ 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] stackforge projects are not second class citizens
Joe Gordon wrote: [...] Below is a list of the first few few projects to join OpenStack after the big tent, All of which have now been part of OpenStack for at least two months.[1] * Mangum - Tue Mar 24 20:17:36 2015 * Murano - Tue Mar 24 20:48:25 2015 * Congress - Tue Mar 31 20:24:04 2015 * Rally - Tue Apr 7 21:25:53 2015 When looking at stackalytics [2] for each project, we don't see any noticeably change in number of reviews, contributors, or number of commits from before and after each project joined OpenStack. Also note that release and summit months are traditionally less active (some would say totally dead), so comparing April-May to anything else is likely to not mean much. I'd wait for a complete cycle before answering this question. Or at the very least compare it to October-November from the previous cycle. If we do so for the few projects that existed in October 2014, that would point to a rather steep increase: Look at Oct/Nov in: http://stackalytics.com/?module=murano-groupmetric=commitsrelease=kilo And compare to April/May in: http://stackalytics.com/?module=murano-groupmetric=commitsrelease=liberty Same for Rally: http://stackalytics.com/?module=rally-groupmetric=commitsrelease=kilo http://stackalytics.com/?module=rally-groupmetric=commitsrelease=liberty Only Congress was slightly more active in the first months of Kilo than in the first months of Liberty. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __ 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] stackforge projects are not second class citizens
I'd also like to point out that if the state of the projects has encouraged *new* contributors to OpenStack, then their contributions will likely take a couple to a few months to become visible in a significant way in the statistics. Two to three months to get your first merge is extremely common among the subgroup developers new to OpenStack. --Rocky Thierry Carrez wrote: Joe Gordon wrote: [...] Below is a list of the first few few projects to join OpenStack after the big tent, All of which have now been part of OpenStack for at least two months.[1] * Mangum - Tue Mar 24 20:17:36 2015 * Murano - Tue Mar 24 20:48:25 2015 * Congress - Tue Mar 31 20:24:04 2015 * Rally - Tue Apr 7 21:25:53 2015 When looking at stackalytics [2] for each project, we don't see any noticeably change in number of reviews, contributors, or number of commits from before and after each project joined OpenStack. Also note that release and summit months are traditionally less active (some would say totally dead), so comparing April-May to anything else is likely to not mean much. I'd wait for a complete cycle before answering this question. Or at the very least compare it to October-November from the previous cycle. If we do so for the few projects that existed in October 2014, that would point to a rather steep increase: Look at Oct/Nov in: http://stackalytics.com/?module=murano-groupmetric=commitsrelease=kilo And compare to April/May in: http://stackalytics.com/?module=murano-groupmetric=commitsrelease=liberty Same for Rally: http://stackalytics.com/?module=rally-groupmetric=commitsrelease=kilo http://stackalytics.com/?module=rally-groupmetric=commitsrelease=liberty Only Congress was slightly more active in the first months of Kilo than in the first months of Liberty. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __ 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 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
