Re: [Openstack-operators] [User-committee] [openstack-dev] Large Contributing OpenStack Operators working group?

2017-02-03 Thread UKASICK, ANDREW 
+1  from me as well.

I'd like to throw out this suggestion for some discussion.

Many of us on the "working group" side of things have full-time internal 
commitments within our various companies.  It's VERY difficult to be able to 
take the time needed to peruse IRC logs, etherpads, email lists, etc.  
Seriously 
I'm not suggesting any change to those things, but what if we introduced a 
monthly, or if that's too much, then at least quarterly, meeting organized and 
hosted by the UC where we could get on a conference bridge in a virtual meeting 
room and all the various working groups along with the UC could provide updates 
on what they've done, what they're working on, current vision/planning, things 
they might need help with, etc.  You could record it and post it on youtube for 
anyone who could not join.  Maybe rotate the times so each part of the globe 
gets a fair shake with the timing?

Something like that would help us to know which logs, etherpads, email keywords 
we need to pay attentioon too.  I think that it would also help us to build 
more bridges and strengthen relationships.

??

-Andy


-Original Message-
From: Tim Bell [mailto:tim.b...@cern.ch] 
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 2:29 PM
To: Jonathan Proulx ; lebre.adr...@free.fr
Cc: MCCABE, JAMEY A ; openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org; 
UKASICK, ANDREW ; Jay Pipes ; Edgar Magana 
; user-commit...@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [User-committee] [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] Large 
Contributing OpenStack Operators working group?

+1 for the WG summary and sharing priorities.

Equally, exploring how we can make use of common collaboration tools for all WG 
would be beneficial. 

There is much work to do to get the needs translated to code/doc/tools and it 
would be a pity if we are not sharing to the full across WGs due to different 
technology choices.

Tim

On 03.02.17, 19:16, "Jonathan Proulx"  wrote:

On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 04:34:20PM +0100, lebre.adr...@free.fr wrote:
:Hi, 
:
:I don't know whether there is already a concrete/effective way to identify 
overlapping between WGs. 
:But if not, one way can be to arrange one general session in each summit 
where all WG chairs could come and discuss about major actions that have been 
done for the past cycle and what are the plans for the next one.


That's a really good idea.  I think that would be a good use of the UC
Forum session.  In the past those had mostly been about what is the UC
and how should it be structured going forward.  With recent by laws
change and upcoming election that's pretty settled.

Having a (very) brief report back from working groups and teams
followed by cross group discussion could be a valuable way forward for
that session IMO.

-Jon

:
:Being involved in several WGs allows us to identify collaboration 
opportunities (done for instance between the NFV and Massively Distributed 
WGs/Teams during this cycle) but to be honest it is costly and sometimes not 
still feasible to be involved in every action. 
:Offering the opportunity to get an up-to-date overview every 6 months can 
be valuable for all of us. 
:
:My two cents, 
:ad_rien_
:
:- Mail original -
:> De: "Jay Pipes" 
:> À: "Yih Leong Sun" , "Edgar Magana" 
,
:> openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org, 
user-commit...@lists.openstack.org
:> Cc: "JAMEY A MCCABE" , "ANDREW UKASICK" 
:> Envoyé: Vendredi 3 Février 2017 16:14:26
:> Objet: Re: [User-committee] [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] Large 
Contributing OpenStack Operators working
:> group?
:> 
:> Leong, thanks so much for responding. Comments/followup questions
:> inline.
:> 
:> On 02/02/2017 09:07 PM, Sun, Yih Leong wrote:
:> > LCOO was initiated by a group of large telco who contributes/uses
:> > OpenStack, such as AT, NTT, Reliance Jio, Orange, etc [1].
:> 
:> ack.
:> 
:> > The co-chair has reached out to Product WG for collaboration (refer
:> > IRC meeting logs). The team is working on plans to
:> > structure/define LCOO use cases.
:> 
:> My question here is what makes the LCOO use cases different from,
:> say,
:> the Telco Operator working group's use cases? Or the Massively
:> Distributed working group's use cases? Or the Enterprise working
:> group's
:> use cases?
:> 
:> Is the difference that the LCOO's use cases are stories that are
:> important for the LCOO member companies?
:> 
:> > Use case requirements (while still work-in-progress) can span
:> > across multiple areas which might/might-not covered by existing
:> > Team/WG.
:> 
:> Understood.

Re: [Openstack-operators] [User-committee] [openstack-dev] Large Contributing OpenStack Operators working group?

2017-02-03 Thread Yih Leong, Sun. 
I believe this is one of the goal of Product WG, providing a common
platform for users/operators and WG to aggregrate requirements by creating
common "User Story Requirements" which can be implemented cross-project,
cross-releases.
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ProductTeam#Objectives
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ProductTeam/User_Stories#User_Story_Workflow




On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Tim Bell  wrote:

> +1 for the WG summary and sharing priorities.
>
> Equally, exploring how we can make use of common collaboration tools for
> all WG would be beneficial.
>
> There is much work to do to get the needs translated to code/doc/tools and
> it would be a pity if we are not sharing to the full across WGs due to
> different technology choices.
>
> Tim
>
> On 03.02.17, 19:16, "Jonathan Proulx"  wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 04:34:20PM +0100, lebre.adr...@free.fr wrote:
> :Hi,
> :
> :I don't know whether there is already a concrete/effective way to
> identify overlapping between WGs.
> :But if not, one way can be to arrange one general session in each
> summit where all WG chairs could come and discuss about major actions that
> have been done for the past cycle and what are the plans for the next one.
>
>
> That's a really good idea.  I think that woudl be a good use of the UC
> Forum session.  In the past those had mostly been about what is the UC
> and how shoudl it be structured going forward.  With recent by laws
> change and upcoming ellection that's pretty settled.
>
> Having a (very) brief report back from working groups and teams
> followed by cross group discussion could be a valuable way forward for
> that session IMO.
>
> -Jon
>
> :
> :Being involved in several WGs allows us to identify collaboration
> opportunities (done for instance between the NFV and Massively Distributed
> WGs/Teams during this cycle) but to be honest it is costly and sometimes
> not still feasible to be involved in every action.
> :Offering the opportunity to get an up-to-date overview every 6 months
> can be valuable for all of us.
> :
> :My two cents,
> :ad_rien_
> :
> :- Mail original -
> :> De: "Jay Pipes" 
> :> À: "Yih Leong Sun" , "Edgar Magana" <
> edgar.mag...@workday.com>,
> :> openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org, user-committee@lists.
> openstack.org
> :> Cc: "JAMEY A MCCABE" , "ANDREW UKASICK" <
> au3...@att.com>
> :> Envoyé: Vendredi 3 Février 2017 16:14:26
> :> Objet: Re: [User-committee] [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev]
> Large Contributing OpenStack Operators working
> :> group?
> :>
> :> Leong, thanks so much for responding. Comments/followup questions
> :> inline.
> :>
> :> On 02/02/2017 09:07 PM, Sun, Yih Leong wrote:
> :> > LCOO was initiated by a group of large telco who contributes/uses
> :> > OpenStack, such as AT, NTT, Reliance Jio, Orange, etc [1].
> :>
> :> ack.
> :>
> :> > The co-chair has reached out to Product WG for collaboration
> (refer
> :> > IRC meeting logs). The team is working on plans to
> :> > structure/define LCOO use cases.
> :>
> :> My question here is what makes the LCOO use cases different from,
> :> say,
> :> the Telco Operator working group's use cases? Or the Massively
> :> Distributed working group's use cases? Or the Enterprise working
> :> group's
> :> use cases?
> :>
> :> Is the difference that the LCOO's use cases are stories that are
> :> important for the LCOO member companies?
> :>
> :> > Use case requirements (while still work-in-progress) can span
> :> > across multiple areas which might/might-not covered by existing
> :> > Team/WG.
> :>
> :> Understood. Is the plan of the LCOO to identify use cases that are
> :> covered by other working groups, contribute resources to develop
> that
> :> use case, but have that existing working group handle the product
> :> management (spec/blueprint/communication/roadmap) stuff?
> :>
> :> > I'm sure LCOO will reach out to various projects for
> collaboration,
> :> > stay tuned...
> :>
> :> My questions seem to have been taken as an attack on the LCOO. I was
> :> hoping to avoid that. I'm sincerely hoping to see the outreach to
> :> various projects and am eager to collaborate with developers and
> :> operators from the LCOO companies. I'm just confused what the
> :> relationship between the LCOO and the existing working groups is.
> :>
> :> Best,
> :> -jay
> :>
> :> > [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/LCOO_Participants
> :> >
> :> > Thanks!
> :> >
> :> > ---
> :> > Yih Leong Sun, PhD
> :> > Senior Software Cloud Architect | Open Source Technology Center |
> :> > Intel Corporation
> :>

Re: [Openstack-operators] [User-committee] [openstack-dev] Large Contributing OpenStack Operators working group?

2017-02-03 Thread Tim Bell 
+1 for the WG summary and sharing priorities.

Equally, exploring how we can make use of common collaboration tools for all WG 
would be beneficial. 

There is much work to do to get the needs translated to code/doc/tools and it 
would be a pity if we are not sharing to the full across WGs due to different 
technology choices.

Tim

On 03.02.17, 19:16, "Jonathan Proulx"  wrote:

On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 04:34:20PM +0100, lebre.adr...@free.fr wrote:
:Hi, 
:
:I don't know whether there is already a concrete/effective way to identify 
overlapping between WGs. 
:But if not, one way can be to arrange one general session in each summit 
where all WG chairs could come and discuss about major actions that have been 
done for the past cycle and what are the plans for the next one.


That's a really good idea.  I think that woudl be a good use of the UC
Forum session.  In the past those had mostly been about what is the UC
and how shoudl it be structured going forward.  With recent by laws
change and upcoming ellection that's pretty settled.

Having a (very) brief report back from working groups and teams
followed by cross group discussion could be a valuable way forward for
that session IMO.

-Jon

:
:Being involved in several WGs allows us to identify collaboration 
opportunities (done for instance between the NFV and Massively Distributed 
WGs/Teams during this cycle) but to be honest it is costly and sometimes not 
still feasible to be involved in every action. 
:Offering the opportunity to get an up-to-date overview every 6 months can 
be valuable for all of us. 
:
:My two cents, 
:ad_rien_
:
:- Mail original -
:> De: "Jay Pipes" 
:> À: "Yih Leong Sun" , "Edgar Magana" 
,
:> openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org, 
user-commit...@lists.openstack.org
:> Cc: "JAMEY A MCCABE" , "ANDREW UKASICK" 
:> Envoyé: Vendredi 3 Février 2017 16:14:26
:> Objet: Re: [User-committee] [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] Large 
Contributing OpenStack Operators working
:> group?
:> 
:> Leong, thanks so much for responding. Comments/followup questions
:> inline.
:> 
:> On 02/02/2017 09:07 PM, Sun, Yih Leong wrote:
:> > LCOO was initiated by a group of large telco who contributes/uses
:> > OpenStack, such as AT, NTT, Reliance Jio, Orange, etc [1].
:> 
:> ack.
:> 
:> > The co-chair has reached out to Product WG for collaboration (refer
:> > IRC meeting logs). The team is working on plans to
:> > structure/define LCOO use cases.
:> 
:> My question here is what makes the LCOO use cases different from,
:> say,
:> the Telco Operator working group's use cases? Or the Massively
:> Distributed working group's use cases? Or the Enterprise working
:> group's
:> use cases?
:> 
:> Is the difference that the LCOO's use cases are stories that are
:> important for the LCOO member companies?
:> 
:> > Use case requirements (while still work-in-progress) can span
:> > across multiple areas which might/might-not covered by existing
:> > Team/WG.
:> 
:> Understood. Is the plan of the LCOO to identify use cases that are
:> covered by other working groups, contribute resources to develop that
:> use case, but have that existing working group handle the product
:> management (spec/blueprint/communication/roadmap) stuff?
:> 
:> > I'm sure LCOO will reach out to various projects for collaboration,
:> > stay tuned...
:> 
:> My questions seem to have been taken as an attack on the LCOO. I was
:> hoping to avoid that. I'm sincerely hoping to see the outreach to
:> various projects and am eager to collaborate with developers and
:> operators from the LCOO companies. I'm just confused what the
:> relationship between the LCOO and the existing working groups is.
:> 
:> Best,
:> -jay
:> 
:> > [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/LCOO_Participants
:> >
:> > Thanks!
:> >
:> > ---
:> > Yih Leong Sun, PhD
:> > Senior Software Cloud Architect | Open Source Technology Center |
:> > Intel Corporation
:> > yih.leong@intel.com | +1 503 264 0610
:> >
:> >
:> > -Original Message-
:> > From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com]
:> > Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 5:23 PM
:> > To: Edgar Magana ;
:> > openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org;
:> > user-commit...@lists.openstack.org
:> > Cc: MCCABE, JAMEY A ; UKASICK, ANDREW
:> > 
:> > Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] Large
:> > Contributing OpenStack Operators working group?
:> >
:> > On 02/02/2017 05:02 PM,

Re: [Openstack-operators] [User-committee] [openstack-dev] Large Contributing OpenStack Operators working group?

2017-02-03 Thread Jay Pipes 

On 02/03/2017 01:16 PM, Jonathan Proulx wrote:

On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 04:34:20PM +0100, lebre.adr...@free.fr wrote:
:Hi,
:
:I don't know whether there is already a concrete/effective way to identify 
overlapping between WGs.
:But if not, one way can be to arrange one general session in each summit where 
all WG chairs could come and discuss about major actions that have been done 
for the past cycle and what are the plans for the next one.

That's a really good idea.  I think that woudl be a good use of the UC
Forum session.  In the past those had mostly been about what is the UC
and how shoudl it be structured going forward.  With recent by laws
change and upcoming ellection that's pretty settled.

Having a (very) brief report back from working groups and teams
followed by cross group discussion could be a valuable way forward for
that session IMO.


+1 from me, I think that sounds like a great suggestion from Adrien.

Best,
-jay

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

Re: [Openstack-operators] [User-committee] [openstack-dev] Large Contributing OpenStack Operators working group?

2017-02-03 Thread Jonathan Proulx 
On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 04:34:20PM +0100, lebre.adr...@free.fr wrote:
:Hi, 
:
:I don't know whether there is already a concrete/effective way to identify 
overlapping between WGs. 
:But if not, one way can be to arrange one general session in each summit where 
all WG chairs could come and discuss about major actions that have been done 
for the past cycle and what are the plans for the next one.


That's a really good idea.  I think that woudl be a good use of the UC
Forum session.  In the past those had mostly been about what is the UC
and how shoudl it be structured going forward.  With recent by laws
change and upcoming ellection that's pretty settled.

Having a (very) brief report back from working groups and teams
followed by cross group discussion could be a valuable way forward for
that session IMO.

-Jon

:
:Being involved in several WGs allows us to identify collaboration 
opportunities (done for instance between the NFV and Massively Distributed 
WGs/Teams during this cycle) but to be honest it is costly and sometimes not 
still feasible to be involved in every action. 
:Offering the opportunity to get an up-to-date overview every 6 months can be 
valuable for all of us. 
:
:My two cents, 
:ad_rien_
:
:- Mail original -
:> De: "Jay Pipes" 
:> À: "Yih Leong Sun" , "Edgar Magana" 
,
:> openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org, user-commit...@lists.openstack.org
:> Cc: "JAMEY A MCCABE" , "ANDREW UKASICK" 
:> Envoyé: Vendredi 3 Février 2017 16:14:26
:> Objet: Re: [User-committee] [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] Large 
Contributing OpenStack Operators working
:> group?
:> 
:> Leong, thanks so much for responding. Comments/followup questions
:> inline.
:> 
:> On 02/02/2017 09:07 PM, Sun, Yih Leong wrote:
:> > LCOO was initiated by a group of large telco who contributes/uses
:> > OpenStack, such as AT, NTT, Reliance Jio, Orange, etc [1].
:> 
:> ack.
:> 
:> > The co-chair has reached out to Product WG for collaboration (refer
:> > IRC meeting logs). The team is working on plans to
:> > structure/define LCOO use cases.
:> 
:> My question here is what makes the LCOO use cases different from,
:> say,
:> the Telco Operator working group's use cases? Or the Massively
:> Distributed working group's use cases? Or the Enterprise working
:> group's
:> use cases?
:> 
:> Is the difference that the LCOO's use cases are stories that are
:> important for the LCOO member companies?
:> 
:> > Use case requirements (while still work-in-progress) can span
:> > across multiple areas which might/might-not covered by existing
:> > Team/WG.
:> 
:> Understood. Is the plan of the LCOO to identify use cases that are
:> covered by other working groups, contribute resources to develop that
:> use case, but have that existing working group handle the product
:> management (spec/blueprint/communication/roadmap) stuff?
:> 
:> > I'm sure LCOO will reach out to various projects for collaboration,
:> > stay tuned...
:> 
:> My questions seem to have been taken as an attack on the LCOO. I was
:> hoping to avoid that. I'm sincerely hoping to see the outreach to
:> various projects and am eager to collaborate with developers and
:> operators from the LCOO companies. I'm just confused what the
:> relationship between the LCOO and the existing working groups is.
:> 
:> Best,
:> -jay
:> 
:> > [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/LCOO_Participants
:> >
:> > Thanks!
:> >
:> > ---
:> > Yih Leong Sun, PhD
:> > Senior Software Cloud Architect | Open Source Technology Center |
:> > Intel Corporation
:> > yih.leong@intel.com | +1 503 264 0610
:> >
:> >
:> > -Original Message-
:> > From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com]
:> > Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 5:23 PM
:> > To: Edgar Magana ;
:> > openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org;
:> > user-commit...@lists.openstack.org
:> > Cc: MCCABE, JAMEY A ; UKASICK, ANDREW
:> > 
:> > 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

Re: [Openstack-operators] [User-committee] [openstack-dev] Large Contributing OpenStack Operators working group?

2017-02-03 Thread lebre . adrien 
Hi, 

I don't know whether there is already a concrete/effective way to identify 
overlapping between WGs. 
But if not, one way can be to arrange one general session in each summit where 
all WG chairs could come and discuss about major actions that have been done 
for the past cycle and what are the plans for the next one.

Being involved in several WGs allows us to identify collaboration opportunities 
(done for instance between the NFV and Massively Distributed WGs/Teams during 
this cycle) but to be honest it is costly and sometimes not still feasible to 
be involved in every action. 
Offering the opportunity to get an up-to-date overview every 6 months can be 
valuable for all of us. 

My two cents, 
ad_rien_

- Mail original -
> De: "Jay Pipes" 
> À: "Yih Leong Sun" , "Edgar Magana" 
> ,
> openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org, user-commit...@lists.openstack.org
> Cc: "JAMEY A MCCABE" , "ANDREW UKASICK" 
> Envoyé: Vendredi 3 Février 2017 16:14:26
> Objet: Re: [User-committee] [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] Large 
> Contributing OpenStack Operators working
> group?
> 
> Leong, thanks so much for responding. Comments/followup questions
> inline.
> 
> On 02/02/2017 09:07 PM, Sun, Yih Leong wrote:
> > LCOO was initiated by a group of large telco who contributes/uses
> > OpenStack, such as AT, NTT, Reliance Jio, Orange, etc [1].
> 
> ack.
> 
> > The co-chair has reached out to Product WG for collaboration (refer
> > IRC meeting logs). The team is working on plans to
> > structure/define LCOO use cases.
> 
> My question here is what makes the LCOO use cases different from,
> say,
> the Telco Operator working group's use cases? Or the Massively
> Distributed working group's use cases? Or the Enterprise working
> group's
> use cases?
> 
> Is the difference that the LCOO's use cases are stories that are
> important for the LCOO member companies?
> 
> > Use case requirements (while still work-in-progress) can span
> > across multiple areas which might/might-not covered by existing
> > Team/WG.
> 
> Understood. Is the plan of the LCOO to identify use cases that are
> covered by other working groups, contribute resources to develop that
> use case, but have that existing working group handle the product
> management (spec/blueprint/communication/roadmap) stuff?
> 
> > I'm sure LCOO will reach out to various projects for collaboration,
> > stay tuned...
> 
> My questions seem to have been taken as an attack on the LCOO. I was
> hoping to avoid that. I'm sincerely hoping to see the outreach to
> various projects and am eager to collaborate with developers and
> operators from the LCOO companies. I'm just confused what the
> relationship between the LCOO and the existing working groups is.
> 
> Best,
> -jay
> 
> > [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/LCOO_Participants
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > ---
> > Yih Leong Sun, PhD
> > Senior Software Cloud Architect | Open Source Technology Center |
> > Intel Corporation
> > yih.leong@intel.com | +1 503 264 0610
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 5:23 PM
> > To: Edgar Magana ;
> > openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org;
> > user-commit...@lists.openstack.org
> > Cc: MCCABE, JAMEY A ; UKASICK, ANDREW
> > 
> > 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"  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I was told about this group today. I have a few questions.
> >> Hopefully
> >> someone from this team can illuminate