Open Stack

Excellent question!

The intent of Defcore is to provide validation that solid, mature functionality within the OpenStack ecosystem is both tested and validated by vendors.  New functionality is not mature and may not be widely adopted.  DefCore waits to see both the level of adoption by users and the opinion of developers that the capability is foundational  before declaring it part of Defcore.  So, everything in DefCore should be old news to the community – the stuff people just “expect to work.” And work across vendors.

For new functionality, it is currently a matter of what your vendor is willing to declare support for.  It may be solid, or it may be labeled experimental.  But, the warranty is assumed to be less than the Defcore validated parts of OpenStack.

--Rocky



From: Barrett, Carol L [mailto:carol.l.barrett at intel.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 1:49 PM
To: Rob Hirschfeld; Shamail
Cc: defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Trying to explain Guidelines... here's what I'm thinking [feedback welcome]

I expect that the unpredictability of project releases will create challenges in many ways. Branding is one of them – if a project releases new capabilities out of cycle to the core-projects release of the Defcore definition update, those new features will not be covered by the Brand (which means they haven’t been validated to a certain level nor is there any backward API compatibility promise). How will an end-user know that?  If the Brand doesn’t simplify the purchasing process for the end-user, then we’re not on the right track..imho.

From: Rob Hirschfeld [mailto:rob at rackn.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 1:42 PM
To: Shamail
Cc: Barrett, Carol L; defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Trying to explain Guidelines... here's what I'm thinking [feedback welcome]

Good questions.  We're including which releases are covered in each guideline so, for example, you can track DefCore 2015.07 to the I,J & K releases.  You can't use that guideline against H or L

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Shamail <itzshamail at gmail.com<mailto:itzshamail at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Carol,

I agree with the concern but I think (I didn't attend the F2F) some of this may be driven by the fact that we don't necessarily have a concrete definition of what a release may look like in the future.

If the releases (due to project structure reform) end up having a cadence with a usual group of components then I could see aligning with releases but I think some of that is TBD at this point, therefore this seems like a safe bet.

Thanks,
Shamail



> On Feb 26, 2015, at 3:52 PM, Barrett, Carol L <carol.l.barrett at intel.com<mailto:carol.l.barrett at intel.com>> wrote:
>
> I am concerned about achieving the Brand goal,  using a month/year approach rather than a release approach. Is the expectation that a vendor will pull the upstream  for the month/year Defcore test and ship a product?  If a vendor release cycle is offset by 2 months, what would use to validate their Brand compliance? My thought is by that time new things will be included in a variety of projects that will be included in the Vendor release but not comprehended in the 2 month old Defcore definition.
>
> Carol
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Hirschfeld [mailto:rob at zehicle.com<mailto:rob at zehicle.com>]
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:37 AM
> To: defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org<mailto:defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Trying to explain Guidelines... here's what I'm thinking [feedback welcome]
>
> Chris Lee pinged me about missing a note Component & Platform levels.
> We need to include that in the Guidelines.
>
> Good catch Chris!
>
>> On 02/26/2015 12:46 PM, Rob Hirschfeld wrote:
>> DefCore... does this explain Guidelines?
>>
>> Last week, the OpenStack DefCore committee rolled up our collective
>> sleeves and got to work in a serious way.  We had a in-person meeting
>> with great turn out with 5 board members, Foundation executives/staff
>> and good community engagement.
>>
>> TL;DR > We think DefCore should dated milestone guidelines instead
>> tightly coupled to release events (see graphic
>> https://robhirschfeld.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/defcore-timeline1.png).
>>
>> DefCore has a single goal expressed from two sides: 1) defining the
>> "what is OpenStack" brand for Vendors and 2) driving interoperability
>> between OpenStack installations.  From that perspective, it is not
>> about releases, but about testable stable capabilities.  Over time,
>> these changes should be incremental and, most importantly, trail
>> behind new features that are added.
>>
>> For those reasons, it was becoming confusing for DefCore to focus on
>> an "Icehouse" definition when most of the capabilities listed are
>> "Havana" ones.  We also created significant time pressure to get the
>> "Kilo DefCore" out quickly after the release even though there were no
>> "Kilo" specific additions covered.
>>
>> In the face-to-face, we settled on a more incremental approach.
>> DefCore would regularly post a set of guidelines for approval by the
>> Board.  These Guidelines would include the required, deprecated
>> (leaving) and advisory (coming) capabilities required for Vendors to
>> use the mark (see footnote*).  They would also include the relevant
>> designated sections.  These Guidelines would use the open draft and
>> discussion process that we are in the process of outlining for
>> approval in Vancouver.
>>
>> Since DefCore Guidelines are simple time based lists of capabilities,
>> the vendors and community can simply reference an approved Guideline
>> using the date of approval (for example DefCore 2015.03) and know
>> exactly what was included.  While each Guideline stands alone, it is
>> easy to compare them for incremental changes.
>>
>> We've been getting positive feedback about this change; however, we
>> are still discussing it appreciate your input and questions. It is
>> very important for us to make DefCore simple and easy.  For that, your
>> confused looks and WTF? comments are very helpful.
>>
>> * footnote: the Foundation manages that process the Vendors. DefCore
>> Guidelines are just one part of the brand process.
>
> --
>
>
> Rob
> ____________________________
> Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522<tel:512-773-7522>
>
> I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
> http://robhirschfeld.com
> twitter: @zehicle, github: cloudedge & ravolt
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Defcore-committee mailing list
> Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org<mailto:Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org>
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee
>
> _______________________________________________
> Defcore-committee mailing list
> Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org<mailto:Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org>
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee

_______________________________________________
Defcore-committee mailing list
Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org<mailto:Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee



--
Rob
____________________________
Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522
RackN CEO/Founder (rob at rackn.com<mailto:rob at rackn.com>)

I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
http://robhirschfeld.com
twitter: @zehicle, github: cloudedge & ravolt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/defcore-committee/attachments/20150226/2b8f2f4e/attachment-0001.html>