Open Stack

Carol,

Let me turn that around.  If a project released new capabilities out of 
cycle, how quickly would you expect them to surface into the DefCore 
guidelines?

By design, we select for widely-used APIs.  So, how fast should we 
expect a new feature to get wide adoption.

Rob

On 02/26/2015 03:48 PM, Barrett, Carol L wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Defcore-committee mailing list
> Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee

-- 
   

Rob
____________________________
Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522

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/20150226/9648ff48/attachment-0001.html>