Open Stack

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 09:25:46AM -0700, Steven Dake wrote:
>    comments inline.
>    On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Steven Hardy <shardy at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>      Hi all,
> 
>      Over the recent PTG, and previously at the design summit in Barcelona,
>      we've had some productive cross-project discussions amongst the various
>      deployment teams.
> 
>      It's clear that we share many common problems, such as patterns for
>      major
>      version upgrades (even if the workflow isn't identical we've all
>      duplicated
>      effort e.g around basic nova upgrade workflow recently), container
>      images
>      and other common building blocks for configuration management.
> 
>      Here's a non-exhaustive list of sessions where we had some good
>      cross-project discussion, and agreed a number of common problems where
>      collaboration may be possible:
> 
>      https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ansible-config-mgt
> 
>      https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-kolla-kubernetes
> 
>      https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kolla-pike-ptg-images
> 
>      https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/fuel-ocata-fuel-tripleo-integration
> 
>      If there is interest in continuing the discussions on a more regular
>      basis,
>      I'd like to propose we start a cross-project working group:
> 
>      https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Category:Working_Groups
> 
>      If I go ahead and do this is "deployment" a sufficiently project-neutral
>      term to proceed with?
> 
>    WFM.  Anything longer such as "openstack-deployment-tools" doesn't show
>    up very well in IRC clients.  Forgive the bikeshedding;
>    "openstack-deploy-tools" is very project-neutral and shows up well in IRC
>    clients.
>    Â 
> 
>      I'd suggest we start with an informal WG, which it seems just requires
>      an
>      update to the wiki, e.g no need for any formal project team at this
>      point?
> 
>    WFM.  Since we aren't really a project team but a collection of projects
>    working together, I don't think we need further formalization.
>    Â 
> 
>      Likewise I know some folks have expressed an interest in an IRC channel
>      (openstack-deployment?), I'm happy to start with the ML but open to IRC
>      also if someone is willing to set up the channel.
> 
>    +1 - I think an IRC channel would be the best way for real time
>    communication.
>    Â 
> 
>      Perhaps we can start by using the tag "deployment" in all cross-project
>      ML
>      traffic, then potentially discuss IRC (or even regular meetings) if it
>      becomes apparrent these would add value beyond ML discussion?
> 
>    [deploy-tools] may be better unless that breaks people's email clients.
>    I am out of bandwidth personally for meetings, although others may be
>    interested in a meeting.  I'm not sure what value a regular meeting would
>    have and would need a chair, which may result in an inability to obtain
>    neutral ground.
>    IMO IRC and ML would be sufficient for this CP effort, however others may
>    have different viewpoints.

No strong opinion, but FWIW I chose "deployment" because I'd like to see
collaboration not only around tools, but also around experiences and
abstract workflow (e.g we could have all shared experiences around, say,
nova upgrades without necessarily focussing on any one tool).

"deployment" seems like a catch-all and it uses less characters in the
subject line ;)  But I'm happy to go with the consensus here.

I agree ML/IRC should be sufficient, at least in the first instance.

Thanks!

Steve