<p dir="ltr">I like this idea. It leaves specs and implementation details to people familiar with the code base while providing a good place for users and devs to discuss feature requests. </p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 10, 2015 2:04 PM, "John Kasperski" <<a href="mailto:jckasper@linux.vnet.ibm.com">jckasper@linux.vnet.ibm.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 04/10/2015 01:04 PM, Boris Pavlovic wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Hi,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I believe that specs are too detailed and too dev oriented
for managers, operators and devops. </div>
<div>They actually don't want/have time to write/read all the
stuff in specs and that's why the communication between dev
& operators community is a broken. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
+1<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>I would recommend to think about simpler approaches like
making mechanism for proposing features/changes in projects. </div>
<div>Like we have in Rally: <a href="https://rally.readthedocs.org/en/latest/feature_requests.html" target="_blank">https://rally.readthedocs.org/en/latest/feature_requests.html</a></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Are any other OpenStack projects handling feature requests like
this? I think a "feature request" process like this would be
useful across more components than just Neutron. I'm sure there
are some requests that would also require changes across multiple
components. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>This is similar to specs but more concentrate on WHAT
rather than HOW. </div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best regards,</div>
<div>Boris Pavlovic </div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Kevin
Benton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:blak111@gmail.com" target="_blank">blak111@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><span>><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">The Neutron
drivers team, on the other hand, </span><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">don't have a
clear incentive (Or I suspect the will) to spend
enormous amounts of time doing 'product management', </span><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">as being a driver
is essentially your third or fourth job by this point,
and are the same people </span><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">solving gate
issues, merging code, triaging bugs and so on.</span>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><br>
</span></div>
</span>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">Are you
hinting here that there should be a separate team of
people from the developers who are deciding what
should and should not be worked on in Neutron? Have
there been examples of that working in other open
source projects where the majority of the development
isn't driven by one employer? I ask that because I
don't see much of an incentive for a developer to
follow requirements generated by people not familiar
with the Neutron code base. </span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">One of the
roles of the driver team is to determine what is
feasible in the release cycle. How would that be
possible without actively contributing or (at a
minimum) being involved in code reviews?</span></div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote"><span>On Thu, Apr 9,
2015 at 7:52 AM, Assaf Muller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:amuller@redhat.com" target="_blank">amuller@redhat.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>The Neutron specs process was
introduced during the Juno timecycle. At the time
it<br>
was mostly a bureaucratic bottleneck (The ability
to say no) to ease the pain of cores<br>
and manage workloads throughout a cycle. Perhaps
this is a somewhat naive outlook,<br>
but I see other positives, such as more upfront
design (Some is better than none),<br>
less high level talk during the implementation
review process and more focus on the details,<br>
and 'free' documentation for every major change to
the project (Some would say this<br>
is kind of a big deal; What better way to write
documentation than to force the developers<br>
to do it in order for their features to get
merged).<br>
<br>
That being said, you can only get a feature merged
if you propose a spec, and the only<br>
people largely proposing specs are developers.
This ingrains the open source culture of<br>
developer focused evolution, that, while
empowering and great for developers, is bad<br>
for product managers, users (That are sometimes
under-presented, as is the case I'm trying<br>
to make) and generally causes a lack of a cohesive
vision. Like it or not, the specs process<br>
and the driver's team approval process form a sort
of product management, deciding what<br>
features will ultimately go in to Neutron and in
what time frame.<br>
<br>
We shouldn't ignore the fact that we clearly have
people and product managers pulling the strings<br>
in the background, often deciding where developers
will spend their time and what specs to propose,<br>
for the purpose of this discussion. I argue that
managers often don't have the tools to understand<br>
what is important to the project, only to their
own customers. The Neutron drivers team, on the
other hand,<br>
don't have a clear incentive (Or I suspect the
will) to spend enormous amounts of time doing
'product management',<br>
as being a driver is essentially your third or
fourth job by this point, and are the same people<br>
solving gate issues, merging code, triaging bugs
and so on. I'd like to avoid to go in to a
discussion of what's<br>
wrong with the current specs process as I'm sure
people have heard me complain about this in<br>
#openstack-neutron plenty of times before.
Instead, I'd like to suggest a system that would
perhaps<br>
get us to implement specs that are currently not
being proposed, and give an additional form of<br>
input that would make sure that the development
community is spending it's time in the right
places.<br>
<br>
While 'super users' have been given more exposure,
and operators summits give operators<br>
an additional tool to provide feedback, from a
developer's point of view, the input is<br>
non-empiric and scattered. I also have a hunch
that operators still feel their voice is not being
heard.<br>
<br>
I propose an upvote/downvote system (Think
Reddit), where everyone (Operators especially)
would upload<br>
paragraph long explanations of what they think is
missing in Neutron. The proposals have to be
actionable<br>
(So 'Neutron sucks', while of great humorous
value, isn't something I can do anything about),<br>
and I suspect the downvote system will help
self-regulate that anyway. The proposals are not
specs, but are<br>
like product RFEs, so for example there would not
be a 'testing' section, as these proposals will
not<br>
replace the specs process anyway but augment it as
an additional form of input. Proposals can range<br>
from new features (Role based access control for
Neutron resources, dynamic routing,<br>
Neutron availability zones, QoS, ...) to quality
of life improvements (Missing logs, too many<br>
DEBUG level logs, poor trouble shooting areas with
an explanation of what could be improved, ...)<br>
to long standing bugs, Nova network parity issues,
and whatever else may be irking the operators
community.<br>
The proposals would have to be moderated (Closing
duplicates, low quality submissions and
implemented proposals<br>
for example) and if that is a concern then I
volunteer to do so.<br>
<br>
This system will also give drivers a 'way out':
The last cycle we spent time refactoring this and
that,<br>
and developers love doing that so it's easy to get
behind. I think that as in the next cycles we move
back to features,<br>
friction will rise and the process will reveal its
flaws.<br>
<br>
Something to consider: Maybe the top proposal
takes a day to implement. Maybe some low priority
bug is actually<br>
the second highest proposal. Maybe all of the
currently marked 'critical' bugs don't even appear
on the list.<br>
Maybe we aren't spending our time where we should
be.<br>
<br>
And now a word from our legal team: In order for
this to be viable, the system would have to be a<br>
*non binding*, *additional* form of input. The top
proposal *could* be declined for the same reasons<br>
that specs are currently being declined. It would
not replace any of our current systems or
processes.<br>
<br>
<br>
Assaf Muller, Cloud Networking Engineer<br>
Red Hat<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<span>
_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-operators mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators</a><br>
</span></blockquote>
</div>
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div>
<div>Kevin Benton</div>
</div>
</font></span></div>
<br>
__________________________________________________________________________<br>
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)<br>
Unsubscribe: <a href="http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: <a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe</a>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre cols="72">--
John Kasperski</pre>
</div>
<br>__________________________________________________________________________<br>
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)<br>
Unsubscribe: <a href="http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>