Open Stack

> Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] Atlanta Summit - More Ops? ;)
> Message-ID: <5338CFCB.9060603 at openstack.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> 
> On 30/03/14 00:44, John Dewey wrote:
> > Would it make sense to have an ops PTL?
> 
> So, my reading is we already have such governance established - but
> rather than being an individual, it is a committee - the user
> committee.
> We'll need to tweak it a bit I guess, but in fact it is already set up
> such that the TC _must_[1] listen to it ... for at least four hours per
> year ;)
> 
> Since the number of users majorly outweighs the number of developers in
> a project, we probably do need more than a single individual. Tim, Ryan
> and JC have done very well in this extremely difficult position so far.

+1

> However, I think if we can rally around the user committee, get some
> more people in and start doing even more things it might just satisfy
> the need for extra governance we're seeking.
> 
> Thoughts? What would you see this group doing?

I think elected members would help both strengthen the users committee and help focus it.  The problem with elections, though, is that the definition of an OpenStack "contributor" requires code contribution.  Before a user committee happens, a new definition of contributor for the user community is needed.

I see the user committee informing the TC and board of the users' priorities in needed features, improvements in existing code, and providing a window into the directions the user community sees itself going in the near and midterm futures.  This can help prioritize both blueprints to be included specifically on the next release timeline and prioritize bugfixes for issues the operators consider important.  It may also help focus documentation improvements/additions.

I think an active user community is key to OpenStack staying relevant, which means the community needs broad representation before the TC and the board.

--Rocky

> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Tom
> 
> 
> [1] 4.14 User Committee. The User Committee shall be an advisory
> committee to the Board of Directors and shall be comprised of at least
> three (3) Individual Members, one (1) appointed by the Technical
> Committee, one (1) appointed by the Board of Directors, and one (1)
> appointed by the appointees of the Technical Committee and Board of
> Directors. The User Committee shall organize its meetings and may, on
> approval of the Board of Directors, create elected seats to be filled
> by
> a vote of the Individual Members. On request of the User Committee, the
> Board of Directors shall invite the User Committee to attend each
> regular quarterly meeting and shall allocate at least one (1) hour
> during the regular quarterly meeting following the annual election to
> hear the report and recommendations of the User Committee. On request
> of
> the User Committee, the Technical Committee shall invite the User
> Committee to attend a regular meeting and shall allocate at least one
> (1) hour during such meeting up to four times each calendar year to
> hear
> the report and recommendations of the User Committee.
> 
> 
> 
> > John
> >
> > On Friday, March 28, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Tom Fifield wrote:
> >> All,
> >>
> >> I had a bit of a play around, combining some similar things from the
> >> suggestions, and was able to come up with something that I think
> covers
> >> everything that was suggested. If it's way off - no problems, we can
> go
> >> to a vote or similar.
> >>
> >> Also had a go at selecting moderators for sessions based on our
> >> volunteers - feel free to strike yourself out or move around.
> >>
> >> All of this is up for discussion and change, so read below and head
> on
> >> over to the etherpad, or post a reply email :)
> >>
> >> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ATL-ops-unconference-RFC
> >>
> >>
> >> Monday
> >> 0700 - 1115 Registration, Keynotes, Break
> >> 1115 - 1155 Ask the devs: Meet the PTLs and TC, How to get the best
> >> out of the design summit
> >> 1205 - 1245 Reasonable Defaults
> >>
> >> 1400 - 1440 Upgrades and Deployment Approaches
> >> 1450 - 1530 Architecture Show and Tell, Tales and Fails
> >> 1540 - 1620 Architecture Show and Tell, Tales and Fails
> >>
> >> 1730 - 1810 Security (MODERATOR NEEDED)
> >>
> >> Schedule: Friday
> >> 9:00 - 9:40 Enterprise Gaps
> >> 9:50 - 10:30 Database
> >>
> >> 10:50 - 11:30 Issues at Scale
> >> 11:40 - 12:20 Monitoring and Logging
> >>
> >> 1:20 - 2:00 Ansible (MODERATOR NEEDED)
> >> 2:10 - 2:50 Chef
> >> 3:00 - 3:40 Puppet
> >>
> >> 4:00 - 4:40 Networking
> >> 4:50 - 5:30 Best discovery of the week, Meta Discussion - ops
> >> communication and governance
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >>
> >> Tom
> >>
> >> On 27/03/14 11:20, Tom Fifield wrote:
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> The idea for this "Operators Summit" has received excellent
> support, and
> >>> we have more than twenty session ideas proposed in the etherpad:
> >>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ATL-ops-unconference-RFC
> >>>
> >>> We've blocked out a room on Monday to host it.
> >>>
> >>> What we need now is:
> >>> 1) Find moderators for the sessions
> >>> 2) Select which sessions are going to happen
> >>> 3) For the architecture show-and-tell, we probably need to select
> who
> >>> will present in this.
> >>>
> >>> If you can help with any of this, please do get in touch, or get
> your
> >>> name down on the etherpad. I'll be in contact soon.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Tom
> >>>
> >>> On 17/03/14 07:54, Tom Fifield wrote:
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> Would you like more time at the summit to talk OpenStack ops? Read
> on!
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course, we will have a dedicated Operations track in the
> conference -
> >>>> and it's going to be better than ever this year, with an all-new
> >>>> selection group ... all of whom actually run clouds.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> However, we've never really had many design-summit style
> >>>> feedback/sharing sessons for ops. Let's change that.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Would you find it useful to have a space to share architectures,
> best
> >>>> practices, and give feedback on the bits of OpenStack that are
> giving
> >>>> you pain? Or perhaps find out how to get more involved in the Open
> >>>> Design process? Help us justify locking away a few rooms :)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Just to start the discussion, I have written up a straw man
> proposal/RFC
> >>>> of one potential use of the time. It's specifically designed to be
> >>>> ripped to shreds - so please do!
> >>>>
> >>>> The idea is to have something that's more like a design summit
> feel -
> >>>> people sitting in a room discussing things, as opposed to more
> >>>> presentations.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ATL-ops-unconference-RFC
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> So, what would you like to see?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Tom
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> >>>> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> >>>> <mailto:OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org>
> >>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-
> operators
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> >>> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> >>> <mailto:OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org>
> >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-
> operators
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> >> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> >> <mailto:OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org>
> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-
> operators
> >