Open Stack

I would also like to see some discussions around “asks” to the Foundation and Board around (re)-positioning OpenStack generally.  In my mind, product management covers the gap between technology and business.  The TC is making the right moves in tandem with the board on reorganizing the overall project, but we need to help customers understand what that means.

That means we need to help provide input on how we would like OpenStack re-organized and provided to customers.  Is it desirable that OpenStack is structured around use cases:

	- OpenStack for NFV
	- OpenStack for HPC
	- OpenStack for Enterprise

Where the use cases and personas are captured and managed by this group in tandem with the TC?

Or is it organized around functional areas:

	- OpenStack IaaS
	- OpenStack PaaS

Although I think these may be hard to agree on, there is at least somewhat of a dividing line here.

There may be other ways to slice the pie as well.


Best,



--Randy

VP, Technology, EMC Corporation
Formerly Founder & CEO, Cloudscaling (now a part of EMC)
+1 (415) 787-2253 [google] 
TWITTER: twitter.com/randybias
LINKEDIN: linkedin.com/in/randybias
ASSISTANT: ren.ly at emc.com





> On Dec 29, 2014, at 9:12 AM, Rob Hirschfeld <rob at zehicle.com> wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> 
> 
> I think this group needs to be considering these larger meta items and this is a good place for it; however, I think can be overwhelming.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to see more "down in the weeds" threads on this list.  Topics like "how will splitting neutron change our product plans." (http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-December/052713.html <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-December/052713.html>) or similar.  Even using this list to discuss press or analyst spin would be a great step forward since this group has a unique perspective about OpenStack product positioning.
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO, if we want to solve these larger issues, everyone also needs to be connecting on the smaller items.
> 
> 
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> 
>> On December 26, 2014 at 1:50 PM Stefano Maffulli <stefano at openstack.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks Randy and Michael for sharing your thoughts. Keep 'em coming.
>> 
>> I agree with Randy (quoting him below) that this group has the potential
>> 
>> > [...] to establish a process by which longer term vision and product
>> > direction can emerge from within the community. [...]
>> > 
>> In other words, this group should own the product strategy for OpenStack
>> as a whole.
>> > 
>> On Wed, 2014-12-24 at 18:43 -0800, Randy Bias wrote:
>> 
>> > OpenStack is at pretty significant risk of collapsing under it’s own
>> > weight. As it is now, we’re on a suicide mission. We’ve got dozens
>> > of inbound projects that all want to move into integrated status and
>> > the current development cadence calls for a 6-month “integrated
>> > release cycle” even though it’s questionable whether all components
>> > really need to be tested together every 6 months or even integrated
>> > for that matter. Once we cross into 20+ projects this simply won’t be
>> > doable any more. Either we’ll break down to an annual release cycle
>> > (a mistake) or we’ll fix what is a fundamentally flawed approach.
>> > 
>> The TC is concerned about this, too and has been discussing for weeks
>> now how to reshape the concept of an 'OpenStack release', what it means
>> to 'graduate' from incubation. Last week the TC approved a resolution
>> that lays the foundational work to break that vicious cycle of
>> integrating components that, as Randy says, don't need to be tested
>> together at each commit, or even 'integrated' at all. 
>> 
>> Thierry's post has more details http://ttx.re/the-way-forward.html and
>> this group is well positioned to keep contributing to the debate, which
>> is a very important and large change and will continue during all 2015. 
>> 
>> > And that goes to your last point there. OpenStack’s vision in the
>> > early days was fairly focused on infrastructure, although it’s mission
>> > was stated around “cloud”, which is in the eye of the beholder. As an
>> > inclusive, meritocracy, we have drifted and given rise to a rapidly
>> > growing set of interrelated but NOT interdependent (with exceptions)
>> > projects which we are currently and unfortunately committed to
>> > delivering a single monolithic release of at a fixed interval.
>> > 
>> Exactly: in the early days there were only a couple of customers with
>> very specific use cases being targeted. It didn't take much for a huge
>> diverse set of 'personas' joining OpenStack, adopting it. The conflict
>> among them ('cloud', enterprise, NVF/Telco... just to name a few) is
>> high, rising fast and very visible from my observation deck. I would
>> expect this group to help reduce this conflictuality by being the one
>> that says "no" (or helps others say no).
>> 
>> > 
>> Happy end of year and wonderful beginning,
>> stef
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Product-wg mailing list
>> Product-wg at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/product-wg
>>