On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 9:50 AM Ghanshyam Mann <gmann@ghanshyammann.com> wrote:
---- On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 09:43:59 -0500 Dan Smith <dms@danplanet.com> wrote ----
Julia Kreger <juliaashleykreger@gmail.com> writes:
Is that Nova's interpretation, specifically the delineation that non-project owned should only be viewable by system, or was system scope changed at some point? I interpreted it differently, but haven't circled back recently. I guess interpretation and evolution in specific pockets after initial implementation work started ultimately resulted in different perceptions.
Nope, not a Nova thing. Here's the relevant course correction from two PTGs ago:
https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/selected/consistent-and-secure-rba...
Thanks Sean! Now I'm remembering! This is what happens when we implement things and then change directions and already have some variety of models. I guess I mentally dropped some of the context due to this after reading it since it was already "done" and committed from my perspective. Thanks for the refresher!
Mohammed is going to be there and primed to discuss this as well. I think he's pretty well caught up on the current state of things. Having your experience with what it means in Ironic, as well as his context from the sticky implementation issues in the other projects should mean we have pretty good coverage.
Yes. and it is more than just a single service use case especially when heat discussion[1] came up and the scope complexity for heat/NVF users is brought up. We want to make sure by introducing scope at the service level which is all good for us does not break others users/tooling like heat, tacker, and deployment projects.
We discussed one solution for heat[2] which is sent on ML for feedback not still now response and that is why operators' feedback is critical before we try to implement something that can break them.
Thanks! I think we will try to remember to bring this up, but we also need to let the operators drive based upon their wants and needs. Operators tend to want to focus on the nuts and bolts of older software, so hopefully we will be able to move the discussion forward. There is entirely the possibility they just won't want to discuss it because it is well over the horizon for them. Semi-on topic, but also on topic to the base different topic: How many people would be interested in actually trying to meet up with operators on some semi-regular basis? Having a past operations background would be a major bonus point because the same words would be able to be coalesced far faster. Additionally, travel? How far? etc? I'm feeling like we need to build a "bridging" group of some sort. There are a ton of threads I'm on on trying to help bridge some of these communication gaps right now.
[1] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/rbac-zed-ptg#L104 [2] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2022-May/028490.html
-gmann
Thanks!
--Dan