Open Stack

How do we define "broad adoption"?  Should we state some threshold or criteria or will it be subjective for now?

Thanks,
Shamail 



> On Feb 27, 2015, at 12:03 PM, Rob Hirschfeld <rob at zehicle.com> wrote:
> 
> YES!  very very well said.
> 
>> On 02/27/2015 10:38 AM, Barrett, Carol L wrote:
>> Thanks Rob – so when capabilities become accepted in the market Defcore ensures support for them moving forward, until it’s no longer appropriate.
>>  
>> I’ll take up my branding concerns with the marketing side of the house.
>> Carol
>>  
>> From: Rob Hirschfeld [mailto:rob at zehicle.com] 
>> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 8:36 AM
>> To: Barrett, Carol L; Rob Hirschfeld; Shamail
>> Cc: defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
>> Subject: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Trying to explain Guidelines... here's what I'm thinking [feedback welcome]
>>  
>> Carol,
>> 
>> DefCore can't.  IMHO, it one of Vendors' roles to select, validate and support new capabilities.  DefCore comes along after those capabilities are broadly adopted.  It would be an anti-pattern if we selected capabilities that were only in one or two products/distros.
>> 
>> The reason to move away from releases was to decouple this exact discussion.  DefCore is not about features in releases but long term capabilities of the platform.
>> 
>> Rob
>> 
>> On 02/27/2015 10:00 AM, Barrett, Carol L wrote:
>> Rob – With my Branding hat on, it’s less about API uptake and more about the connotation of the Brand on a release. If the OpenStack Brand on a distro means a promise of quality, interoperability and backward compatibility how can we deliver on that for new capabilities without having evaluated them and ensure there’s appropriate testing?
>>  
>> Carol
>>  
>> From: Rob Hirschfeld [mailto:rob at zehicle.com] 
>> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 4:41 PM
>> To: Barrett, Carol L; Rob Hirschfeld; Shamail
>> Cc: defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
>> Subject: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Trying to explain Guidelines... here's what I'm thinking [feedback welcome]
>>  
>> Carol,
>> 
>> Let me turn that around.  If a project released new capabilities out of cycle, how quickly would you expect them to surface into the DefCore guidelines?
>> 
>> By design, we select for widely-used APIs.  So, how fast should we expect a new feature to get wide adoption.
>> 
>> Rob
>> 
>> On 02/26/2015 03:48 PM, Barrett, Carol L wrote:
>> I expect that the unpredictability of project releases will create challenges in many ways. Branding is one of them – if a project releases new capabilities out of cycle to the core-projects release of the Defcore                 definition update, those new features will not be covered by the Brand (which means they haven’t been validated to a certain level nor is there any backward API compatibility promise). How will an end-user know that?  If the Brand doesn’t simplify the purchasing process for the end-user, then we’re not on the right track..imho.
>>  
>> From: Rob Hirschfeld [mailto:rob at rackn.com] 
>> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 1:42 PM
>> To: Shamail
>> Cc: Barrett, Carol L; defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
>> Subject: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Trying to explain Guidelines... here's what I'm thinking [feedback welcome]
>>  
>> Good questions.  We're including which releases are covered in each guideline so, for example, you can track DefCore 2015.07 to the I,J & K releases.  You can't use that guideline against H or L 
>>  
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Shamail <itzshamail at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Carol,
>> 
>> I agree with the concern but I think (I didn't attend the F2F) some of this may be driven by the fact that we don't necessarily have a concrete definition of what a release may look like in the future.
>> 
>> If the releases (due to project structure reform) end up having a cadence with a usual group of components then I could see aligning with releases but I think some of that is TBD at this point, therefore this seems like a safe bet.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Shamail
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> > On Feb 26, 2015, at 3:52 PM, Barrett, Carol L <carol.l.barrett at intel.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I am concerned about achieving the Brand goal,  using a month/year approach rather than a release approach. Is the expectation that a vendor will pull the upstream  for the month/year Defcore test and ship a product?  If a vendor release cycle is offset by 2 months, what would use to validate their Brand compliance? My thought is by that time new things will be included in a variety of projects that will be included in the Vendor release but not comprehended in the 2 month old Defcore definition.
>> >
>> > Carol
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Rob Hirschfeld [mailto:rob at zehicle.com]
>> > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:37 AM
>> > To: defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
>> > Subject: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Trying to explain Guidelines... here's what I'm thinking [feedback welcome]
>> >
>> > Chris Lee pinged me about missing a note Component & Platform levels.
>> > We need to include that in the Guidelines.
>> >
>> > Good catch Chris!
>> >
>> >> On 02/26/2015 12:46 PM, Rob Hirschfeld wrote:
>> >> DefCore... does this explain Guidelines?
>> >>
>> >> Last week, the OpenStack DefCore committee rolled up our collective
>> >> sleeves and got to work in a serious way.  We had a in-person meeting
>> >> with great turn out with 5 board members, Foundation executives/staff
>> >> and good community engagement.
>> >>
>> >> TL;DR > We think DefCore should dated milestone guidelines instead
>> >> tightly coupled to release events (see graphic
>> >> https://robhirschfeld.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/defcore-timeline1.png).
>> >>
>> >> DefCore has a single goal expressed from two sides: 1) defining the
>> >> "what is OpenStack" brand for Vendors and 2) driving interoperability
>> >> between OpenStack installations.  From that perspective, it is not
>> >> about releases, but about testable stable capabilities.  Over time,
>> >> these changes should be incremental and, most importantly, trail
>> >> behind new features that are added.
>> >>
>> >> For those reasons, it was becoming confusing for DefCore to focus on
>> >> an "Icehouse" definition when most of the capabilities listed are
>> >> "Havana" ones.  We also created significant time pressure to get the
>> >> "Kilo DefCore" out quickly after the release even though there were no
>> >> "Kilo" specific additions covered.
>> >>
>> >> In the face-to-face, we settled on a more incremental approach.
>> >> DefCore would regularly post a set of guidelines for approval by the
>> >> Board.  These Guidelines would include the required, deprecated
>> >> (leaving) and advisory (coming) capabilities required for Vendors to
>> >> use the mark (see footnote*).  They would also include the relevant
>> >> designated sections.  These Guidelines would use the open draft and
>> >> discussion process that we are in the process of outlining for
>> >> approval in Vancouver.
>> >>
>> >> Since DefCore Guidelines are simple time based lists of capabilities,
>> >> the vendors and community can simply reference an approved Guideline
>> >> using the date of approval (for example DefCore 2015.03) and know
>> >> exactly what was included.  While each Guideline stands alone, it is
>> >> easy to compare them for incremental changes.
>> >>
>> >> We've been getting positive feedback about this change; however, we
>> >> are still discussing it appreciate your input and questions. It is
>> >> very important for us to make DefCore simple and easy.  For that, your
>> >> confused looks and WTF? comments are very helpful.
>> >>
>> >> * footnote: the Foundation manages that process the Vendors. DefCore
>> >> Guidelines are just one part of the brand process.
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> >
>> > Rob
>> > ____________________________
>> > Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522
>> >
>> > I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
>> > http://robhirschfeld.com
>> > twitter: @zehicle, github: cloudedge & ravolt
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Defcore-committee mailing list
>> > Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Defcore-committee mailing list
>> > Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Defcore-committee mailing list
>> Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> --
>> Rob
>> ____________________________
>> Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522
>> RackN CEO/Founder (rob at rackn.com)
>> 
>> I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
>> http://robhirschfeld.com
>> twitter: @zehicle, github: cloudedge & ravolt
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Defcore-committee mailing list
>> Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>>   
>>  
>> Rob
>> ____________________________
>> Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522
>>  
>> I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
>> http://robhirschfeld.com
>> twitter: @zehicle, github: cloudedge & ravolt 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>>   
>>  
>> Rob
>> ____________________________
>> Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522
>>  
>> I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
>> http://robhirschfeld.com
>> twitter: @zehicle, github: cloudedge & ravolt 
> 
> -- 
>   
> 
> Rob
> ____________________________
> Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522
> 
> I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
> http://robhirschfeld.com
> twitter: @zehicle, github: cloudedge & ravolt 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/defcore-committee/attachments/20150227/35799c4e/attachment-0001.html>