[OpenStack-DefCore] Trying to explain Guidelines... here's what I'm thinking [feedback welcome]
Barrett, Carol L
carol.l.barrett at intel.com
Fri Mar 6 18:43:42 UTC 2015
Thanks Jim – You captured my viewpoint well.
Carol
From: Meyer, Jim [mailto:jim.meyer at hp.com]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 10:17 AM
To: Justin Shepherd; Barrett, Carol L
Cc: defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Trying to explain Guidelines... here's what I'm thinking [feedback welcome]
I’ll hazard a guess, phrased in the form of the question, “Carol, is this what you meant?"
A brand is something you hire to do a job for you because you believe that the brand implies the required capabilities to get the job done.
DefCore defines what is required for a vendor to put an “OpenStack" sticker on the box. We’re making a guarantee to that vendor’s customers that this product has what it takes to do an “OpenStack” job well enough. If, for example, we find that some interesting contingent of customers are disappointed about the lack of the Foo service in clouds that clearly meet DefCore 2015.03, we would certainly seek to address the gap in DefCore 2015.09 (?). We aren’t putting the sticker on the box, but we own the promise of what’s inside a box with our sticker on it.
That promise is ours communicate so that consumers can understand what it is, what’s in the box, and what’s not guaranteed to be there. Then they can make a more consistently informed decision, and we can build our brand with them iteratively.
Hopefully that makes sense.
—j, just another marketing wannabe.
On Mar 3, 2015, at 9:26 AM, Justin Shepherd <jshepher at rackspace.com<mailto:jshepher at rackspace.com>> wrote:
Carol,
I think I am missing something that ties these two things together. The DefCore mission is around defining a minimal set of “functions/features” that an end user can count existing when consuming an “OpenStack branded” cloud (wether public or private), and ensuring that vendors are actually running OpenStack code behind these “functions/features". DefCore does not really play any part in marketing/promoting the innovation happening in the community, this would all be expressed via release announcements, user stories, blog posts, etc.
Could you explain where you think the entanglement lies?
Thanks,
Justin Shepherd
On Mar 2, 2015, at 6:11 PM, Barrett, Carol L <carol.l.barrett at intel.com<mailto:carol.l.barrett at intel.com>> wrote:
Lauren – Thanks for your thoughts. It seems like the challenge in using DefCore to support Brand Licensing is that it will always be lagging and backwards looking. The newest features, will not be included in DefCore because they will have no uptake when released. This seems like an issue to being able to market/promote the innovation happening in the community.
A couple of specifc questions on the intersection of Branding and DefCore:
1) How do you plan to communicate to the end-users/market the elements of OpenStack that are stable & interoperable and those which are not? Educating users can be expense and risky.
2) What are the definitions around Stability and Interoperability that will be used to support the Brand.
Thanks
Carol
From: Lauren Sell [mailto:lauren at openstack.org]
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 2:05 PM
To: Barrett, Carol L
Cc: Rob Hirschfeld; Rob Hirschfeld; Shamail; defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org<mailto:defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Trying to explain Guidelines... here's what I'm thinking [feedback welcome]
Hi Carol, Rob,
Thanks for raising the branding question, because it’s absolutely important that we consider the angles and are on the same page. Ultimately, what DefCore is defining and we are implementing with the OpenStack Powered commercial products should mean interoperability and stability.
Taking a step back, one thing that’s difficult to wrap our heads around is the difference between the upstream community release and downstream implementation in distros, cloud services, etc. The community approach is evolving from both sides with:
1) Upstream community project structure reform (non-commercial): The Technical Committee is essentially breaking up what has been known as the integrated release and creating a broader definition of what is labeled as upstream OpenStack code, while also applying more sophisticated and descriptive tags to each project (beyond simply in or out of the integrated release).
2) Downstream DefCore implementation (commercial): The DefCore Committee is creating policy to define the common denominator across OpenStack products, in order to enable interoperability and predictability for users in the market. DefCore policy is comprised of a minimum set of code and capabilities with must-pass API tests (in practice, products will contain more features than the DefCore set), and the staff is working to implement that policy through testing and licensing programs for commercial products.
Upstream is of course where the innovation is happening. The technical committee wants to support and recognize that innovation while also more clearly communicating the attributes of each project (such as how/when it’s released, docs & security support, maturity, etc.). DefCore is trying to define a more conservative, stable set of functionality guaranteed to be present in downstream products. That functionality grows steadily over time, but will always be a subset of the features available upstream. These are features and components important to interoperability and backwards compatibility across different OpenStack Powered products and services.
Initially, the DefCore committee was defining a set of API capabilities and designated sections tied to each release version (right now we’re still on Havana advisory with Icehouse in development); however, at the in-person meeting two weeks ago, there was a discussion about decoupling the release and DefCore policy specifications, since they are trailing the releases anyway. In practice, that would mean a product would need to test against one of the two most recent API specs and also be running the associated designated code from one of the two most recent versions of the software.
I personally think this approach could give the DefCore committee more flexibility in terms of cadence to build specification over the long term. It could also be beneficial for end users (especially apps on top of OpenStack) who are accustomed to an API spec without having to know the release version code names. There are still some decisions to be made like how we reconcile designated sections with each version of the API compatibility tests.
I think both the upstream and downstream changes present a large opportunity from a branding and marketing perspective. Downstream we can communicate a smaller, stable set of core set of services that users can expect in the market anytime they see the OpenStack brand. Upstream we are able to communicate and recognize innovation driven by the community, which gives insight into where the technology is heading, and may be a fit for some users today. It also gives us a better story for end users and applications that want to be compatible with OpenStack services. Things are still evolving right now, but we are planning to promote the OpenStack Powered brand heavily at and around the Vancouver Summit, so the market has a clear understanding of the meaning.
I’m not sure if this answers your questions, but am happy to continue the discussion.
Thanks,
Lauren
On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:38 AM, Barrett, Carol L <carol.l.barrett at intel.com<mailto:carol.l.barrett at intel.com>> 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:rob at zehicle.com>]
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:37 AM
> To: defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org<mailto: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<tel:512-773-7522>
>
> I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
> http://robhirschfeld.com<http://robhirschfeld.com/>
> twitter: @zehicle, github: cloudedge & ravolt
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Defcore-committee mailing list
> Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:rob at rackn.com>)
I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
http://robhirschfeld.com<http://robhirschfeld.com/>
twitter: @zehicle, github: cloudedge & ravolt
_______________________________________________
Defcore-committee mailing list
Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org<mailto: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<http://robhirschfeld.com/>
twitter: @zehicle, github: cloudedge & ravolt
--
Rob
____________________________
Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522
I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
http://robhirschfeld.com<http://robhirschfeld.com/>
twitter: @zehicle, github: cloudedge & ravolt
_______________________________________________
Defcore-committee mailing list
Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/defcore-committee/attachments/20150306/3793f223/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Defcore-committee
mailing list
