Open Stack

On 9/4/2014 4:21 AM, Day, Phil wrote:
>>>
>>> One final note: the specs referenced above didn't get approved until
>>> Spec Freeze, which seemed to leave me with less time to implement
>>> things.  In fact, it seemed that a lot of specs didn't get approved
>>> until spec freeze.  Perhaps if we had more staggered approval of
>>> specs, we'd have more staggered submission of patches, and thus less of a
>> sudden influx of patches in the couple weeks before feature proposal
>> freeze.
>>
>> Yeah I think the specs were getting approved too late into the cycle, I was
>> actually surprised at how far out the schedules were going in allowing things
>> in and then allowing exceptions after that.
>>
>> Hopefully the ideas around priorities/slots/runways will help stagger some of
>> this also.
>>
> I think there is a problem with the pattern that seemed to emerge in June where the J.1 period was taken up with spec review  (a lot of good reviews happened early in that period, but the approvals kind of came in a lump at the end)  meaning that the implementation work itself only seemed to really kick in during J.2 - and not surprisingly given the complexity of some of the changes ran late into J.3.
>
> We also has previously noted didn’t do any prioritization between those specs that were approved - so it was always going to be a race to who managed to get code up for review first.
>
> It kind of feels to me as if the ideal model would be if we were doing spec review for K now (i.e during the FF / stabilization period) so that we hit Paris with a lot of the input already registered and a clear idea of the range  of things folks want to do.    We shouldn't really have to ask for session suggestions for the summit  - they should be something that can be extracted from the proposed specs (maybe we do voting across the specs or something like that).    In that way the summit would be able to confirm the list of specs for K and the priority order.
>
> With the current state of the review queue maybe we can’t quite hit this pattern for K, but would be worth aspiring to for I ?
>
> Phil
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>

I like the idea of having our ducks somewhat in a row for the summit so 
we can hash out details in design sessions on high-priority specs and 
reserve time for figuring out what the priorities are.  I think that 
would go a long way in fixing some of the frustrations in the other 
thread about the mid-cycle meetups being the place where blueprint 
issues are hashed out rather than the summit, and the design sessions at 
the summit not feeling productive.

But as noted, there is also a feeling right now of focusing on Juno to 
get that out the door before anyone starts getting distracted with 
reviewing Kilo specs.  And I suppose once Juno is finished no one is 
going to want to talk about Kilo for awhile due to burnout.

-- 

Thanks,

Matt Riedemann