Open Stack

Armando,

I think that contributing and innovating in Dragonflow to implement Neutron
in an open way and serve as an  alternative and as an example
for distributed networking patterns IS driving Neutron forward, i am very
sad that you fail to see this and try to pick to
my review/patches count.

Beside the big over head i devote to Dragonflow, due to the fact that it
really runs as an open source project, i also help and contribute
as much as i can to OVN and of course my efforts in Kuryr, which to me
solves a critical and important thing for Neutron and for OpenStack
in mixed containers environments.
(And the rest of the time that i try to devote to Neutron and other
sub-projects, currently still under Neutron big-stadium)

Of course that all of this in addition to my efforts and success to
convince and assist in bringing more people
and more companies to contribute in an open way with the community in many
areas in Neutron (some you are familiar with like the border gateway and
l2gateway others that you are not..),
both internally and externally, writing blogs/arranging meetups to promote
and extend some
of the above projects visibility and Neutron as such.

Believe me that i truly am passionate about Neutron, OpenStack and open
source and try my best to help and
contribute when ever i can and many times not due to my "Job requirement",
i apologise that this is
not enough for you, there is only a limited amount of hours in a day :)

However, i truly believe that Dragonflow, and ANY other true open source
implementation of Neutron helps move
Neutron forward and i hope to continue do so either as Neutron big-stadium,
as a big-tent project or as something else.

As i have talked with Russell and explained, to me the Big Stadium was/is a
way to keep Networking related projects "near"
the group of people that has the best context to review / help and comment,
its obviously not working and thats fine, lets
try something different...


On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Armando M. <armamig at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 4 February 2016 at 04:05, Gal Sagie <gal.sagie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Assaf,
>>
>> I think that if we define a certain criteria we need to make sure that it
>> applies to everyone equally.
>> and it is well understood.
>>
>
> I must admit I am still waking up and going through the entire logs etc.
> However I cannot help but point out that one criteria that Russell and
> other TC people are behind (me included) is the significant 'team overlap'
> (and I would add it to be for a prolonged amount of time). This doesn't
> mean just drop the accidental bug fix or enhancement to enable the
> subproject to work with Neutron or address the odd regression that sneaks
> in from time to time, but it means driving Neutron forward so that it is
> beneficial for the project as a whole.
>
> If you look at yourself, can you candidly say that you are making an
> impact to the core of Neutron? You seem you have dropped off the radar in
> the Mitaka timeframe, and haven't made a lasting impact in the Liberty
> timeframe. I applaud your Kuryr initiative and your specs proposals, but
> both are not enough to warrant Dragonflow for inclusion.
>
> If the team overlap changes, then great, we'll reassess.
>
> That said, I'll continue my discussion on the patch...
>
>
>> I have contributed and still am to both OVN and Dragonflow and hope to
>> continue do so in the future,
>> i want to see both of these solutions become a great production grade
>> open source alternatives.
>>
>> I have less experience in open source and in this community from most of
>> you, but from what i saw users
>> do take these things into consideration, its hard for a new user and even
>> not so new to understand the possibilities correctly
>> specially if we cant even define them ourselves
>>
>> Instead of spending time on technology and on solving the problems for
>> our users we are concentrating
>> on this conversation, we haven't even talked about production maturity,
>> feature richness and stability as you say
>> and by doing this move, we are signaling something else for our users
>> without actually discussing about all the
>> former ourselves.
>>
>> I will be ok with what ever the Neutron team decide on this, as they can
>> define the criteria as they please.
>> Just shared my opinion on this process and my disappointment from it as
>> someone who values open source
>> a lot.
>>
>> Gal.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Assaf Muller <amuller at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Assaf Muller <amuller at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Gal Sagie <gal.sagie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> As i have commented on the patch i will also send this to the mailing
>>> list:
>>> >>
>>> >> I really dont see why Dragonflow is not part of this list, given the
>>> >> criteria you listed.
>>> >>
>>> >> Dragonflow is fully developed under Neutron/OpenStack, no other
>>> >> repositories. It is fully Open source and already have a community of
>>> people
>>> >> contributing and interest from various different companies and
>>> OpenStack
>>> >> deployers. (I can prepare the list of active contributions and of
>>> interested
>>> >> parties) It also puts OpenStack Neutron APIs and use cases as first
>>> class
>>> >> citizens and working on being an integral part of OpenStack.
>>> >>
>>> >> I agree that OVN needs to be part of the list, but you brought up this
>>> >> criteria in regards to ODL, so: OVN like ODL is not only Neutron and
>>> >> OpenStack and is even running/being implemented on a whole different
>>> >> governance model and requirements to it.
>>> >>
>>> >> I think you also forgot to mention some other projects as well that
>>> are
>>> >> fully open source with a vibrant and diverse community, i will let
>>> them
>>> >> comment here by themselves.
>>> >>
>>> >> Frankly this approach disappoints me, I have honestly worked hard to
>>> make
>>> >> Dragonflow fully visible and add and support open discussion and
>>> follow the
>>> >> correct guidelines to work in a project. I think that Dragonflow
>>> community
>>> >> has already few members from various companies and this is only going
>>> to
>>> >> grow in the near future. (in addition to deployers that are
>>> considering it
>>> >> as a solution)  we also welcome anyone that wants to join and be part
>>> of the
>>> >> process to step in, we are very welcoming
>>> >>
>>> >> I also think that the correct way to do this is to actually add as
>>> reviewers
>>> >> all lieutenants of the projects you are now removing from Neutron big
>>> >> stadium and letting them comment.
>>> >>
>>> >> Gal.
>>> >
>>> > I understand you see 'Dragonflow being part of the Neutron stadium'
>>> > and 'Dragonflow having high visibility' as tied together. I'm curious,
>>> > from a practical perspective, how does being a part of the stadium
>>> > give Dragonflow visibility? If it were not a part of the stadium and
>>> > you had your own PTL etc, what specifically would change so that
>>> > Dragonflow would be less visible. Currently I don't understand why
>>> > being a part of the stadium is good or bad for a networking project,
>>> > or why does it matter. Looking at Russell's patch, it's concerned with
>>> > placing projects (e.g. ODL, OVN, Dragonflow) either in or out of the
>>> > stadium and the criteria for doing so, I'm just asking how do you
>>> > (Gal) perceive the practical effect of that decision.
>>>
>>> Allow me to expand:
>>> It seems to me like there is no significance to who is 'in or out'.
>>> However, people, including potential customers, look at the list of
>>> the Neutron stadium and deduce that project X is better than Y because
>>> X is in but Y is out, and *that* in itself is the value of being in or
>>> out, even though it has no meaning. Maybe we should explain what
>>> exactly does it mean being in or out. It's just a governance decision,
>>> it doesn't reflect in any way of the quality or appeal of a project
>>> (For example some of the open source Neutron drivers out of the
>>> stadium are much more mature, stable and feature full than other
>>> drivers in the stadium).
>>>
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 11/30/2015 07:56 PM, Armando M. wrote:
>>> >>> > I would like to suggest that we evolve the structure of the Neutron
>>> >>> > governance, so that most of the deliverables that are now part of
>>> the
>>> >>> > Neutron stadium become standalone projects that are entirely
>>> >>> > self-governed (they have their own core/release teams, etc).
>>> >>>
>>> >>> After thinking over the discussion in this thread for a while, I have
>>> >>> started the following proposal to implement the stadium renovation
>>> that
>>> >>> Armando originally proposed in this thread.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/275888
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> Russell Bryant
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>> >>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> >>> Unsubscribe:
>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Best Regards ,
>>> >>
>>> >> The G.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>> >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> >> Unsubscribe:
>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best Regards ,
>>
>> The G.
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe:
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>


-- 
Best Regards ,

The G.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160205/c1dbba36/attachment.html>