Open Stack

Okay I'll bite. I'm a working owner; Cloud/OpenStack/SDN architect slash
OpenStack SI business owner working with companies trying to extract value
from technology they don't understand. Or in ways they aren't familiar
with. Or with code they don't have time to build/maintain themselves.

This working group seems like we'll get to look at things from the
perspective of "what is openstack and how can we make it better for those
who want to use it" among other things. Sad reality is SI's and product
vendors make more money if OpenStack remains complicated so we'll be
working against working against a powerful money machine that funds this
project. I want OpenStack to address real non-theoretical and
non-marketing-BS cloud problems that are based in today's reality and in
advance of tomorrow's challenges. I hope we'll get that chance.

Today, it seems to me that this WG would focus un-crunching code, design
and evangelize opportunities for potential improvements for consideration
by the greater OpenStack community and the TC. No successful architecture
group I've ever participated wondered how do we can compel others to accept
our recommendations. Leave that to the business/OpenStack governance.

Ultimately, I totally agree with Clint in that if we avoid too much focus
on design enforcement, that's our first win. And in my mind, our designs
will not be absorbed nor accepted de facto anyway. I think the value will
however be recognized over time though and I'm totally down with that.

I'd like to participate with this Clint if there's room for one more. ; )

//adam


*Adam Lawson*

AQORN, Inc.
427 North Tatnall Street
Ste. 58461
Wilmington, Delaware 19801-2230
Toll-free: (844) 4-AQORN-NOW ext. 101
International: +1 302-387-4660
Direct: +1 916-246-2072

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Joshua Harlow <harlowja at fastmail.com>
wrote:

> Mike Perez wrote:
>
>> On 11:31 Jun 20, Clint Byrum wrote:
>>
>>> Excerpts from Joshua Harlow's message of 2016-06-17 15:33:25 -0700:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for getting this started Clint,
>>>>
>>>> I'm happy and excited to be involved in helping try to guide the whole
>>>> ecosystem together (it's also why I like being in oslo) to a
>>>> architecture that is more cohesive (and is more of something that we can
>>>> say to our current or future children that we were all involved and
>>>> proud to be involved in creating/maturing...).
>>>>
>>>> At a start, for said first meeting, any kind of agenda come to mind, or
>>>> will it be more a informal gathering to start (either is fine with me)?
>>>>
>>>> I've been hesitant to fill this in too much as I'm still forming the
>>> idea, but here are the items I think are most compelling to begin with:
>>>
>>> * DLM's across OpenStack -- This is already under way[1], but it seems to
>>>    have fizzled out. IMO that is because there's no working group who
>>>    owns it. We need to actually write some plans.
>>>
>>
>> Not meaning to nitpick, but I don't think this is a compelling reason for
>> the
>> architecture working group. We need a group that wants to spend time on
>> reviewing the drivers being proposed. This is like saying we need the
>> architecture working group because no working group is actively reshaping
>> quotas
>> cross-project.
>>
>> With that said, I can see the architecture working group providing
>> information
>> on to a group actually reviewing/writing drivers for DLM and saying "Doing
>> mutexes with the mysql driver is crazy, I brought it in a environment and
>> have
>> such information to support that it is not reliable". THAT is useful and I
>> don't feel like people do enough of.
>>
>> My point is call your working group whatever you want (The Purple
>> Parrots), and
>> just go spearhead DLM, but don't make it about one of the most compelling
>> reasons for the existence of this group.
>>
>
> Sadly I feel if such a group formed it wouldn't be addressing the larger
> issue that this type of group is trying to address; the purple parrots
> would be a tactical team that could go do what u said, but that doesn't
> address the larger strategic goal of trying to improve the full situation
> (technical and architectural inconsistencies and 'fizzling out' solutions)
> that IMHO needs to be worked through.
>
> So yes, the tactical group needs to exist, and overall it likely will, but
> there also needs to be a strategic group that is being proactive about the
> issues and not just tactically reacting to things (which isn't imho
> healthy).
>
> -Josh
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160630/bfe74217/attachment-0001.html>