[openstack-dev] [all] Proposal: Architecture Working Group

Clint Byrum clint at fewbar.com
Thu Jun 30 22:24:07 UTC 2016

Excerpts from Mike Perez's message of 2016-06-30 14:10:30 -0700:
> On 09:02 Jun 30, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Excerpts from Mike Perez's message of 2016-06-30 07:50:42 -0700:
> > > 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. 
> > > 
> > 
> > That sounds like a reasoned deep argument, not a nitpick, so thank you
> > for making it.
> > 
> > However, I don't think lack of drivers is standing in the way of a DLM
> > effort. It is a lack of coordination. There was a race to the finish line
> > to make Consul and etcd drivers, but then, like the fish in finding Nemo,
> > the drivers are in bags floating in the bay.. now what?
> Some drivers are still in review, or likely abandoned efforts so it's not
> really a bay of options as you're describing it.

Heh, that kind of sounds like the same thing.. not a bay of options,
just options stuck between the fish tank and the bay.

> Cinder has continued forward with being the guinea pig as planned with Tooz.
> [1] I don't think this a great example for your argument because
> 1) Not all projects need this.
> 2) This was discussed in Tokyo and just done in Mitaka for Cinder. Why not give
>    projects time to evaluate when they're ready?
> > Nobody owns this effort. Everybody gets busy. Nothing gets done. We
> > continue to bring it up in the hallway and wish we had time.
> I don't ever foresee a release where we say "All projects support DLM". In fact
> I see things going as planned because:
> 1) We have a project that carried it forward as planned.
> 2) We're purposely not repeat the MQ mess. Only DLM drivers with support from
>    members of the community are surfacing up.
> I would ask you instead, how exactly are you measuring success here?

That's a great question. I think the community did what I'd like to
see the working group do as it's first order of business: Mapped the
territory, and provided a plan to improve it. So to your point, there's no
need for an architecture working group if this always happens as planned
in all instances. I'd personally like to see it happen this way all the
time, which is the primary reason I'm motivated to coordinate this

As a second order of business, I think this group would have a hard time
keeping momentum if all it did were write architectural plans. Each of
the designs it helps create need to be backed up with actual work. Who
cares if you drew a picture of a bridge: show me the bridge. :)

> > This is just a place to have a meeting and some people who get together
> > and say "hey is that done yet? Do you need help? is that still a
> > priority?". Could we do this as part of Oslo? Yes! But, I want this to
> > be about going one step higher, and actually taking the implementations
> > into the respective projects.
> How about calling a cross-project meeting? [2] I have already spent the time
> organizing people who are interested from each appropriate project team that
> are eager to help [3]. Again you can call your posse whatever, but please work
> with the people already around to assist.

That's exactly what I want to help do. So perhaps we do need to more
formally attach that second order of business to the existing cross
project processes. I'll noodle on that and see if I can more clearly
draw that line. Thanks for bringing up the overlap.

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list