Open Stack

On 3/17/2016 1:26 PM, Tim Bell wrote:
>
>
> On 17/03/16 18:29, "Sean Dague" <sean at dague.net> wrote:
>
>> On 03/17/2016 11:57 AM, Markus Zoeller wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Suggested action items:
>>>
>>> 1. I close the open wish list items older than 6 months (=138 reports)
>>>     and explain in the closing comment that they are outdated and the
>>>     ML should be used for future RFEs (as described above).
>>> 2. I post on the openstack-ops ML to explain why we do this
>>> 3. I change the Nova bug report template to explain this to avoid more
>>>     RFEs in the bug report list in the future.
>>> 4. In 6 months I double-check the rest of the open wishlist bugs
>>>     if they found developers, if not I'll close them too.
>>> 5. Continously double-check if wishlist bug reports get created
>>>
>>> Doubts? Thoughts? Concerns? Agreements?
>>
>> This sounds like a very reasonable plan to me. Thanks for summarizing
>> all the concerns and coming up with a pretty balanced plan here. +1.
>>
>> 	-Sean
>
> I’d recommend running it by the -ops* list along with the RFE proposal. I think many of the cases
> had been raised since people did not have the skills/know how to proceed.
>
> Engaging with the ops list would also bring in the product working group who could potentially
> help out on the next step (i.e. identifying the best places to invest for RFEs) and the other
> topical working groups (e.g. Telco, scientific) who could help with prioritisation/triage.
>
> I don’t think that a launchpad account on its own is a big problem. Thus, I could also see an approach
> where a blueprint was created in launchpad with some reasonably structured set of chapters. My
> personal experience was that the challenges came more later on trying to get the review matched up and
> the right bp directories.
>
> There is a big benefit to good visibility in the -ops community for RFEs though. Quite often, the
> features are implemented but people did not know how to find them in the doc (or maybe its a doc bug).
> Equally, the OSops scripts repo can give people workarounds while the requested feature is in the
> priority queue.
>
> It would be a very interesting topic to kick off in the ops list and then have a further review in
> Austin to agree how to proceed.
>
> Tim
>>
>> --
>> Sean Dague
>> http://dague.net
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>

I agree with Tim and Sean. As noted in my PTL candidacy email, I want an 
ops CPL for the nova team, someone that can attend the ops meeting(s?) 
and bring back issues.

I try to add known ops people that are involved in nova to specs for 
their input when possible, but a lot of the time this ends up being Chet 
Burgess for everything (Mr Nova Ops!).  But we need to get a better 
communication channel going with the ops list/channel/meetings and RFE 
bugs aren't cutting it.

I like the idea of starting in the ML (dev or ops) since, as noted, if 
it's already done, or someone has already implemented it out of tree and 
just haven't had the time to push it to nova (which is more common than 
you'd think), it can be noted quickly. It would also foster early 
discussion on the idea before it shows up in gerrit as a spec review 
where only a small handful of spec reviewers are going to see it (which 
is also a reason things move slowly). If something was a bad idea, or 
just didn't get much enthusiasm, then it kind of dies on the vine 
naturally in the ML rather than a bitrot spec review in gerrit that we 
just end up abandoning every 6 months.

-- 

Thanks,

Matt Riedemann