Open Stack

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Armando M. <armamig at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 30 April 2016 at 14:24, Fawad Khaliq <fawad at plumgrid.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Hope everyone had a great summit in Austin and got back safe! :)
>>
>> At the design summit, we had a Neutron stadium evolution session, which
>> needs your immediate attention as it will impact many stakeholders of
>> Neutron.
>
>
> It's my intention to follow up with a formal spec submission to
> neutron-specs as soon as I recover from the trip. Then you'll have a more
> transparent place to voice your concern.
>
>>
>>
>> To summarize for everyone, our Neutron leadership made the following
>> proposal for the “greater-good” of Neutron to improve and reduce burden on
>> the Neutron PTL and core team to avoid managing more Neutron drivers:
>
>
> It's not just about burden. It's about consistency first and foremost.
>
>>
>>
>> Quoting the etherpad [1]
>>
>> "No request for inclusion are accepted for projects focussed solely on
>> implementations and/or API extensions to non-open solutions."
>
>
> By the way, this was brought forward and discussed way before the Summit. In
> fact this is already implemented at the Neutron governance level [1].
>
>>
>> To summarize for everyone what this means is that all Neutron drivers,
>> which implement non open source networking backends are instantly out of the
>> Neutron stadium and are marked as "unofficial/unsupported/remotely
>> affiliated" and rest are capable of being tagged as "supported/official”.
>
>
> Totally false.
>
> All this means is that these projects do not show up in list [1] (minus [2],
> which I forgot): ie. these projects are the projects the Neutron team
> vouches for. Supportability is not a property tracked by this list. You,
> amongst many, should know that it takes a lot more than being part of a list
> to be considered a supported solution, and I am actually even surprised that
> you are misled/misleading by bringing 'support' into this conversation.
>
> [1] http://governance.openstack.org/reference/projects/neutron.html
> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/309618/
>
>>
>>
>> This eliminates all commercial Neutron drivers developed for many service
>> providers and enterprises who have deployed OpenStack successfully with
>> these drivers. It’s unclear how the OpenStack Foundation will communicate
>> its stance with all the users but clearly this is a huge set back for
>> OpenStack and Neutron. Neutron will essentially become closed to all
>> existing, non-open drivers, even if these drivers have been compliant with
>> Neutron API for years and users have them deployed in production, forcing
>> users to re-evaluate their options.
>
>
> Again, totally false.
>
> The Neutron team will continue to stand behind the APIs and integration
> mechanisms in a way that made the journey of breaking down the codebase as
> we know it today possible. Any discussion of evolving these has been done
> and will be done in the open and with the support of all parties involved,
> non-open solutions included.
>
>>
>>
>> Furthermore, this proposal will erode confidence in Neutron and OpenStack,
>> and destroy much of the value that the community has worked so hard to build
>> over the years.
>>
>>
>> As a representative and member of the OpenStack community and maintainer
>> of a Neutron driver (since Grizzly), I am deeply disappointed and disagree
>> with this statement [2]. Tossing out all the non-open solutions is not in
>> the best interest of the end user companies that have built working
>> OpenStack clusters. This proposal will lead OpenStack end users who deployed
>> different drivers to think twice about OpenStack communities’ commitment to
>> deliver solutions they need. Furthermore, this proposal punishes OpenStack
>> companies who developed commercial backend drivers to help end users bring
>> up OpenStack clouds.
>
>
> What? Now you're just spreading FUD.
>
> What is being discussed in that etherpad is totally in line with [1], which
> you approved and stood behind, by the way! No-one is breaking anything,
> we're simply better reflecting what initiatives the Neutron core team is
> supposed to be accountable for and, as a result, empower the individual core
> teams of those vendor drivers. I appreciate there might be a gap in where to
> describe the effort of these initiatives in [2], but I believe there's
> something like the marketplace [3] that's better suited for what you're
> after. IMO, [2] was never intended to be that place, and I stand corrected
> if not.
>
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/309618/
> [2] http://governance.openstack.org/
> [3] https://www.openstack.org/marketplace/drivers/
>
To further support Armando here, I agree that the marketplace is the
best place to host these drivers. In fact, Thierry and I briefly
discussed this, and I think advocating for the Foundation to help put
in place more of a specific drivers program and manage it makes a lot
of sense, especially as most of the benefits both developers and users
are looking for here are more around marketing and consistency.

Thanks,
Kyle

>>
>> Also, we have to realize that this proposal divides the community rather
>> than unifying it. If it proceeds, it seems all OpenStack projects should
>> follow for consistency. For example, this should apply to Nova which means
>> HyperV and vShphere can't be part of Nova, PLUMgrid can't be part of Kuryr,
>> and ABC company cannot have a driver/plugin for a XYZ project.
>
>
> Every project is different, comparing Nova to Neutron or Cinder etc is not a
> like-for-like comparison.
>
>>
>>
>> Another thing to note is, for operators, the benefit is that the
>> flexibility up until now has allowed them to embark on successful OpenStack
>> deployments. For those operators, yanking out support they’ve come to depend
>> on makes things worse. While certain team members may prefer only
>> open-source technology, it’s better to let the end users make that decision
>> in the free competition of the marketplace without introducing notion of
>> official/supported vs unofficial/unsupported drivers purely based on
>> open-source nature of the driver backend despite having complete compliance
>> with the OpenStack ecosystem.
>
>
> As as I said, this is not about support. Solutions will continue to work
> (well or badly) as they used to, even if they are no longer part of that
> list.
>
>>
>> So if the Neutron PTL is over burdened, we should all help him somehow so
>> he does not have to make decisions and solve problems in a way that
>> OpenStack community breaks like this.
>>
>> I hope we see people offer ideas, time to help and discuss this and that
>> our Neutron leadership understands the points I am raising and we can avoid
>> going towards such a route to prevent Neutron, OpenStack, and its ecosystem
>> from expanding so we continue to see "one" OpenStack community with one open
>> API.
>
>
> As I said earlier, it's my intention to follow up with a formal spec
> submission to neutron-specs so that we can all better articulate thoughts,
> and get to a more formal closure/consensus.
>
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/newton-neutron-community-stadium-evolution
>> [2] "No request for inclusion are accepted for projects focussed solely on
>> implementations and/or API extensions to non-open solutions."
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Fawad Khaliq
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>