[openstack-dev] [Fuel] [ptl] Announcing my candidacy for Fuel PTL in the Ocala cycle

Alexey Shtokolov ashtokolov at mirantis.com
Sat Sep 17 11:37:24 UTC 2016


I would like to announce my candidacy for Fuel PTL in the Ocata cycle.

** Introduction **

First of all, allow me to introduce myself. I joined the OpenStack Community
during the Juno release cycle. I started on a "consumer" side - as a Head of
IT at a media holding I was consuming and bringing Open Source technologies
to an "Enterprise world" as much as it was possible and OpenStack was there
as well. I had been investigating OpenStack and finally deployed my first
private cloud manually. It was Juno 2014.2 and it was a very-very long trip.
Half a year later I found out that Fuel could do it much more faster! I
Fuel mission, both stated and delivered - make OpenStack installation
easier and more streamlined. OpenStack was in a serious need of such a tool,
as one of prerequisites for lowering adoption barriers.

Finally, I joined Fuel Community as a deployment engineer. Since 2015 I've
been an active contributor in the very core features of Fuel and have been
leading a Fuel development team [0] at Mirantis. If you're using or
Fuel - you’ve probably heard of some of the features that we designed and
Task-based deployment engine [1], Post-deployment plugins installation,
Deployment History [2][3], Data-driven orchestration [4] with Unlocked
Settings and Network tabs [5] (aka Fuel LCM), Custom graphs execution [6],
Release-as-a-Plugin [7] and Everything-as-a-Graph [8].

As you can see, the main goal of this work was to make Fuel more flexible
friendly for deployment engineers, based on my and my colleagues’ experience
from real OpenStack deployments. And I would like to keep doing it
as a Fuel PTL.

** Community **

Fuel, as a part of OpenStack BigTent since November 17 2015, had the first
design summit at Austin. Vladimir Kozhukalov did a great job organizing it.
This summit allowed Fuel community to solicit a feedback, to align our goals
with OpenStack community and, the most important, to start having an open
design. Open Design was the last of four Opens [9] to be achieved by Fuel
Community. Unfortunately during the Newton release cycle not all discussions
and decisions were open and public enough. We need to avoid such behaviour
in future. Fuel Community will have a very modest representation during
upcoming Fuel Ocata Design summit at Barcelona and the first Project Teams
Gathering [10] And that’s the reason to make our goal #1: the expansion of
the OpenStack Community involvement into Fuel design during the whole
cycle. And as a result encourage new contributors, build a healthy community
around Fuel and achieve the contribution diversity.

** Technical challenges **

October 2015 Fuel was the 5th deployment tool for OpenStack with 12% [11]
but April 2016 Fuel got the 3rd place with 19% [12] right after Puppet and
Ansible. While SaltStack, Chef and Puppet are visibly going down Fuel is
taking over the OpenStack deployment world. But we still have a set of
technical challenges and we must focus on:

* Infrastructure-as-Code (IaC) allows us to provide convenient and familiar
for those user who have experience with dynamic infrastructure in Public
clouds - it's now easy to control OpenStack configuration and versioning via
git. Since nailgun extension for IaC [13] became a part of Fuel project [14]
we should actively support and develop it.

* Lifecycle management. Making changes on already installed clouds is still
complicated. We’ve done a lot of work in this direction, but we are still

* The Upgrades of Fuel itself and OpenStack clusters managed by Fuel still
need more flexibility and much better UX. We can fix it using the custom
graphs concept [8].

* Fuel extensions and plugins framework should be polished and provide
with stable API. Moreover extensions and plugins SDK should become
developer-friendly and support all new features like release-as-a-plugin

* Single Fuel Master node should support multiple different OpenStack
First step [7] was done. Let’s keep moving.

* Audit, troubleshooting and debugging became easier with Deployment History
features and dry-run/noop deployments but we are still facing with the
inconsistent error reporting and diagnostic snapshots. We can improve it

* Documentation team has done a great job of restructuring Fuel
and moving it under OpenStack Doc space. However, as subject matter experts,
we need to proactively review and help the doc team with updates and new
features documentation [15]

** Afterword **

As an epilogue I would like to say: Working closely with OpenStack Community
I see that PTL is more about how to help people come together and achieve
goals, how to built horizontal communications between project teams and how
to keep developers in their zone of maximum performance.

Fuel is a mature project with existing strong development team. And we
keep these things in place.

WBR, Alexey Shtokolov
irc: ashtokolov

[0] https://launchpad.net/~fuel-toolbox/+members
[9] https://governance.openstack.org/reference/opens.html
[10] http://www.openstack.org/ptg
[11] http://www.openstack.org/assets/survey/Public-User-Survey-Report.pdf
Page 26
Page 37
[13] https://github.com/openstack/fuel-nailgun-extension-iac
[14] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/366779/
[15] http://stackalytics.com/report/contribution/fuel-docs/180
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160917/c8d4a402/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list