[openstack-dev] Large Contributing OpenStack Operators working group?

Dean Troyer dtroyer at gmail.com
Fri Feb 3 19:08:41 UTC 2017

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Sean M. Collins <sean at coreitpro.com> wrote:
> I suppose I am also philosophically opposed to having all these special
> snowflake working groups. If you want to get things done in OpenStack
> the best thing to do is roll up your sleeves and start participating
> directly in the project where you need work done. I know for a fact that
> in the Neutron community, we had RFE bugs and other processes so that
> operators could submit requirements, and they weren't expected to do all
> the work by themselves.

I read through the LCOO[0] etherpad meeting notes last night and it
does appear that this group is bringing some resources to "do work",
there was a 2 FTE per member requirement initially.  From reading the
notes I got the feel of a very corporate-style project in that there
is still a lot of planning and organizing going on but there were
notes pointing to things being proposed and merged into existing
projects in addition to the aspirations of new ones.

My primary concern in this instance is the model being used here.  The
members of the group want to control the scope (approval to add a
topic) and membership (justification and approval of members).  Often
this is done to prevent scope creep and maintaining focus.  But it
contrary to the founding principles of OpenStack.  The notes talked
about getting Foundation buy-in but I didn't see anything of the
outcomes of that.

LCOO also appears to be a collection of companies that have brought
some internal projects out into the twilight (searching for sunlight?)
and looking for a way to upstream that work.  Even today many
companies that have names familiar in the Open Source/Free Software
world struggle with how to actually operate in this world.  We need to
help them, both from the community side and from within.

I do think there needs to be a lot of encouragement for LCOO and other
groups that are actually more like trade associations to fully commit
to an open development model, specifically OpenStack's established
model since there is an explicit desire for their work product to be
included in OpenStack directly. They will greatly benefit form
starting out in our development and operation style.

[[There is another entirely separate subject regarding the direction
that LCOO wants to go and the sustainability in making a single
OpenStack fit all sizes and types of deployments.  I'll leave that for
$SUMMIT_COLD_BEVERAGE conversations for now.]]


[0] Am I the only one who simply can not read 'LCOO' as anything other
than 'loco'? :)


Dean Troyer
dtroyer at gmail.com

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list