Open Stack

On 07/03/18 20:24, Lance Bragstad wrote:
> 
> 
> On 03/07/2018 06:12 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
>>
>> HTML: https://anticdent.org/tc-report-18-10.html
>>
>> This is a TC Report, but since everything that happened in its window
>> of observation is preparing for the
>> [PTG](https://www.openstack.org/ptg), being at the PTG, trying to get
>> home from the PTG, and recovering from the PTG, perhaps think of this
>> as "What the TC talked about [at] the PTG". As it is impossible to be
>> everywhere at once (especially when the board meeting overlaps with
>> other responsibilities) this will miss a lot of important stuff.  I
>> hope there are other summaries.
>>
>> As you may be aware, it [snowed in
>> Dublin](https://twitter.com/search?q=%23snowpenstack) causing plenty
>> of disruption to the
>> [PTG](https://twitter.com/search?q=%23openstackptg) but everyone
>> (foundation staff, venue staff, hotel staff, attendees, uisce beatha)
>> worked together to make a good week.
>>
>> # Talking about the PTG at the PTG
>>
>> At the [board
>> meeting](http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2018-March/002570.html),
>>
>> the future of the PTG was a big topic. As currently constituted it
>> presents some challenges:
>>
>> * It is difficult for some people to attend because of visa and other
>>   travel related issues.
>> * It is expensive to run and not everyone is convinced of the return
>>   on investment.
>> * Some people don't like it (they either miss the old way of doing the
>>   design summit, or midcycles, or $OTHER).
>> * Plenty of other reasons that I'm probably not aware of.
>>
>> This same topic was reviewed at [yesterday's office
>> hours](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-03-06.log.html#t2018-03-06T09:19:32).
>>
>>
>> For now, the next 2018 PTG is going to happen (destination unknown) but
>> plans for 2019 are still being discussed.
>>
>> If you have opinions about the PTG, there will be an opportunity to
>> express them in a forthcoming survey. Beyond that, however, it is
>> important [that management at contributing
>> companies](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-03-06.log.html#t2018-03-06T22:29:24)
>>
>> hear from more people (notably their employees) than the foundation
>> about the value of the PTG.
>>
>> My own position is that of the three different styles of in-person
>> events for technical contributors to OpenStack that I've experienced
>> (design summit, mid-cycles, PTG), the PTG is the best yet. It minimizes
>> distractions from other obligations (customer meetings, presentations,
>> marketing requirements) while maximizing cross-project interaction.
>>
>> One idea, discussed
>> [yesterday](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-03-06.log.html#t2018-03-06T22:02:24)
>>
>> and [earlier
>> today](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-03-07.log.html#t2018-03-07T05:07:20)
>>
>> was to have the PTG be open to technical participants of any sort, not
>> just so-called "OpenStack developers". Make it more of a place for
>> people who hack on and with OpenStack to hack and talk. Leave the
>> summit (without a forum) for presentations, marketing, pre-sales, etc.
>>
>> An issue raised with conflating the PTG and the Forum is that it would
>> remove the
>> [inward/outward
>> focus](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-03-07.log.html#t2018-03-07T08:20:17)
>> concept that is supposed to distinguish the two events.
>>
>> I guess it depends on how we define "we" but I've always assumed that
>> both events were for outward focus and that for any inward focussing
>> effort we ought to be able use asynchronous tools more.
> I tried bringing this up during the PTG feedback session last Thursday,
> but figured I would highlight it here (it also kinda resonates with
> Matt's note, too).
> 
> Several projects have suffered from aggressive attrition, where there
> are only a few developers from a few companies. I fear going back to
> midcycles will be extremely tough with less corporate sponsorship. The
> PTGs are really where smaller teams can sit down with developers from
> other projects and work on cross-project issues.

This ^ . If we go back to the Design Summits, where these small projects
would get 3 or 4 40min slots, and very little chance of a mid-cycle,
it will cause teams issues.

>>
>> # Foundation and OCI
>>
>> Thierry mentioned
>> [yesterday](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-03-06.log.html#t2018-03-06T09:08:04)
>>
>> that it is likely that the OpenStack Foundation will join the [Open
>> Container Initiative](https://www.opencontainers.org/) because of
>> [Kata](https://katacontainers.io/) and
>> [LOCI](https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/projects/loci.html).
>>
>> This segued into some brief concerns about the [attentions and
>> intentions of the
>> Foundation](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-03-06.log.html#t2018-03-06T09:13:34),
>>
>> aggravated by the board meeting schedule conflict (there's agreement
>> that will never ever happen again), and the rumor milling about the
>> PTG.
>>
>> # Friday at the PTG with the TC
>>
>> The TC had scheduled a half day of discussion for Friday at the PTG. A
>> big [agenda](https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/PTG-Dublin-TC-topics), a
>> fun filled week, and the snow meant we went nearly all day (and since
>> there's no place to go, let's talk, let's talk, let's talk) with some
>> reasonable progress. Some highlights:
>>
>> * There was some discussion on trying to move forward with
>>   constellations concept, but I don't recall specific outcomes from
>>   that discussion.
>>
>> * The team diversity tags need to be updated to reflect adjustments in
>>   the very high bars we set earlier in the history of OpenStack. We
>>   agreed to not remove projects from the tc-approved tag, as that
>>   could be taken the wrong way. Instead we'll create a new tag for
>>   projects that are in the trademark program.
>>
>> * Rather than having Long Term Support, which implies too much, a
>>   better thing to do is enable [extended
>>   maintenance](https://review.openstack.org/#/c/548916/) for those
>>   parties who want to do it.
>>
>> * Heat was approved to be a part of the trademark program, but then
>>   there were issues with where to put their tests and the tooling used
>>   to manage them. By the power of getting the right people in the room
>>   at the same time, we reached some consensus which is being finalized
>>   on a [proposed
>>   resolution](https://review.openstack.org/#/c/521602/).
>>
>> * We need to make an official timeline for the deprecation (and
>>   eventual removal) of support for Python 2, meaning we also need to
>>   accelerate the adoption of Python 3 as the primary environment.
>>
>> * In a discussion about the availability of
>>   [etcd](https://coreos.com/etcd/) it was decided that [tooz needs to
>>   be
>>  
>> finished](https://docs.openstack.org/tooz/latest/user/compatibility.html).
>>
>> See the
>> [etherpad](https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/PTG-Dublin-TC-topics) for
>> additional details.
>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> 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
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20180307/d1a128c8/attachment.sig>