Open Stack

Decided to clean up the title - since I didn't do this correctly when I initiated the email.

Thanks for all the different feedback. I understand that it will not be effective if we as users just
come up with requirements and throw it over the wall and wait for the features to get developed.
A long time ago, I use to own an organization that developed Frame Relay Network Product as well as Unix network drivers.
So I understand the value of an intimate relationship with user requests and development.

I suspect it will be a combination of carriers creating a focused set of requirements that are missing in OpenStack 'today' and
then working with our vendors in  submitting software to help fill in the gaps (as well as some carriers potentially also submitting code).

But by having a carrier specific user group may help us prioritize features and even be on the same page of key features which will
help us focus on what to develop.

So question is - Is it useful to create an Operator User group - which I think this mailing list is an attempt to create a community around this?

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Fifield [mailto:tom at openstack.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 9:47 AM
To: CHIOSI, MARGARET T; openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org
Cc: Brenner, Michael Ralf (Michael) (michael.brenner at ALCATEL-LUCENT.COM); FORD, TOBY
Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] OpenStack-operators Digest, Vol 41, Issue 25

Forgot one pragmatic note.

There is actually a session on networking where feedback can be 
delivered and it will be recorded at the ops summit. See the schedule @

https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ATL-ops-unconference-RFC



Regards,


Tom

On 01/04/14 21:42, Tom Fifield wrote:
> Ah, Okinawa is excellent :)
>
> The design summit following Atlanta is in Paris, in the first week of
> November.
>
> However, very crucially, this is not the only time you can participate
> in the design and development of OpenStack.
>
> In fact, many claim that the design summits are "the middle" of the
> discussion, and it's better to give feedback well before :)
>
> Understanding and participating in all of these occasions is actually a
> big part of what makes OpenStack, OpenStack. This isn't a normal
> proprietary software development process where you just put your
> requirements in at the beginning and let it run away :)
>
> Jonathan Bryce has a good blog on this here:
> https://www.openstack.org/blog/2014/01/openstack-2014-powered-by-users/
>
> There's so much I could write on the many ways we, as users, have to
> contribute to the process and make sure our needs are met while
> supporting our esteemed developers. Though, for now, I will just point
> out one link, assuming more questions may come from reading the blog
> post above:
>
> https://www.openstack.org/user-survey/
>
> We're launching the next user survey collection right now. Please tell
> all your friends :)
>
> Looking forward to our continued interactions!
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Tom
>
> On 01/04/14 19:37, CHIOSI, MARGARET T wrote:
>> On the ETSI ISG NFV (Toby Ford is aware of this), we have a Network
>> Operator Council which is an advisory board for the ISG NFV.
>> We have network vendors, component vendors, platform vendors as well
>> as operators participating in this forum (which is only 15 months old).
>>
>> It is all the 'operators' with networks that are interested in
>> virtualizing network functions. We have been discussing how do we as
>> operators
>> Influence Openstack even though we may not have developers involved in
>> the SW code submission.
>> But we will ultimately be some of the real users of the openstack
>> software.
>>
>> So we were thinking as a forum if we come up with specific feature
>> 'gaps' on Openstack, then we could submit the
>> requests. It appears you have a design summit twice a year where this
>> could be done.
>>
>> Michael Brenner, ALU, volunteered to be our liaison to help us here.
>>
>> When is the next design summit? I know you have an Atlanta summit -
>> but it is the same week as our meeting in Okinawa..
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Fifield [mailto:tom at openstack.org]
>> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 11:30 PM
>> To: openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org; CHIOSI, MARGARET T
>> Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] OpenStack-operators Digest, Vol 41,
>> Issue 25
>>
>> On 31/03/14 20:28, CHIOSI, MARGARET T wrote:
>>> Sorry I didn't sign this.
>>> Margaret T. Chiosi, AT&T DMTS -
>>> I helped create the ETSI ISG NFV group and am currently leading the
>>> Open NFV platform study to create an open source platform for NFV
>>> (Network Function Virtualization)
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: CHIOSI, MARGARET T
>>> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 8:27 AM
>>> To: openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org
>>> Subject: RE: OpenStack-operators Digest, Vol 41, Issue 25
>>>
>>> Folks: I am new to this mailing list.
>>> Why does the user advisory group have to be selected by these other
>>> groups?
>>> If this is really going to be run by users, I think word should go
>>> out that a user advisory group is being formed and who wants to join.
>>> Also what will the costs to participate in this advisory group.
>>> Then once the group is 'formed', have them decide how they want to
>>> govern or pick the chair/co-chair to help facilitate
>>> and work with the other groups.
>>
>> Hi Margaret,
>>
>> Welcome :) It's great to have your input.
>>
>> I'm not sure if you've seen the following emails in this thread yet, but
>> what's being worked at now is how to potentially tweak our existing
>> governance structure into something more like what you describe. It's
>> not about selection or exclusion - just trying to expand the scope of
>> what was set up for this purpose so that it becomes even more useful,
>> and avoid overbuilding. I, for one, definitely think that there will be
>> some kind of open call associated with this for people to "do
>> something", but it clearly needs some people to do some coordination
>> activity to make even that happen.
>>
>> Participation in any OpenStack community follows our Open principles
>> (http://wiki.openstack.org/Open), is encouraged, and without cost. :)
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: openstack-operators-request at lists.openstack.org
>>> [mailto:openstack-operators-request at lists.openstack.org]
>>> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 8:00 AM
>>> To: openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org
>>> Subject: OpenStack-operators Digest, Vol 41, Issue 25
>>>
>>> Send OpenStack-operators mailing list submissions to
>>>     openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org
>>>
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>>>
>>>
>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>>     openstack-operators-request at lists.openstack.org
>>>
>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>>     openstack-operators-owner at lists.openstack.org
>>>
>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>> than "Re: Contents of OpenStack-operators digest..."
>>>
>>>
>>> Today's Topics:
>>>
>>>      1. Re: Atlanta Summit - More Ops? ;) (Tom Fifield)
>>>      2. Unable to launch instance after basic    two-node DevStack
>>>         installation (Nico van Gessel)
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 10:15:39 +0800
>>> From: Tom Fifield <tom at openstack.org>
>>> To: John Dewey <john at dewey.ws>
>>> Cc: openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] Atlanta Summit - More Ops? ;)
>>> Message-ID: <5338CFCB.9060603 at openstack.org>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>>
>>> On 30/03/14 00:44, John Dewey wrote:
>>>> Would it make sense to have an ops PTL?
>>>
>>> So, my reading is we already have such governance established - but
>>> rather than being an individual, it is a committee - the user committee.
>>> We'll need to tweak it a bit I guess, but in fact it is already set up
>>> such that the TC _must_[1] listen to it ... for at least four hours per
>>> year ;)
>>>
>>> Since the number of users majorly outweighs the number of developers in
>>> a project, we probably do need more than a single individual. Tim, Ryan
>>> and JC have done very well in this extremely difficult position so far.
>>>
>>> However, I think if we can rally around the user committee, get some
>>> more people in and start doing even more things it might just satisfy
>>> the need for extra governance we're seeking.
>>>
>>> Thoughts? What would you see this group doing?
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] 4.14 User Committee. The User Committee shall be an advisory
>>> committee to the Board of Directors and shall be comprised of at least
>>> three (3) Individual Members, one (1) appointed by the Technical
>>> Committee, one (1) appointed by the Board of Directors, and one (1)
>>> appointed by the appointees of the Technical Committee and Board of
>>> Directors. The User Committee shall organize its meetings and may, on
>>> approval of the Board of Directors, create elected seats to be filled by
>>> a vote of the Individual Members. On request of the User Committee, the
>>> Board of Directors shall invite the User Committee to attend each
>>> regular quarterly meeting and shall allocate at least one (1) hour
>>> during the regular quarterly meeting following the annual election to
>>> hear the report and recommendations of the User Committee. On request of
>>> the User Committee, the Technical Committee shall invite the User
>>> Committee to attend a regular meeting and shall allocate at least one
>>> (1) hour during such meeting up to four times each calendar year to hear
>>> the report and recommendations of the User Committee.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, March 28, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Tom Fifield wrote:
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> I had a bit of a play around, combining some similar things from the
>>>>> suggestions, and was able to come up with something that I think
>>>>> covers
>>>>> everything that was suggested. If it's way off - no problems, we
>>>>> can go
>>>>> to a vote or similar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also had a go at selecting moderators for sessions based on our
>>>>> volunteers - feel free to strike yourself out or move around.
>>>>>
>>>>> All of this is up for discussion and change, so read below and head on
>>>>> over to the etherpad, or post a reply email :)
>>>>>
>>>>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ATL-ops-unconference-RFC
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Monday
>>>>> 0700 - 1115 Registration, Keynotes, Break
>>>>> 1115 - 1155 Ask the devs: Meet the PTLs and TC, How to get the best
>>>>> out of the design summit
>>>>> 1205 - 1245 Reasonable Defaults
>>>>>
>>>>> 1400 - 1440 Upgrades and Deployment Approaches
>>>>> 1450 - 1530 Architecture Show and Tell, Tales and Fails
>>>>> 1540 - 1620 Architecture Show and Tell, Tales and Fails
>>>>>
>>>>> 1730 - 1810 Security (MODERATOR NEEDED)
>>>>>
>>>>> Schedule: Friday
>>>>> 9:00 - 9:40 Enterprise Gaps
>>>>> 9:50 - 10:30 Database
>>>>>
>>>>> 10:50 - 11:30 Issues at Scale
>>>>> 11:40 - 12:20 Monitoring and Logging
>>>>>
>>>>> 1:20 - 2:00 Ansible (MODERATOR NEEDED)
>>>>> 2:10 - 2:50 Chef
>>>>> 3:00 - 3:40 Puppet
>>>>>
>>>>> 4:00 - 4:40 Networking
>>>>> 4:50 - 5:30 Best discovery of the week, Meta Discussion - ops
>>>>> communication and governance
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom
>>>>>
>>>>> On 27/03/14 11:20, Tom Fifield wrote:
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The idea for this "Operators Summit" has received excellent
>>>>>> support, and
>>>>>> we have more than twenty session ideas proposed in the etherpad:
>>>>>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ATL-ops-unconference-RFC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We've blocked out a room on Monday to host it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What we need now is:
>>>>>> 1) Find moderators for the sessions
>>>>>> 2) Select which sessions are going to happen
>>>>>> 3) For the architecture show-and-tell, we probably need to select who
>>>>>> will present in this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you can help with any of this, please do get in touch, or get your
>>>>>> name down on the etherpad. I'll be in contact soon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17/03/14 07:54, Tom Fifield wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would you like more time at the summit to talk OpenStack ops?
>>>>>>> Read on!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, we will have a dedicated Operations track in the
>>>>>>> conference -
>>>>>>> and it's going to be better than ever this year, with an all-new
>>>>>>> selection group ... all of whom actually run clouds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, we've never really had many design-summit style
>>>>>>> feedback/sharing sessons for ops. Let's change that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would you find it useful to have a space to share architectures,
>>>>>>> best
>>>>>>> practices, and give feedback on the bits of OpenStack that are
>>>>>>> giving
>>>>>>> you pain? Or perhaps find out how to get more involved in the Open
>>>>>>> Design process? Help us justify locking away a few rooms :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just to start the discussion, I have written up a straw man
>>>>>>> proposal/RFC
>>>>>>> of one potential use of the time. It's specifically designed to be
>>>>>>> ripped to shreds - so please do!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The idea is to have something that's more like a design summit
>>>>>>> feel -
>>>>>>> people sitting in a room discussing things, as opposed to more
>>>>>>> presentations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ATL-ops-unconference-RFC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, what would you like to see?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tom
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators