Open Stack

On 11/8/14, 9:10 AM, "Jeremy Stanley" <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:

>On 2014-11-07 22:25:49 +0100 (+0100), Jonathan Proulx wrote:
>[...]
>> An "Ops Project" feels weird to me.
>[...]
>
>To me as well. Perhaps this is the "operator community" coming to
>the realization that they don't need to be separate from the
>"developer community." I've never really quite understood the
>distinction myself... I spent pretty much all my career before now
>as a sysadmin and network administrator, and I help write software
>to automate systems/network administration tasks. I don't get why
>some people feel it's necessary to grasp for a distinction between
>those, and furthering that identity crisis merely underscores the
>artificial dichotomy imposed by corporate management organization
>charts.

I come from a software development background, so in my mind, the idea of
a this project has nothing to do with organizational, role, or job title
distinctions, nor is it about having a PTL and ATCs. This is mainly about
the fact that operators share the same set of challenges and tasks. We
have realized that we¹re all spending a large part of our time repeating
the same things and solving the same problems. Most of us are forced to be
generalists trying to burn down our OpenStack deployment tech debt, when
many would love to have some time to solve more interesting problems. If
someone can share a package building solution, a set of Icinga scripts,
and etc, it allows me to move on to something else with more focus and
more value to my org.

As of now, I don¹t really see a place for what we¹ve discussed on Friday
in existing projects. Perhaps some of the code fits in some places as
previously mentioned on the list, but the issue is that none of those
projects really focus on operations. The projects are inevitably developer
focused, despite the best attempts to get operator feedback.

I also don¹t consider this a rush to incubation, just the start of a
discussion. So let¹s keep it going.


This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.