[Openstack-operators] [User-committee] [openstack-dev] Large Contributing OpenStack Operators working group?
Yih Leong, Sun.
yihleong at gmail.com
Fri Feb 3 23:12:44 UTC 2017
I believe this is one of the goal of Product WG, providing a common
platform for users/operators and WG to aggregrate requirements by creating
common "User Story Requirements" which can be implemented cross-project,
cross-releases.
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ProductTeam#Objectives
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ProductTeam/User_Stories#User_Story_Workflow
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Tim Bell <Tim.Bell at cern.ch> wrote:
> +1 for the WG summary and sharing priorities.
>
> Equally, exploring how we can make use of common collaboration tools for
> all WG would be beneficial.
>
> There is much work to do to get the needs translated to code/doc/tools and
> it would be a pity if we are not sharing to the full across WGs due to
> different technology choices.
>
> Tim
>
> On 03.02.17, 19:16, "Jonathan Proulx" <jon at csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 04:34:20PM +0100, lebre.adrien at free.fr wrote:
> :Hi,
> :
> :I don't know whether there is already a concrete/effective way to
> identify overlapping between WGs.
> :But if not, one way can be to arrange one general session in each
> summit where all WG chairs could come and discuss about major actions that
> have been done for the past cycle and what are the plans for the next one.
>
>
> That's a really good idea. I think that woudl be a good use of the UC
> Forum session. In the past those had mostly been about what is the UC
> and how shoudl it be structured going forward. With recent by laws
> change and upcoming ellection that's pretty settled.
>
> Having a (very) brief report back from working groups and teams
> followed by cross group discussion could be a valuable way forward for
> that session IMO.
>
> -Jon
>
> :
> :Being involved in several WGs allows us to identify collaboration
> opportunities (done for instance between the NFV and Massively Distributed
> WGs/Teams during this cycle) but to be honest it is costly and sometimes
> not still feasible to be involved in every action.
> :Offering the opportunity to get an up-to-date overview every 6 months
> can be valuable for all of us.
> :
> :My two cents,
> :ad_rien_
> :
> :----- Mail original -----
> :> De: "Jay Pipes" <jaypipes at gmail.com>
> :> À: "Yih Leong Sun" <yih.leong.sun at intel.com>, "Edgar Magana" <
> edgar.magana at workday.com>,
> :> openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org, user-committee at lists.
> openstack.org
> :> Cc: "JAMEY A MCCABE" <jm6819 at att.com>, "ANDREW UKASICK" <
> au3678 at att.com>
> :> Envoyé: Vendredi 3 Février 2017 16:14:26
> :> Objet: Re: [User-committee] [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev]
> Large Contributing OpenStack Operators working
> :> group?
> :>
> :> Leong, thanks so much for responding. Comments/followup questions
> :> inline.
> :>
> :> On 02/02/2017 09:07 PM, Sun, Yih Leong wrote:
> :> > LCOO was initiated by a group of large telco who contributes/uses
> :> > OpenStack, such as AT&T, NTT, Reliance Jio, Orange, etc [1].
> :>
> :> ack.
> :>
> :> > The co-chair has reached out to Product WG for collaboration
> (refer
> :> > IRC meeting logs). The team is working on plans to
> :> > structure/define LCOO use cases.
> :>
> :> My question here is what makes the LCOO use cases different from,
> :> say,
> :> the Telco Operator working group's use cases? Or the Massively
> :> Distributed working group's use cases? Or the Enterprise working
> :> group's
> :> use cases?
> :>
> :> Is the difference that the LCOO's use cases are stories that are
> :> important for the LCOO member companies?
> :>
> :> > Use case requirements (while still work-in-progress) can span
> :> > across multiple areas which might/might-not covered by existing
> :> > Team/WG.
> :>
> :> Understood. Is the plan of the LCOO to identify use cases that are
> :> covered by other working groups, contribute resources to develop
> that
> :> use case, but have that existing working group handle the product
> :> management (spec/blueprint/communication/roadmap) stuff?
> :>
> :> > I'm sure LCOO will reach out to various projects for
> collaboration,
> :> > stay tuned...
> :>
> :> My questions seem to have been taken as an attack on the LCOO. I was
> :> hoping to avoid that. I'm sincerely hoping to see the outreach to
> :> various projects and am eager to collaborate with developers and
> :> operators from the LCOO companies. I'm just confused what the
> :> relationship between the LCOO and the existing working groups is.
> :>
> :> Best,
> :> -jay
> :>
> :> > [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/LCOO_Participants
> :> >
> :> > Thanks!
> :> >
> :> > ---
> :> > Yih Leong Sun, PhD
> :> > Senior Software Cloud Architect | Open Source Technology Center |
> :> > Intel Corporation
> :> > yih.leong.sun at intel.com | +1 503 264 0610
> :> >
> :> >
> :> > -----Original Message-----
> :> > From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com]
> :> > Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 5:23 PM
> :> > To: Edgar Magana <edgar.magana at workday.com>;
> :> > openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org;
> :> > user-committee at lists.openstack.org
> :> > Cc: MCCABE, JAMEY A <jm6819 at att.com>; UKASICK, ANDREW
> :> > <au3678 at att.com>
> :> > Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] Large
> :> > Contributing OpenStack Operators working group?
> :> >
> :> > On 02/02/2017 05:02 PM, Edgar Magana wrote:
> :> >> Jay,
> :> >>
> :> >> I am including the WG chairs to make sure they answers your
> :> >> questions and addresses your concerns.
> :> >> In Barcelona the UC asked exactly the same questions and
> :> >> recommended to the co-chairs of the LCOO WG to work with the
> :> >> existing WG to identify overlapping activities and either to work
> :> >> together or go ahead with the WG if there were not overlapping on
> :> >> goals and deliverables.
> :> >
> :> > Was there any follow-on from that request from the UC?
> :> >
> :> >> I will let the co-chairs to follow up yours questions. BTW. I do
> :> >> not think this topic should be posted in the openstack-dev
> :> >> mailing list. So, I will BCC it.
> :> >
> :> > Sure, no problem.
> :> >
> :> >> Andrew and Jamey,
> :> >>
> :> >> Please, address these questions. Let’s work all together to make
> :> >> sure that we have all groups aligned and coordinated.
> :> >
> :> > Thanks, Edgar, appreciated. Andrew and Jamey, please do let me
> know
> :> > if you would like me to rephrase or elaborate on any questions.
> :> > Happy to do so. I genuinely want to see alignment with other
> :> > groups in this effort.
> :> >
> :> > Best,
> :> > -jay
> :> >
> :> >> Thanks,
> :> >>
> :> >> Edgar
> :> >>
> :> >> On 2/2/17, 12:14 PM, "Jay Pipes" <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:
> :> >>
> :> >> Hi,
> :> >>
> :> >> I was told about this group today. I have a few questions.
> :> >> Hopefully
> :> >> someone from this team can illuminate me with some answers.
> :> >>
> :> >> 1) What is the purpose of this group? The wiki states that
> the
> :> >> team
> :> >> "aims to define the use cases and identify and prioritise the
> :> >> requirements which are needed to deploy, manage, and run
> :> >> services on top
> :> >> of OpenStack. This work includes identifying functional gaps,
> :> >> creating
> :> >> blueprints, submitting and reviewing patches to the relevant
> :> >> OpenStack
> :> >> projects, contributing to working those items, tracking their
> :> >> completion."
> :> >>
> :> >> What is the difference between the LCOO and the following
> :> >> existing
> :> >> working groups?
> :> >>
> :> >> * Large Deployment Team
> :> >> * Massively Distributed Team
> :> >> * Product Working Group
> :> >> * Telco/NFV Working Group
> :> >>
> :> >> 2) According to the wiki page, only companies that are
> :> >> "Multi-Cloud
> :> >> Operator[s] and/or Network Service Provider[s]" are welcome
> in
> :> >> this
> :> >> team. Why is the team called "Large Contributing OpenStack
> :> >> Operators" if
> :> >> it's only for Telcos? Further, if this is truly only for
> :> >> Telcos, why
> :> >> isn't the Telco/NFV working group appropriate?
> :> >>
> :> >> 3) Under the "Guiding principles" section of the above wiki,
> :> >> the top
> :> >> principle is "Align with the OpenStack Foundation". If this
> is
> :> >> the case,
> :> >> why did the group move its content to the closed Atlassian
> :> >> Confuence
> :> >> platform? Why does the group have a set of separate Slack
> :> >> channels
> :> >> instead of using the OpenStack mailing lists and IRC
> channels?
> :> >> Why is
> :> >> the OPNFV Jira used for tracking work items for the LCOO
> :> >> agenda?
> :> >>
> :> >> See
> :> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.
> openstack.org_wiki_Gluon_Tasks-2DOcata&d=DwICAg&c=DS6PUFBBr_
> KiLo7Sjt3ljp5jaW5k2i9ijVXllEdOozc&r=G0XRJfDQsuBvqa_
> wpWyDAUlSpeMV4W1qfWqBfctlWwQ&m=haOSpIhsa6KyDvuhRFigFVTLrTJxJ1
> Zv3kfm0JwTTtY&s=kntt00JEwpizTxQus4U9FhnwF_7WicJ7oRncGmkYPGc&e=
> :> >> for examples.
> :> >>
> :> >> 4) I see a lot of agenda items around projects like Gluon,
> :> >> Craton,
> :> >> Watcher, and Blazar. I don't see any concrete ideas about
> :> >> talking with
> :> >> the developers of the key infrastructure services that
> :> >> OpenStack is
> :> >> built around. How does the LCOO plan on reaching out to the
> :> >> developers
> :> >> of the long-standing OpenStack projects like Nova, Neutron,
> :> >> Cinder, and
> :> >> Keystone to drive their shared agenda?
> :> >>
> :> >> Thanks for reading and (hopefully) answering.
> :> >>
> :> >> -jay
> :> >>
> :> >> ____________________________________________________________
> ______________
> :> >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> :> >> Unsubscribe:
> :> >> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:
> unsubscribe
> :> >>
> :> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.
> openstack.or
> :> >> g_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_openstack-2Ddev&d=DwICAg&c=
> DS6PUFBBr_KiLo
> :> >> 7Sjt3ljp5jaW5k2i9ijVXllEdOozc&r=G0XRJfDQsuBvqa_
> wpWyDAUlSpeMV4W1qfWqBfc
> :> >> tlWwQ&m=haOSpIhsa6KyDvuhRFigFVTLrTJxJ1Zv3kfm0JwTTtY&s=
> RzyOgrwm1BfJXW8S
> :> >> deBdAOpYEAXsisGKWvj_Lk3iEec&e=
> :> >>
> :> >>
> :> >> _______________________________________________
> :> >> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> :> >> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> :> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
> openstack-operator
> :> >> s
> :> >>
> :> >
> :> > _______________________________________________
> :> > OpenStack-operators mailing list
> :> > OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> :> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
> openstack-operators
> :> >
> :>
> :> _______________________________________________
> :> User-committee mailing list
> :> User-committee at lists.openstack.org
> :> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
> :>
> :
> :_______________________________________________
> :User-committee mailing list
> :User-committee at lists.openstack.org
> :http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
>
> --
>
> _______________________________________________
> User-committee mailing list
> User-committee at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> User-committee mailing list
> User-committee at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20170203/223bc591/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the OpenStack-operators
mailing list