Open Stack

On 09/02/2017 16:37, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2017-02-09 00:59:52 +0000 (+0000), UKASICK, ANDREW wrote:
> [...]
>> I'm the mysterious "AndyU" who was chatting with you about a year
>> ago in IRC with questions about how to go about donating hosted
>> cloud resources for use by the Infra team. It's nice to bump into
>> you again! ;-) That idea is still stirring btw, but has been much
>> slower moving than I'd hoped.
> [...]
>
> Always appreciated, and happy to pick that back up if and when
> you're ready.
>
>> I've been having a pretty lengthy conversation with jay Pipes
>> regarding similar questions. You can catch up on that in the
>> thread below this one.
>
> I've been following it closely, and tried not to duplicate
> questions/comments as much as possible.
>
>> LCOO is unlike any other working groups that I'm familiar with in
>> some significant ways. You zero'd in on one of those in your
>> statements above about companies joining as opposed to
>> individuals. In that regard, LCOO is similar to an entity like
>> OSIC.org as opposed to a traditional working group.
> [...]
>
> This is probably where some of the confusion comes in for me; I
> expect it's just one of terminology/semantics. The OpenStack User
> Committee has specifically tied "Active members and contributors to
> functional teams and/or working groups" to its electorate in their
> charter, and also defines working groups as "teams" (which to me
> implies they're made up of individuals, not organizations):
>
>     https://governance.openstack.org/uc/reference/charter.html
>
> Maybe LCOO is something other than a "working group" in the formal
> UC sense? Or maybe the organizations who participate in the LCOO
> designate representatives (those LCOO "organization coordinators"
> and "governance board" mentioned in your wiki article) who are the
> actual working group as far as the UC is concerned? I'm just
> concerned if, for example, all employees within AT&T suddenly become
> part of the UC electorate by way of AT&T as an organization being an
> active "member" of an official UC working group. The only way I can
> really see this working is if the UC insists that its working groups
> are made up of individuals and not whole organizations.
>
>> Jira provides Kanban boards that can serve as a kind of dashboard
>> allowing us to visualize activity and current status of Community
>> activity. But that activity is still happening in Launchpad,
>> Gerrit, etc.
> [...]
>
> Cool, so it sounds like StoryBoard may work out for you in the
> long-run. It already has kanban and worklist support with optional
> automation tied directly to defect/feature tracking and code review.
> As the current effort to move our community from launchpad.net to
> storyboard.openstack.org progresses over the next couple of
> development cycles, I encourage you to check it out and start
> thinking about whether its features address your needs (or consider
> pitching in on further development there).
>
>> Automating the status updating is something I've begun to discuss
>> within the PWG's "Story Tracker" team. We have the same challenge
>> there.
> [...]
>
> Our hope is that once we get further along with the current
> migration blockers for StoryBoard, we'll implement an "epics"
> concept in it which ties individual stories and their tasksets to
> over-arching efforts where their progress can be tracked more
> holistically.
>
>> BTW, Atlassian has always made their tools free for use by open
>> source projects. Also, although they're commercial products they
>> do provide the source code and allow users to modify it freely
>> which makes them much more open-source-ish than most.
> [...]
>
> <soapbox>
> Yes, I saw you mention it in the other ML thread. "Free as in beer"
> is a somewhat dirty concept in free software development circles,
> and our community infrastructure similarly eschews gratis services
> like GitHub in favor of libre alternatives (we provide read-only
> mirrors there on request, but don't rely on it in any of our
> automation and officially recommend git.openstack.org which runs
> entirely on free software).
>
> As an author of free software myself I prefer when people use and
> help improve OpenStack rather than supporting commercial/proprietary
> solutions to accomplish the same tasks, and so think it hypocritical
> to not extend the same courtesy to other free software communities
> who are attempting to overcome similar hurdles in their respective
> problem spaces. To quote Harry Tuttle, "We're all in it together."
> </soapbox>
>
> I understand you'll probably end up using whatever tools you're
> familiar/comfortable with and which help you accomplish your goals,
> I just ask that you keep in mind that publicly recommending non-free
> tools in the service of free software development sets an example.
> OpenStack already has a slightly negative reputation as "not really
> free" in the wider community... one which we're desperately trying
> to overcome, bit by bit.
>

I would also have a request - if these tools are going to be used
can we make them world readable, with no requirement to log in to
view content?