[Openstack-sigs] [meta] Initial working groups to convert to SIGs [LCOO]

MCCABE, JAMEY A jm6819 at att.com
Wed Aug 9 16:22:11 UTC 2017

As the LCOO (Large Contributing OpenStack Operators) WG Lead, I want to voice in and generally express optimism and willingness to work with this effort.  Thanks for prompting me Melvin.

Starting on the more general note: it does seem like the general intent of the LCOO to find "like-minded" others to contribute both requirements and work to fulfill those requirements is well echoed here in the SIG proposal. I see every reason to support it and try to bring any LCOO initiatives into it.     We have been somewhat bogged down already in the LCOO because the original ideal vision was that all organizations would naturally support all items proposed for an LCOO roadmap and that hasn't happened.  In fact we are mostly on the approach now that if at least 3 of our organizations see their way to collaborating on an item it is good enough and thus an LCOO initiative. From an LCOO perspective would be nice if such items would become something beyond LCOO and attract even more collaborators.

Getting more specific and addressing some of the things mentioned by others:
 > De: "Thierry Carrez" <thierry at openstack.org>
> Envoyé: Vendredi 28 Juillet 2017 15:41:29
> The next steps for the Meta SIG is to find "obvious" targets to convert
> coordinating efforts. The most obvious targets are the use-case oriented
> groups: Scientific WG, Telco/NFV WG, Massively-distributed/Edge  clouds
> WG, Public Clouds WG, Large Deployments WG. LCOO could also be turned
> into a SIG, given that they are already tackling implementation and
> pooling resources 

Agreed that for defined specialties coming out of the LCOO we should pursue converting to a SIG. Our first and most promising effort seems the one we call Extreme Testing.  Extreme Testing was started as Product Working Group development proposal  and specification.  Links and working page for this effort can be found in the LCOO working space at: https://openstack-lcoo.atlassian.net/wiki/display/LCOO/Working+Space+for+Exteme+Testing+and+related+topics .  The LCOO efforts so far are not IRC and Mailing List based but more deliverable and meeting based.  By way of explaining why: Theoretically this is more welcoming to organizations like ours and provides an on-ramp to the more code based development upstream teams way of working. That's said to explain that the next meeting and best way to get an introduction or join the Extreme Testing Specialty team is at the August 16 working session: https://openstack-lcoo.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/LCOO/pages/8847424 . 

>lebre.adrien at free.fr wrote:
> The main issue we are all facing is the number of contributors who can allocate sufficient amount of time to make 
>things progressing. ....(If I'm correct 
>this is the second try for the Telco/NFV WG and despite the relevance of such a WG, contributors still did not come :().
Agreed that the challenge for LCOO (and I believe the Operators Telco/NFV) is finding collaborators who are motivated to contribute. In the LCOO we are not flush with people looking for something to work on and instead trying hard to focus on delivering just our first few items to prove to ourselves and our organizations stakeholders it's valid to devote more resources. The SIG approach is more open than any 1 working group and goes the furthest to encourage anyone and everyone motivated to show up in the same team.  

On a side note: We have considered in LCOO making the Operators Telco/NFV a specialization under the LCOO.  The thought was that this would reduce overhead of running different efforts and perhaps bring some more attention to this under-contributed WG/effort (Operators Telco/NFV).  Not the main point, but the reasons it hadn’t happened in the past is LCOO was not trying to push collaboration of operations personnel instead working on collaboration of development.  We can and should try though.  

>lebre.adrien at free.fr wrote:
> More generally, I think there is a lot of overlapping challenges between WGs. According to what I understood from the 
>SIG proposal, it would probably make sense to try to identify those overlapping challenges and create SIGs accordingly 
>(NFV use-cases involved generally several sites/DCs which leads to the need of operating distributed cloud 
>infrastructures, Deploying/operating a large cloud systems require mechanisms/features that scale well, those 
>mechanisms can be suited also for FEMDC infrastructures and reciprocally...).
>PS: we have been trying  to address this issue of identifying collaboration opportunities between WGs at the UC level. 
>We agreed to schedule a cross WG chair meeting once a month. The first try was two weeks ago. While only three WGs 
>were represented, the discussion have been fruitful from my viewpoint.

I whole heartedly agree with Adrien. We should continue with this effort to communicate across WG or perhaps more in keeping with this conversation, pick it up as part of the SIG rollout.  Our next round of sharing could happen mid month. Finalizing that is on the UC agenda for Monday's meeting.  See logistics and agenda here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/UserCommittee FYI - that is in IRC so all interested can join to discuss this more interactively.

>Thierry Carrez wrote:
> totally agree that a transition to SIGs gives us the opportunity to
>refactor those groups to avoid overlap and fragmentation, and we should
>take it. I like that the LCOO is focused on associating development
>resources to specific goals (making it very much SIG-like in its
>composition and resulting efficiency) but in terms of problem space it
>Is trying to address, it seems to overlap both with the Telco/NFV group
>and the Large Deployments group, creating fragmentation in the resources
>associated to each.

I wish LCOO had been productive enough to overlap other efforts and produce something in either of these spaces, but not yet. Other than trying to generate a new Specialty/contributors for the Operators Telco/NFV we don’t seem to have much that overlaps.  I agree though seems to distract those who might be wanting to commit but unsure where to apply themselves and having a clearly defined SIG would help.  As a little more explanation of the Large in LCOO acronym, it would be better to equate that to a multi-cloud or Fog Edge type interest than to a large single control plane.  We do seem to have the most interest/members interested in higher performance and reliability in getting distributed cloud(s) to work well.  Topics specific to this architecture though we've agreed to bring and work through the FEMDC WG, though in practice we have yet to bring a specific interest out of LCOO and into the FEMDC.

>Thierry Carrez wrote:
>Personally I think we should have one SIG around Telco/NFV issues
>(ideally with a LCOO-like approach to pooling development resources to
>actually implement its priorities), one SIG around Large
>Deployments/Scaling, one SIG around Edge/distributed clouds, and one SIG
>around Public clouds -- because those all represent slightly different
>problem spaces, and different actors that could be interested in pooling
>their dev resources.
It's hard for me see just folding any and all interests of the LCOO into just these, our attempts to get to specific collaborative work are a level below this e.g. Extreme Testing, Enablement of Containerized Control Plane, Security Contributions.  Willing to try though just as we are trying to get these to be more actionable.  To echo how I started it makes sense to make actionable things more than just LCOO things.   

Thierry Carrez (ttx)

More information about the Openstack-sigs mailing list