Open Stack

----- Mail original -----
> De: "Thierry Carrez" <thierry at openstack.org>
> À: openstack-sigs at lists.openstack.org
> Envoyé: Vendredi 28 Juillet 2017 15:41:29
> Objet: [Openstack-sigs] [meta] Initial working groups to convert to SIGs
> 
> Hi!
> 
> The next steps for the Meta SIG is to find "obvious" targets to
> convert
> from old-style working groups to SIGs, and work with them on the
> transition.
> 
> On the upstream working groups side, the most obvious target is the
> API
> Working Group, if only because it was listed both as a UC working
> group
> and an upstream working group over time. The Stewardship working
> group
> is also a great target (since it's far from being limited to
> improving
> technical governance), but it's currently inactive. The Deployment
> working group might make a good target as well, but I want to discuss
> status with Emilien first.
> 
> Still on the upstream side, we have a number of groups that were
> structured as "project teams", although their main purpose is not to
> produce code. They might benefit from conversion as well. The "Stable
> branch maintenance" team for example could benefit from a larger
> audience. Although they produce /some/ code, the "Security" team's
> main
> focus is to assemble practitioners of that space, so it would make a
> lot
> of sense as a SIG. With a bit of a stretch, the "Winstackers" team is
> more focused on running OpenStack on/with Windows, which is
> sufficiently
> specific to be considered a use case -- it could be turned into a SIG
> too to widen its audience.
> 
> On the downstream side, a lot of the working groups would likely
> benefit
> from being turned into SIGs. As long as their focus is not purely
> operational, and they are willing to go beyond expressing gaps and
> requirements and tackle implementation, the SIG format is a lot more
> adapted and would facilitate gathering development resources and
> 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 -- although they would likely need to have a more
> defined scope and/or merge with the Large deployments WG for clarity.
> 

After spending a few cycles through these different WGs (in addition to the FEMDC that I'm co-chairing, I have been trying to follow the actions performed in the Telco/NFV WG and Large deployment Team), I'm not sure whether each of them should be turned into a specific SIG. 
The main issue we are all facing is the number of contributors who can allocate sufficient amount of time to make things progressing. Because of such issue, there is for instance an on-going discussion between LCOO folks and Curtis (chair of the Telco/NFV in CC) to integrate NFV/Telco discussions under the umbrella of the LCOO WG (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 :().

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...).

My two cents, 
ad_rien_

> Discuss! And let's pick our initial targets.
> 
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openstack-sigs mailing list
> Openstack-sigs at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-sigs
>