Open Stack

lebre.adrien at free.fr 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.
> 
> While I can see issues that are public cloud specifics, I'm still wondering what are challenges that can be addressed in a possible ``large scale/deployment'' SIG that will not be common/useful for the Fog/Edge one (and similarly for the Telcos/NFVs vs FEMDC).

You know this far better than I do, but I felt like you encountered
different issues when scaling a single deployment across thousands of
physical nodes, and when deploying on a massively distributed WAN-linked
network. For issues that are common to any large scale deployment, they
can be addressed by the "scaling" SIG, while issues that are specific to
the Edge/Massively-distributed scenarios could be discussed on the FEMDC
SIG.

> Without means to detect overlapping between on-going activities it is difficult to favour collaborations.
> One way to make progress toward such a goal could consist in requesting the issues/challenges, a particular SIG would like to address before creating it officially?

Yes, that was totally the intent. Each SIG should basically start with
(1) a name, (2) a clear scope/objective/problem space, (3) Contact point
/ How to get involved.

> Not just coarse-grained ideas but a clear and well identified roadmap. 

Well-identified roadmap might be hard to get at early stages, but a
clear declaration of long-term goals for the group would be great to have.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)