Open Stack

Agree w/ this 100%.


Jesse Proudman
Founder and CTO
Blue Box Group, Inc.
w. www.bluebox.net
c. 206-778-8777

On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Randy Bias <randyb at cloudscaling.com> wrote:

> Actually, Stefano, you didn’t even touch on the key motivation, from my
> perspective, that sparked a lot of this.
>
> Here is the keynote I gave from September for those who haven’t watched it
> yet:
>
>         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOAb6wfBYxU <
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOAb6wfBYxU>
>
> The point of the entire presentation is to highlight that for 4 years now
> the PTLs and TC have believed that they own “tactical” matters.  In other
> words, reviewing code, managing the integrated release cycle, and so on.
> The entire PTL team in spring of 2014 at the first joint TC/Board meeting,
> unanimously agreed that they have NO oversight of strategic product
> direction.  Neither does the board.
>
> This leaves a gigantic gap since you can’t have “strategy” coming as the
> effect of grass-roots developers committing whatever code they want
> willy-nilly.
>
> IMHO, the remit of this group is to establish a process by which longer
> term vision and product direction can emerge from within the community.
> Product managers at the various constituencies of OpenStack are typically
> on the hook for this within their businesses and I am hopeful that this
> group can figure out a way (hopefully starting with my recommendations in
> the presentation above) to work with the TC, Board, and the greater
> community to come up with a process by which we are thinking about
> OpenStack over greater than a 6 month time horizon.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> --Randy
>
> VP, Technology, EMC Corporation
> Formerly Founder & CEO, Cloudscaling (now a part of EMC)
> +1 (415) 787-2253 [google]
> TWITTER: twitter.com/randybias
> LINKEDIN: linkedin.com/in/randybias
> ASSISTANT: ren.ly at emc.com
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 23, 2014, at 2:52 PM, Stefano Maffulli <stefano at openstack.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2014-12-23 at 12:06 -0600, Kyle Mestery wrote:
> >> My concern is I don't understand why this discussion would not happen
> >> with the broader project, which is on the openstack-dev list, IRC
> >> meetings, and in gerrit. Is there a reason any of those three things
> >> won't work?
> >
> > Important question, worth a separate subject.
> >
> > The Development mailing list averages over 600 messages per week [1],
> > from over 200 different people: managing that traffic is very hard,
> > requires dedication and attention. I have identified three major sets of
> > ATCs: core, regular and casual
> > http://activity.openstack.org/dash/browser/
> >
> > Today we have:
> >
> > - Core (contribute up to 80% of integrated+incubated code): 254
> > - Regular (contribute up to 90% of integrated+incubated code): 589
> > - Casual (contribute the remaining 10%): 1,956
> >
> > I expect that core ATCs read and participate in openstack-dev, a part of
> > regulars do too but the Casual contributors IMO are not
> > reading/participating much. In my experience very few contributors have
> > the skills *and* motivation to process such traffic effectively. Most
> > contributors simply miss *a lot* of messages on the list because they
> > can't (or don't know how to) manage high traffic email lists. The vast
> > majority of Active Technical Contributors have no time/resources to
> > process traffic on -dev.
> >
> > This means that managers of casual ATCs, which I expect this group is
> > largely made of, have even less time/capabilities to follow -dev.
> >
> > A new group cannot really emerge and identify itself as a group inside
> > another huge, trafficked channel. One reason for this mailing list is
> > for this working group to establish itself.
> >
> > Besides the size of the -dev list, the topics discussed among devs are
> > different than those discussed by the product/project managers in this
> > WG: devs discuss engineering issues, like API stabilizations,
> > versioning, interfaces etc. For this group the main topics are future
> > roadmap, customer's impact and requests ...
> >
> > Operators have had a separate channel for a long time and have
> > established themselves as a distinct group and learned how to engage
> > with developers. The hope is that this group learns that too soon.
> >
> >> And if so, what is the purpose of the discussions here? Is it more of
> >> just communicating changes? Call me honestly confused.
> >
> > Neutron's splitting of services and plugins is the sort of change that
> > will affect equally core, regular and occasional contributors: core ATCs
> > probably know all about it, a part of regulars also know enough but
> > occasional and a part of regular don't know what that means for their
> > bottom line.
> >
> > What will happen to products based on Neutron? How will that affect
> > their sales/marketing? What are the governance/legal implications for
> > the new repositories? What does that mean for defcore and openstack
> > trademarks? I don't think that these questions can be raised and debated
> > successfully anywhere else.
> >
> > /stef
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://activity.openstack.org/dash/browser/repository.html?repository=http%3A__lists.openstack.org_pipermail_openstack-dev&ds=mls
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Product-wg mailing list
> > Product-wg at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/product-wg
>
> _______________________________________________
> Product-wg mailing list
> Product-wg at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/product-wg
>