Open Stack

The answer my friends is all of the above, mostly. 
I have started an etherpad to capture our diverse goals for this group https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kilo-product-management-midcycle

Let's start narrowing down the critical topics. I will need to know how many days to reserve a room as soon as possible. 

~sean

> On Dec 23, 2014, at 3:31 PM, Roland Chan <roland at aptira.com> wrote:
> 
> Yes. Strategic Product Management is the gap. We could try to initiate "Win
> The Enterprise"-like efforts from the board in order to accomplish
> strategic goals, but I don't think that is nimble enough, and possibly not
> even appropriate.
> 
> We don't know how were going to achieve strategic product management
> capability, what change that might entail and how we might gain acceptance
> for that change, all of which I alluded to in an earlier email. I see these
> as the critical issues to be addressed at a midcycle meetup. We can then
> take the answers forward to the community for acceptance/ratification (or
> the opposite)
> 
> Roland
>> On 24 Dec 2014 10:15, "Jesse Proudman" <jproudman at bluebox.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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