Open Stack

On 11 August 2015 at 22:42, Shamail Tahir <itzshamail at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:38 PM, John Garbutt <john at johngarbutt.com> wrote:
>> I was thinking of trying for the next PWG meeting that I am able to
>> attend, and discuss things together in that? Where is the wiki page
>> for all those meetings, I couldn't find it, for some reason?
>
> [ST] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/product-team: we meet every
> Monday @ 1900 UTC but we will be skipping next Monday due to travel for
> ops-summit.

Thanks, I guess that makes in Monday 24th August.
Thats 10pm for me, but I should be able to make it to discuss this.

Thanks,
John

>>
>> Thanks,
>> John
>>
>> > Thanks
>> > Carol
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: johngarbutt at gmail.com [mailto:johngarbutt at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
>> > John Garbutt
>> > Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 2:25 AM
>> > To: Shamail
>> > Cc: Barrett, Carol L; product-wg at lists.openstack.org
>> > Subject: Re: [Product] Nova and the Product Working Group
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > So I am a bit worried this proposed approach will alienate a lot of the
>> > Nova developers. Let me explain...
>> >
>> > This is the exact point in the development cycle where we are focusing
>> > on almost everything except reviewing new use cases and features, so I think
>> > looking to review those user stores in a developer meeting will not go down
>> > well:
>> > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Nova/Liberty_Release_Schedule
>> >
>> > My aim is really to raise awareness of our current priorities and
>> > project scope (and discuss those, so we all understand them), while you are
>> > working on the use cases and working out priorities.
>> >
>> > On reflection, I think its better to get Nova folks into your
>> > discussions, rather than the other way around.
>> >
>> > Let me respond to a few specific questions...
>> >
>> > On 11 August 2015 at 03:37, Shamail <itzshamail at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Hi John,
>> >>
>> >> To follow up... We discussed the interlock opportunity today at our
>> >> meeting.  Geoff Arnold and I will join the upcoming Nova meeting this
>> >> Thursday at 21:00 UTC.  The offer for us to attend another meeting, after
>> >> the cross project meeting, the week of 8/24 still stands too.
>> >
>> > I am very unlikely to be at that meeting (as I am in a field, at a music
>> > festival at that time.)
>> >
>> > (For context, I don't usually chair that meeting, as I just can't do a
>> > good job of that at 10pm).
>> >
>> >> I wanted to make introductions and start the communication as soon as
>> >> possible per your suggestion.  We can discuss what your expectations are
>> >> from the Product WG, we can give an update on our activities, and find out
>> >> how we can best help before (and during) the Nova design summit for Mitaka.
>> >
>> > My expectations are for the Product WG to engage with the existing
>> > development processes. I want to help guide you all through that.
>> >
>> > Once we try that out, I am sure there will be changes that make sense,
>> > but this is about you all gaining influence with the developer community.
>> >
>> > If you want a use case to get traction, I think you need to help recruit
>> > developers to work on that along side the rest of the upstream community.
>> >
>> >>> On Aug 10, 2015, at 6:27 PM, Barrett, Carol L
>> >>> <carol.l.barrett at intel.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> John - I want to echo Shamail's Thank you. Your partnership is
>> >>> appreciated.
>> >>>
>> >>> I think that we are, roughly, on track to intercept Liberty 3/Start of
>> >>> Mikata Design Summit planning. We are working to complete the list of user
>> >>> stories for our pilot, with input from Operators by the end of next week.
>> >>> Our plan is to review that in the cross-project team meeting the week of
>> >>> 8/24 (haven't asked for agenda time yet). Do you think it will make sense to
>> >>> review the Nova related user stories in a Nova team meeting that week too?
>> >>> I'm sure it would be very helpful for the gaps analysis around each user
>> >>> story.
>> >
>> > Basically, no, I don't think thats a good idea. See above.
>> >
>> >>> I agree with Shamail about adding the product manager collaboration
>> >>> topic to our Mid-Cycle meeting.
>> >
>> > I think this is the most important thing for the group to do, by far.
>> >
>> > From where I am stood its 100 times (yes, thats a random number) more
>> > important than the list of user stories.
>> >
>> > Now if the list of user stories is a good way to start the conversation,
>> > and I think it probably is, then thats cool. Its just if the list ends up
>> > getting ignored by the developer community, the process is still a good
>> > stepping stone to where there is more cross company collaboration at the
>> > product level.
>> >
>> >>> On your Mission, it's a great starting place and with my Enterprise
>> >>> hat on, I am quite heartened to see upgrades included. I think there may
>> >>> also be something around robustness/reliability that would be important to
>> >>> Operators to include.
>> >
>> > I guess we consider robustness/reliability implicitly part of a good
>> > API.
>> >
>> > If the API doesn't work reliably, its pointless. If people keep having
>> > to retry deletes, well thats a bad API (slightly depending on who you ask).
>> >
>> >>> On priorities, Scheduler and Upgrades are v important.
>> >
>> > We have spend the last few years doing the ground work here. Its been a
>> > long process, but we are getting results now:
>> >
>> > http://www.danplanet.com/blog/2015/06/26/upgrading-nova-to-kilo-with-minimal-downtime
>> >
>> > The upgrade obligations are really slowing down development, but its
>> > important.
>> >
>> >>> I would propose adding something explicit about reducing outstanding
>> >>> bug count (Live migration being an important area) to help direct reviewers
>> >>> to those patches.
>> >
>> > As no one stepped up to help, it is on this list for liberty:
>> >
>> > http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/priorities/liberty-priorities.html#priorities-without-a-clear-plan
>> >
>> > We are trying out a few things to fix that (see subgroups recommending
>> > the most important patches, and my effort to bring back bug triage and bug
>> > review days).
>> >
>> > For those wanting to help live migrate, they should put effort behind
>> > making this test work:
>> > gate-tempest-dsvm-multinode-full
>> > Until that is properly working (i am told its getting close), there is
>> > little we can do.
>> >
>> > If there are bugs that need more attention (certainly review wise), get
>> > in touch, and I can help with that, using our existing processes.
>> > Do get in touch with me for some specific help, but there are some
>> > general tips here:
>> >
>> > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Nova/Liberty_Release_Schedule#How_can_I_get_my_code_merged_faster.3F
>> >
>> >>> I believe that the Neutron/Nova-network migration path needs a good
>> >>> definition, esp in light of the DefCore direction.
>> >
>> > In general, a fully automated migration for all cases is just not
>> > feasible.
>> >
>> > We are looking for folks to help setup up an identify the specific
>> > scenarios that need a migration path.
>> >
>> > There are still worries about Neutron not supporting the same features
>> > as nova-network, and folks are working on the gaps there (better support
>> > from the linux bridge was one of the items).
>> >
>> > We missed that off from this list, mostly as we were more worried about
>> > the other items in this list (I really should describe those better, they
>> > are mostly about stability):
>> >
>> > http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/priorities/liberty-priorities.html#priorities-without-a-clear-plan
>> >
>> >>> As we put in placed CPL (Cross Project Liasons) between the Product
>> >>> Working group and the other Project teams, I'm hopeful that we will better
>> >>> both align and integrate with the community processes and methods.
>> >
>> > We have had variable success with CPLs, but I think its a good starting
>> > point. I don't see any listed on the wiki yet:
>> > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/CrossProjectLiaisons
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > John
>> >
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: Shamail Tahir [mailto:itzshamail at gmail.com]
>> >>> Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 8:33 AM
>> >>> To: John Garbutt
>> >>> Cc: product-wg at lists.openstack.org
>> >>> Subject: Re: [Product] Nova and the Product Working Group
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi John,
>> >>>
>> >>> Thank you for reaching out!  Please see my comments in-line.  We look
>> >>> forward to speaking with you soon.
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:59 AM, John Garbutt <john at johngarbutt.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I would love to start a conversation with you all about Nova and
>> >>>> Mitaka.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Probably makes sense to arrange a meeting to discuss these points,
>> >>>> or I could join one of your meetings. I can invite other developers
>> >>>> along that might be interested.
>> >>> [ST] We would love for yourself and the team do stop by for one of our
>> >>> meetings.  We should target either this coming Monday (8/17) or the Monday
>> >>> after the ops summit/product midcycle (8/24).  We can join one of your
>> >>> meetings as well but it would be great to have you join our meeting so that
>> >>> we can maximize the number of product WG members that can participate.
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It would be great to get this done before liberty-3, so can get to
>> >>>> something that can inform the chosen Design Summit sessions.
>> >>> [ST] +1.  The product WG is planning to pilot a "workflow" that spans
>> >>> the sequence of events leading from documenting user stories from various
>> >>> sources all the way through engagement/collaboration with the developer
>> >>> community.  We plan to discuss the available user stories next week and,
>> >>> hopefully, determine which ones we can use to "pilot" the process.
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Starting the Conversation
>> >>>> -------------------------
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If I was asked to pick on key deliverable for the Product Working
>> >>>> Group, I think it would be to create a forum for Product Managers to
>> >>>> collaborate, and discuss each others mission, goals and priorities.
>> >>>> Making it easier to understand where organisations can work together
>> >>>> and avoid duplicate efforts. It would be great if this includes you
>> >>>> all discussing the feedback from all the different user and operator
>> >>>> groups.
>> >>> [ST] This is good feedback and aligns well with portions of why there
>> >>> was an interest to create this group to begin with.  This discussion would
>> >>> probably make a great agenda item for our mid-cycle (8/20-8/21 in Santa
>> >>> Clara, CA).
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I am much less interested in any documents or deliverables, its that
>> >>>> cross company alignment and agreement, that will be extremely
>> >>>> valuable to the developer community.
>> >>> [ST] The user story deliverable is the medium through which we will be
>> >>> expressing our interests and documenting them so that they can be shared.
>> >>> The value is definitely in alignment, cross project
>> >>> collaboration/tracking, and being an aggregation point for feedback, however
>> >>> I do believe the user story (and the associated discussions) are vital for
>> >>> this alignment/agreement to be realized.
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> That will naturally trickle back into the developer community
>> >>>> through the guidance you give to all the people you have working on
>> >>>> OpenStack.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> There is one big concern that has been raised around how the product
>> >>>> working group and the developer community interacts. If done
>> >>>> incorrectly, it can look like the developer community is ignoring
>> >>>> the user requests presented to it. I want to make sure we start
>> >>>> things off in a way that will not alienate either of the groups.
>> >>> [ST] +1
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I guess I am asking that we try and find a way for you all to engage
>> >>>> in the current developer community processes. I know we have had
>> >>>> great input from product managers during design summit sessions in
>> >>>> the past, it would be great to see more of that input again. Many
>> >>>> discussions (and nova-specs) start with a definition of the user
>> >>>> problem that needs addressing. I am sure good input into those
>> >>>> discussion would be welcomed.
>> >>> [ST] We might have limited bandwidth to really dig in at the moment
>> >>> since we are "piloting" the process through the Mitaka design summit, but we
>> >>> would be glad to help where we can!  The current plan is to review a set of
>> >>> initial user story submissions next week, identify team members to help
>> >>> coordinate them, share our list with the community for feedback (the
>> >>> prioritization process will change in the future but we opted for a
>> >>> lightweight weighing exercise for the pilot), perform a gap analysis to
>> >>> determine which areas/projects map to the user story (this is another
>> >>> potential area for collaboration with the development community), join
>> >>> developer team meetings to share user stories/context to get feedback and
>> >>> forge partnerships, and be available at the design summit to participate in
>> >>> discussions for those user stories that require further discussion.
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Mission and Scope
>> >>>> -----------------
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Secondly, I just wanted to share this document we have on Nova's
>> >>>> scope:
>> >>>> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova/project_scope.html
>> >>>>
>> >>>> As a developer community, we do have quite a strong shared mission
>> >>>> for Nova. We are working to make sure that is articulated well, and
>> >>>> shared more widely. The key parts of that are something like this:
>> >>>> * Build a strong ecosystem by having a great API to access on demand
>> >>>> compute resources, that works in the same way across all deployments
>> >>>> * Help keep operators current by providing a good upgrade experience
>> >>>> * Flexibility to grow because we work well for all sizes of cloud
>> >>>> deployment
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We are reviewing all feature proposals through the lens of this
>> >>>> mission. We don't claim to have succeeded in this mission, we aim to
>> >>>> work towards that mission. I do feel there are key elements of the
>> >>>> API users experience that are missing from that above description,
>> >>>> but we have to start somewhere.
>> >>> [ST] This is amazing John!  I like the fact that a document like this
>> >>> helps identify the focus areas that the team will be pursuing in the future.
>> >>> I am certain there will be more feedback once the team can review the
>> >>> document.
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I am really interested in the product working group's feedback on
>> >>>> our direction.
>> >>> [ST] Likewise!  Thanks again for sending this message, we look forward
>> >>> to the partnership between the teams.
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Release Goals
>> >>>> -------------
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Lastly, I would love feedback on the current set of Nova priorities:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/priorities/liberty-p
>> >>>> ri
>> >>>> orities.html
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It is likely for Mitaka that we keep a similar set of priorities,
>> >>>> but ideally adding at least one of these efforts:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/priorities/liberty-p
>> >>>> ri orities.html#priorities-without-a-clear-plan
>> >>>>
>> >>>> My ask is, does this list surprise you at all?
>> >>>> Out of all these suggested items, which group would you choose?
>> >>> [ST] Will review and get back to you.
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This feedback will help with the picking of Nova Design Summit
>> >>>> Sessions. The outcomes of those sessions help decide what can
>> >>>> actually become a priority (a combination of reaching a certain
>> >>>> level of consensus and having people free and willing to work on
>> >>>> those things).
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Anyways, I hope that sparks some good discussions. Let me know what
>> >>>> you all think.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks,
>> >>>> John
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Twitter/IRC: johnthetubaguy
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> Product-wg mailing list
>> >>>> Product-wg at lists.openstack.org
>> >>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/product-wg
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> Shamail Tahir
>> >>> t: @ShamailXD
>> >>> tz: Eastern Time
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Product-wg mailing list
>> >>> Product-wg at lists.openstack.org
>> >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/product-wg
>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Shamail Tahir
> t: @ShamailXD
> tz: Eastern Time