Open Stack

Hi All - Bringing this thread back to the ML. We will need to decide our approach for reaching out the other Community Groups that represent different market segments and their requirements to integrate them into our User Story and Roadmap Process. 

I'd like to discuss during our Monday extended team meeting....I know time will be tight.

Thanks
Carol

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Bell [mailto:Tim.Bell at cern.ch] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 12:00 AM
To: Barrett, Carol L; jon at csail.mit.edu; Subbu at subbu.org
Cc: Shamail; Tom Fifield
Subject: RE: [User-committee] [OpenStack - Product Work Group]


Carol,

I would suggest that you contact the working groups directly as Tom suggested on the list.

The organisers for the groups are listed on https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/UserCommittee. Feel free to get in touch with them.

Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barrett, Carol L [mailto:carol.l.barrett at intel.com]
> Sent: 29 June 2015 23:30
> To: Tim Bell; jon at csail.mit.edu; Subbu at subbu.org
> Cc: Shamail
> Subject: RE: [User-committee] [OpenStack - Product Work Group]
> 
> Hi Tim - Thanks for getting back. The 1st question I have is: What 
> actions, if any, is the user committee planning to take to engage the 
> different work group that are nested under it in the diagram?
> 
> If the user committee is going to help foster collaboration between 
> the groups and the "funnel" flow to the Product WG (which is all good 
> and fine) then I'd like to talk about timeline and next steps.
> 
> If the user committee isn't planning on actions, then I the product WG 
> will need to figure out how to get the funnel flow going with the 
> other work groups.
> 
> Make sense?
> Thanks
> Carol
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Bell [mailto:Tim.Bell at cern.ch]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 9:29 AM
> To: Barrett, Carol L; jon at csail.mit.edu; Subbu at subbu.org
> Cc: Shamail
> Subject: Re: [User-committee] [OpenStack - Product Work Group]
> 
> Carol,
> 
> Thanks for the mail.
> 
> I¹m currently travelling so am a bit limited in time to respond.
> 
> Could you give further explanation on how you would like to see things 
> evolve ?
> 
> Would you like a clearer set of connections to various teams and 
> working groups who could provide the input ?
> 
> Tim
> 
> On 22/06/15 23:13, "Barrett, Carol L" <carol.l.barrett at intel.com> wrote:
> 
> >Tim, Jon & Subbu - Would be interested in your thoughts on how to 
> >move this forward.
> >
> >Thanks
> >Carol
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Carol L Barrett" <carol.l.barrett at intel.com>
> >> To: user-committee at lists.openstack.org,
> >> product-wg at lists.openstack.org
> >>
> >> Hi All ­ As the Product Work Group and the User Committee were 
> >> getting ready for the Vancouver Summit we drafted the picture below 
> >> as a framework for work groups in the community. In the Product 
> >> Work Group
> >> (P-WG) sessions in Vancouver we used this framework and received 
> >> positive feedback.
> >>
> >> Now the question I have is: What is our next step to operationalize 
> >> this model?
> >>
> >> The P-WG is moving forward with a Pilot process for gathering use 
> >> cases, reviewing and prioritizing them to provide input to the 
> >> M-Design Summit. Based upon what we learn during this Pilot, we¹ll 
> >> evolve and expand our areas of engagement. Ideally our Pilot would 
> >> include interacting with the User Committee or some of the other 
> >> WGs under their umbrella. Which is why I raise this question.
> >>
> >> Pls let me know what you think.
> >> Thanks
> >> Carol
> >
> >From a Telco working group perspective we have been endeavoring to 
> >formalize our workflow here:
> >
> >    https://review.openstack.org/#/c/178347/
> >
> >Currently it's attuned to feeding into the relevant project(s) 
> >directly, at least where that is feasible (e.g. backlog specs for 
> >projects that support them where there is nobody in the WG with the 
> >technical chops to action, or real specs/bugs/etc. where there is).
> >That's not to say that can't change, just highlighting what we have 
> >at the
> moment.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Steve