Open Stack

Hi,

> On Jan 20, 2016, at 11:24 AM, Steve Gordon <sgordon at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Arkady Kanevsky" <Arkady_Kanevsky at DELL.com>
>> To: kencjohnston at gmail.com, product-wg at lists.openstack.org
>> 
>> Sounds reasonable.
>> Should we add fields in blueprint/spec:
>> One for PWG CPL, and for user story it linked to?
> 
> I had a somewhat similar question a while back about including SMEs in the spec text [1]. As it stands we also have the owner, who I believe is assumed to be the person who submitted the spec to gerrit (?) as it isn't otherwise tracked. With regards to the PWG CPL my only question is would it necessarily be *one* per spec as alluded to above, or would we expect to have multiple? My expectation is the latter as one user story may cut across multiple projects? For this reason I think the owner role defined in the current proposal is still quite important as they are the person with accountability for that user story from the PWG side and responsibility for working with the PWG CPLs who will in turn work with their counterparts in the broader community.
> 
>> That way PWG CPL will automatically get notification for changes and one can
>> walk up and down a tree of all blueprints/spec (and down to pull requests)
>> associated with a user story.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Arkady
> 
> I don't believe they can necessarily get automatic notifications from the spec (other than that "it changed", not for specific fields. On the blueprint/launchpad side notification emails do give you some specifics on which fields changed and there is a separate drafter and assignee field where you can put in different people, but relating to my comments above this would mean having a single PWG CPL per spec which I'm not sure matches reality?
> 
Would it make sense to add a field for PWG team composition inside the proposed tracker[1]?  This will let everyone identify who to contact.  While I don't think we can add notifications for blueprints, the person who commits the spec could add the CPL as a reviewer (which would trigger an email notification).  This, again, would require the team/CPLs to be known via tracker, wiki, or some other means.

I also think that the tracker will help with some of these items.... Right now we only have user stories without the associated "meta-data".

[1] https://review.openstack.org/265998

> Thanks,
> 
> Steve
> 
> [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/product-wg/2016-January/000913.html
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kenny Johnston [mailto:kencjohnston at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 3:24 PM
>> To: OpenStack Product Work Group
>> Subject: [Product] Cross Project Liaison Discussion Summary
>> 
>> During our recent meeting[1] there was a discussion about the changing role
>> of CPLs in both the Product Work Group and the individual project teams.
>> The conversation got cut short by the bell and I took the action to summarize
>> and see if we could transition the dialog to the mailing list.
>> 
>> Here goes :)
>> 
>> SUMMARY:
>> Our Product "Add A Feature/Improvement" workflow[2] describes interaction
>> with both PWG Cross Project Liaisons(CPLs) and Project Cross Project Spec
>> Liaisons (CPSL) quite well.
>> 
>> First a cross-project spec is added to the cross project repo by a PWG User
>> Story Owner (USO), it is approved by CPLs from the given projects and
>> officially added by the TC. After the TC has added a cross-project spec it
>> is incumbent upon the PWG USO to work with PWG CPLs and CPSLs to assign
>> ownership to implementors in each project and track status.
>> 
>> During our conversation Mike Perez brought up that we are getting more formal
>> definition of who the CPSL is in each project[3], and we should all
>> re-orient ourselves to those individuals, who might be the PTL but might
>> not, as our points of contact within the project.
>> 
>> EXAMPLE:
>> The PWG drafts and prioritizes a use case to make OpenStack deployable on a
>> fleet of RasberryPis. Kenny Johnston is assigned USO. The project will
>> require work in Nova, Neutron, Glance, Cinder, Glance and Keystone (sorry no
>> object storage, dashboard or containers needed). From the PWG CPL list we
>> see that Hugh, Shamail, Sheena, Nate and Mike are our CPLs. Those folks
>> would work with the CPSLs in their designated project to review a drafted
>> Cross Project Spec, and once approved find owners for the various work items
>> required by that Spec and Provide Status to Kenny via the Tracker as
>> blueprints, project specs and bugs are identified. Later we all celebrate
>> that a RasberryPi OpenStack platform (PiNet) has gained autonomy and
>> subjugated us all.
>> 
>> Make sense? Thoughts? Boos?
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> --
>> Kenny Johnston
>> [1]
>> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/product_working_group/2016/product_working_group.2016-01-18-21.00.log.html
>> [2]
>> http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/openstack-user-stories/workflow/workflow.html
>> [3]
>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/CrossProjectLiaisons#Cross-Project_Spec_Liaisons
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> -- 
> Steve Gordon,
> Sr. Technical Product Manager,
> Red Hat Enterprise Linux OpenStack Platform
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Product-wg mailing list
> Product-wg at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/product-wg