Open Stack

Is there plans for the WG chairs to meet together in Barcelona to make some
decisions on these efficiencies?

/me smiles cheekily at a very busy Edgar ;-)

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 4:31 AM, Christopher Aedo <doc at aedo.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Jimmy Mcarthur <jimmy at tipit.net> wrote:
> > Christopher,
> >
> > We might be able to lend a hand with the authentication piece if you're
> able
> > to use OpenStackID.
> >
> > http://docs.openstack.org/infra/system-config/openstackid.html
> > https://github.com/openstack-infra/openstackid
> >
> > If this is something you're interested in, let me know. I believe we can
> > help you out.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Jimmy McArthur
> >
>
> Jimmy, this is definitely something I'd love to have some help on!
>
> The Lounge is a NodeJS app and is available at
> https://github.com/thelounge/lounge/  They also have an active
> presence on Freenode IRC (#thelounge).
>
> The need is to integrate authentication using OpenStackID.  It should
> be similar to this PR (recently merged) which implemented support for
> authentication against LDAP:
> https://github.com/thelounge/lounge/pull/477 ..
>
> In conversation with the lounge devs on IRC they've indicated they
> would welcome this work, so I don't anticipate any major issues
> getting the code accepted.  They're pretty responsive with
> contributors and have been really friendly in my experience.  Let me
> know if you have questions, and if there's anything more I can to do
> help coordinate this.
>
> -Christopher
>
>
>
>
> > Christopher Aedo
> > September 7, 2016 at 2:34 AM
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Blair Bethwaite
> > <blair.bethwaite at monash.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Flanders,
> >
> > Great discussion. Prompted me to go remind myself of the role and/or
> > definition of an OS UC Working Group... I didn't find anything "formal",
> but
> > w.o.o/UserCommittee says:
> > =====
> > The user committee's role is to represent the needs of the diverse range
> of
> > OpenStack users. The user committee is advised by Working Groups, each of
> > whom represents different user audiences and interests.
> >
> > The user committee mission is to:
> >
> > Consolidate user requirements and present these to the management board
> and
> > technical committee[1].
> > Provide guidance for the development teams where user feedback is
> requested
> > Track OpenStack deployments and usage, helping to share user stories and
> > experiences
> > Work with the user groups worldwide to keep the OpenStack community
> vibrant
> > and informed
> > =====
> >
> > >From the WG activity perspective I would highlight it is very
> > useful/important to have some direction (as well as support) coming from
> the
> > UC - I think our experience with the scientific-wg is roughly that we
> have a
> > large interest base and plenty of people who find good value in talking
> to
> > and sharing with their peers, but it is quite hard to turn that into
> > concrete forward momentum or to even mint well articulated goals from
> within
> > the group.
> >
> > On engagement, IRC is useful for reasons already mentioned in this thread
> > (and we've been fortunate to have some valuable interactions thanks some
> > core devs having keyword watches setup on OpenStack channels), but I
> think
> > we alienate and/or make things too hard for some potential contributors.
> And
> > I don't think it makes a great watercooler discussion tool (e.g. no
> offline
> > history etc without setting up a bouncer - and that is fairly opaque even
> > for a CS major).
> >
> > I'm a huge fan of the way we use IRC in the OpenStack community, but
> > have also recognized getting up and running with a persistent IRC
> > connection can pose a significant barrier to many very smart and
> > technically sharp humans.  To that end I wrote a spec to provide a
> > hosted, persistent IRC web-client [1].  Lately however the effort has
> > been stalled due to my lack of experience with JS; if we can find
> > someone who can plumb in the auth piece, we could be up and running
> > with this fairly quickly.
> >
> > I think getting that right will be worth the effort, and could get a
> > whole lot more people engaged across all our various domains.
> >
> > [1] https://review.openstack.org/319506
> >
> > -Christopher
> >
> > Having (myself) done a fairly woeful job of keeping pace with the dev
> side
> > of OS progression this cycle I'm also interested in exploring ways of
> > highlighting activities/work that may be of interest to any particular
> WG.
> > The first thing that springs to mind is tagging of blueprints and
> reviews,
> > e.g., where a dev or other community member is looking for
> > input/support/resolution from a specific target user group. This could
> be a
> > mechanism we as chairs utilise to surface agenda items, solicit input and
> > then respond on behalf of the group.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Blair
> >
> > On 30 August 2016 at 10:36, David F Flanders <flanders at openstack.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Working Group Co-Chairs and User Committee Chairs,
> >
> > The logistical tasks of running a WG meeting is by no means trivial,
> > here a quick list of things which a co-chairs of a WG do on a weekly
> > basis to run a global meeting:
> >
> > a.) mint calendar invitation to all members (subscribe/unsubscribe
> > members)
> > b.) call for agenda items via etherpad
> > c.) update wiki with upcoming meeting and link to etherpad agenda
> > d.) email user-committee mailing list on when next meeting is
> > occurring along with agenda links
> > e.) assure meeting channel is confirmed (irc/phone/etc)
> > f.) run meeting according to good practices (irc etiquette or well
> > taken notes if via voice)
> > g.) post meeting follow up: circulating actions, posting meeting
> > notes, taking any outstanding queries to the mailing list for
> > consideration, etc.
> > h.) follow up actions.
> > i.) recruit new members
> > j.) plan for summit meetings
> > k.) etc etc.
> >
> > All of the above are sometimes done twice-over at different times to
> > help maintain the conversation in different timezones.
> >
> > In addition, the groups are still not well attended by as diverse an
> > audience as OpenStack represents. AsiaPac, Latin America, India and
> > other massive OpenStack user groups have not yet engaged despite some
> > of their massive communities.
> >
> > One of the recent suggestions has been to converge some of the WGs to
> > help ease the burden of these logistical tasks.
> >
> > Other options include:
> >
> > * having a more systematic approach to when WG occur, i.e. agreeing
> > a set pattern such s a day per fortnight which each WG happens (one
> > after another).
> >
> > * having a shared IRC channel for all WG activity to help create
> > more water-cooler conversation between chairs?
> >
> > * sharing of logistical duties between WG chairs, etc
> >
> > Options abound, though discussion much needed!
> >
> > Q: Is there any good practice we can draw from? I've been digging
> > around my old W3C and IETF notes to see what good practice there may
> > be?
> >
> > Discussion/replies greatly appreciated to see if there is any consensus?
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> >
> > Flanders
> >
> > --
> > Blair Bethwaite
> > Senior HPC Consultant
> >
> > Monash eResearch Centre
> > Monash University
> > Room G26, 15 Innovation Walk, Clayton Campus
> > Clayton VIC 3800
> > Australia
> > Mobile: 0439-545-002
> > Office: +61 3-9903-2800
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > User-committee mailing list
> > User-committee at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > User-committee mailing list
> > User-committee at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
> >
> > Blair Bethwaite
> > September 5, 2016 at 5:24 PM
> >
> > Hi Flanders,
> >
> > Great discussion. Prompted me to go remind myself of the role and/or
> > definition of an OS UC Working Group... I didn't find anything "formal",
> but
> > w.o.o/UserCommittee says:
> > =====
> > The user committee's role is to represent the needs of the diverse range
> of
> > OpenStack users. The user committee is advised by Working Groups, each of
> > whom represents different user audiences and interests.
> >
> > The user committee mission is to:
> >
> > Consolidate user requirements and present these to the management board
> and
> > technical committee[1].
> > Provide guidance for the development teams where user feedback is
> requested
> > Track OpenStack deployments and usage, helping to share user stories and
> > experiences
> > Work with the user groups worldwide to keep the OpenStack community
> vibrant
> > and informed
> > =====
> >
> > From the WG activity perspective I would highlight it is very
> > useful/important to have some direction (as well as support) coming from
> the
> > UC - I think our experience with the scientific-wg is roughly that we
> have a
> > large interest base and plenty of people who find good value in talking
> to
> > and sharing with their peers, but it is quite hard to turn that into
> > concrete forward momentum or to even mint well articulated goals from
> within
> > the group.
> >
> > On engagement, IRC is useful for reasons already mentioned in this thread
> > (and we've been fortunate to have some valuable interactions thanks some
> > core devs having keyword watches setup on OpenStack channels), but I
> think
> > we alienate and/or make things too hard for some potential contributors.
> And
> > I don't think it makes a great watercooler discussion tool (e.g. no
> offline
> > history etc without setting up a bouncer - and that is fairly opaque even
> > for a CS major).
> >
> > Having (myself) done a fairly woeful job of keeping pace with the dev
> side
> > of OS progression this cycle I'm also interested in exploring ways of
> > highlighting activities/work that may be of interest to any particular
> WG.
> > The first thing that springs to mind is tagging of blueprints and
> reviews,
> > e.g., where a dev or other community member is looking for
> > input/support/resolution from a specific target user group. This could
> be a
> > mechanism we as chairs utilise to surface agenda items, solicit input and
> > then respond on behalf of the group.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Blair
> >
> > On 30 August 2016 at 10:36, David F Flanders <flanders at openstack.org>
> wrote:
> >> Dear Working Group Co-Chairs and User Committee Chairs,
> >>
> >> The logistical tasks of running a WG meeting is by no means trivial,
> >> here a quick list of things which a co-chairs of a WG do on a weekly
> >> basis to run a global meeting:
> >>
> >> a.) mint calendar invitation to all members (subscribe/unsubscribe
> >> members)
> >> b.) call for agenda items via etherpad
> >> c.) update wiki with upcoming meeting and link to etherpad agenda
> >> d.) email user-committee mailing list on when next meeting is
> >> occurring along with agenda links
> >> e.) assure meeting channel is confirmed (irc/phone/etc)
> >> f.) run meeting according to good practices (irc etiquette or well
> >> taken notes if via voice)
> >> g.) post meeting follow up: circulating actions, posting meeting
> >> notes, taking any outstanding queries to the mailing list for
> >> consideration, etc.
> >> h.) follow up actions.
> >> i.) recruit new members
> >> j.) plan for summit meetings
> >> k.) etc etc.
> >>
> >> All of the above are sometimes done twice-over at different times to
> >> help maintain the conversation in different timezones.
> >>
> >> In addition, the groups are still not well attended by as diverse an
> >> audience as OpenStack represents. AsiaPac, Latin America, India and
> >> other massive OpenStack user groups have not yet engaged despite some
> >> of their massive communities.
> >>
> >> One of the recent suggestions has been to converge some of the WGs to
> >> help ease the burden of these logistical tasks.
> >>
> >> Other options include:
> >>
> >> * having a more systematic approach to when WG occur, i.e. agreeing
> >> a set pattern such s a day per fortnight which each WG happens (one
> >> after another).
> >>
> >> * having a shared IRC channel for all WG activity to help create
> >> more water-cooler conversation between chairs?
> >>
> >> * sharing of logistical duties between WG chairs, etc
> >>
> >> Options abound, though discussion much needed!
> >>
> >> Q: Is there any good practice we can draw from? I've been digging
> >> around my old W3C and IETF notes to see what good practice there may
> >> be?
> >>
> >> Discussion/replies greatly appreciated to see if there is any consensus?
> >>
> >> Kind Regards,
> >>
> >> Flanders
> >
> > --
> > Blair Bethwaite
> > Senior HPC Consultant
> >
> > Monash eResearch Centre
> > Monash University
> > Room G26, 15 Innovation Walk, Clayton Campus
> > Clayton VIC 3800
> > Australia
> > Mobile: 0439-545-002
> > Office: +61 3-9903-2800
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > User-committee mailing list
> > User-committee at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
> > David F Flanders
> > August 29, 2016 at 7:36 PM
> > Dear Working Group Co-Chairs and User Committee Chairs,
> >
> > The logistical tasks of running a WG meeting is by no means trivial,
> > here a quick list of things which a co-chairs of a WG do on a weekly
> > basis to run a global meeting:
> >
> > a.) mint calendar invitation to all members (subscribe/unsubscribe
> members)
> > b.) call for agenda items via etherpad
> > c.) update wiki with upcoming meeting and link to etherpad agenda
> > d.) email user-committee mailing list on when next meeting is
> > occurring along with agenda links
> > e.) assure meeting channel is confirmed (irc/phone/etc)
> > f.) run meeting according to good practices (irc etiquette or well
> > taken notes if via voice)
> > g.) post meeting follow up: circulating actions, posting meeting
> > notes, taking any outstanding queries to the mailing list for
> > consideration, etc.
> > h.) follow up actions.
> > i.) recruit new members
> > j.) plan for summit meetings
> > k.) etc etc.
> >
> > All of the above are sometimes done twice-over at different times to
> > help maintain the conversation in different timezones.
> >
> > In addition, the groups are still not well attended by as diverse an
> > audience as OpenStack represents. AsiaPac, Latin America, India and
> > other massive OpenStack user groups have not yet engaged despite some
> > of their massive communities.
> >
> > One of the recent suggestions has been to converge some of the WGs to
> > help ease the burden of these logistical tasks.
> >
> > Other options include:
> >
> > * having a more systematic approach to when WG occur, i.e. agreeing
> > a set pattern such s a day per fortnight which each WG happens (one
> > after another).
> >
> > * having a shared IRC channel for all WG activity to help create
> > more water-cooler conversation between chairs?
> >
> > * sharing of logistical duties between WG chairs, etc
> >
> > Options abound, though discussion much needed!
> >
> > Q: Is there any good practice we can draw from? I've been digging
> > around my old W3C and IETF notes to see what good practice there may
> > be?
> >
> > Discussion/replies greatly appreciated to see if there is any consensus?
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> >
> > Flanders
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > User-committee mailing list
> > User-committee at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> User-committee mailing list
> User-committee at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
>



-- 
Flanders | OpenStack Foundation | Community Manager (Cloud Application
Communities)
http://superuser.openstack.org/articles/meet-openstack-s-community-wrangler-david-flanders
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/user-committee/attachments/20160920/548fe2e2/attachment-0001.html>