Open Stack

Jay,

I am including the WG chairs to make sure they answers your questions and addresses your concerns. 
In Barcelona the UC asked exactly the same questions and recommended to the co-chairs of the LCOO WG to work with the existing WG to identify overlapping activities and either to work together or go ahead with the WG if there were not overlapping on goals and deliverables. 

I will let the co-chairs to follow up yours questions. BTW. I do not think this topic should be posted in the openstack-dev mailing list. So, I will BCC it.

Andrew and Jamey,

Please, address these questions. Let’s work all together to make sure that we have all groups aligned and coordinated.

Thanks,

Edgar

On 2/2/17, 12:14 PM, "Jay Pipes" <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:

    Hi,
    
    I was told about this group today. I have a few questions. Hopefully 
    someone from this team can illuminate me with some answers.
    
    1) What is the purpose of this group? The wiki states that the team 
    "aims to define the use cases and identify and prioritise the 
    requirements which are needed to deploy, manage, and run services on top 
    of OpenStack. This work includes identifying functional gaps, creating 
    blueprints, submitting and reviewing patches to the relevant OpenStack 
    projects, contributing to working those items, tracking their completion."
    
    What is the difference between the LCOO and the following existing 
    working groups?
    
      * Large Deployment Team
      * Massively Distributed Team
      * Product Working Group
      * Telco/NFV Working Group
    
    2) According to the wiki page, only companies that are "Multi-Cloud 
    Operator[s] and/or Network Service Provider[s]" are welcome in this 
    team. Why is the team called "Large Contributing OpenStack Operators" if 
    it's only for Telcos? Further, if this is truly only for Telcos, why 
    isn't the Telco/NFV working group appropriate?
    
    3) Under the "Guiding principles" section of the above wiki, the top 
    principle is "Align with the OpenStack Foundation". If this is the case, 
    why did the group move its content to the closed Atlassian Confuence 
    platform? Why does the group have a set of separate Slack channels 
    instead of using the OpenStack mailing lists and IRC channels? Why is 
    the OPNFV Jira used for tracking work items for the LCOO agenda?
    
    See https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.openstack.org_wiki_Gluon_Tasks-2DOcata&d=DwICAg&c=DS6PUFBBr_KiLo7Sjt3ljp5jaW5k2i9ijVXllEdOozc&r=G0XRJfDQsuBvqa_wpWyDAUlSpeMV4W1qfWqBfctlWwQ&m=haOSpIhsa6KyDvuhRFigFVTLrTJxJ1Zv3kfm0JwTTtY&s=kntt00JEwpizTxQus4U9FhnwF_7WicJ7oRncGmkYPGc&e=  for examples.
    
    4) I see a lot of agenda items around projects like Gluon, Craton, 
    Watcher, and Blazar. I don't see any concrete ideas about talking with 
    the developers of the key infrastructure services that OpenStack is 
    built around. How does the LCOO plan on reaching out to the developers 
    of the long-standing OpenStack projects like Nova, Neutron, Cinder, and 
    Keystone to drive their shared agenda?
    
    Thanks for reading and (hopefully) answering.
    
    -jay
    
    __________________________________________________________________________
    OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
    Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
    https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.openstack.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_openstack-2Ddev&d=DwICAg&c=DS6PUFBBr_KiLo7Sjt3ljp5jaW5k2i9ijVXllEdOozc&r=G0XRJfDQsuBvqa_wpWyDAUlSpeMV4W1qfWqBfctlWwQ&m=haOSpIhsa6KyDvuhRFigFVTLrTJxJ1Zv3kfm0JwTTtY&s=RzyOgrwm1BfJXW8SdeBdAOpYEAXsisGKWvj_Lk3iEec&e=