[User-committee] [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] Large Contributing OpenStack Operators working group?

Yih Leong, Sun. yihleong at gmail.com
Fri Feb 3 23:12:44 UTC 2017


I believe this is one of the goal of Product WG, providing a common
platform for users/operators and WG to aggregrate requirements by creating
common "User Story Requirements" which can be implemented cross-project,
cross-releases.
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ProductTeam#Objectives
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ProductTeam/User_Stories#User_Story_Workflow




On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Tim Bell <Tim.Bell at cern.ch> wrote:

> +1 for the WG summary and sharing priorities.
>
> Equally, exploring how we can make use of common collaboration tools for
> all WG would be beneficial.
>
> There is much work to do to get the needs translated to code/doc/tools and
> it would be a pity if we are not sharing to the full across WGs due to
> different technology choices.
>
> Tim
>
> On 03.02.17, 19:16, "Jonathan Proulx" <jon at csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>     On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 04:34:20PM +0100, lebre.adrien at free.fr wrote:
>     :Hi,
>     :
>     :I don't know whether there is already a concrete/effective way to
> identify overlapping between WGs.
>     :But if not, one way can be to arrange one general session in each
> summit where all WG chairs could come and discuss about major actions that
> have been done for the past cycle and what are the plans for the next one.
>
>
>     That's a really good idea.  I think that woudl be a good use of the UC
>     Forum session.  In the past those had mostly been about what is the UC
>     and how shoudl it be structured going forward.  With recent by laws
>     change and upcoming ellection that's pretty settled.
>
>     Having a (very) brief report back from working groups and teams
>     followed by cross group discussion could be a valuable way forward for
>     that session IMO.
>
>     -Jon
>
>     :
>     :Being involved in several WGs allows us to identify collaboration
> opportunities (done for instance between the NFV and Massively Distributed
> WGs/Teams during this cycle) but to be honest it is costly and sometimes
> not still feasible to be involved in every action.
>     :Offering the opportunity to get an up-to-date overview every 6 months
> can be valuable for all of us.
>     :
>     :My two cents,
>     :ad_rien_
>     :
>     :----- Mail original -----
>     :> De: "Jay Pipes" <jaypipes at gmail.com>
>     :> À: "Yih Leong Sun" <yih.leong.sun at intel.com>, "Edgar Magana" <
> edgar.magana at workday.com>,
>     :> openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org, user-committee at lists.
> openstack.org
>     :> Cc: "JAMEY A MCCABE" <jm6819 at att.com>, "ANDREW UKASICK" <
> au3678 at att.com>
>     :> Envoyé: Vendredi 3 Février 2017 16:14:26
>     :> Objet: Re: [User-committee] [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev]
> Large Contributing OpenStack Operators working
>     :> group?
>     :>
>     :> Leong, thanks so much for responding. Comments/followup questions
>     :> inline.
>     :>
>     :> On 02/02/2017 09:07 PM, Sun, Yih Leong wrote:
>     :> > LCOO was initiated by a group of large telco who contributes/uses
>     :> > OpenStack, such as AT&T, NTT, Reliance Jio, Orange, etc [1].
>     :>
>     :> ack.
>     :>
>     :> > The co-chair has reached out to Product WG for collaboration
> (refer
>     :> > IRC meeting logs). The team is working on plans to
>     :> > structure/define LCOO use cases.
>     :>
>     :> My question here is what makes the LCOO use cases different from,
>     :> say,
>     :> the Telco Operator working group's use cases? Or the Massively
>     :> Distributed working group's use cases? Or the Enterprise working
>     :> group's
>     :> use cases?
>     :>
>     :> Is the difference that the LCOO's use cases are stories that are
>     :> important for the LCOO member companies?
>     :>
>     :> > Use case requirements (while still work-in-progress) can span
>     :> > across multiple areas which might/might-not covered by existing
>     :> > Team/WG.
>     :>
>     :> Understood. Is the plan of the LCOO to identify use cases that are
>     :> covered by other working groups, contribute resources to develop
> that
>     :> use case, but have that existing working group handle the product
>     :> management (spec/blueprint/communication/roadmap) stuff?
>     :>
>     :> > I'm sure LCOO will reach out to various projects for
> collaboration,
>     :> > stay tuned...
>     :>
>     :> My questions seem to have been taken as an attack on the LCOO. I was
>     :> hoping to avoid that. I'm sincerely hoping to see the outreach to
>     :> various projects and am eager to collaborate with developers and
>     :> operators from the LCOO companies. I'm just confused what the
>     :> relationship between the LCOO and the existing working groups is.
>     :>
>     :> Best,
>     :> -jay
>     :>
>     :> > [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/LCOO_Participants
>     :> >
>     :> > Thanks!
>     :> >
>     :> > ---
>     :> > Yih Leong Sun, PhD
>     :> > Senior Software Cloud Architect | Open Source Technology Center |
>     :> > Intel Corporation
>     :> > yih.leong.sun at intel.com | +1 503 264 0610
>     :> >
>     :> >
>     :> > -----Original Message-----
>     :> > From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com]
>     :> > Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 5:23 PM
>     :> > To: Edgar Magana <edgar.magana at workday.com>;
>     :> > openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org;
>     :> > user-committee at lists.openstack.org
>     :> > Cc: MCCABE, JAMEY A <jm6819 at att.com>; UKASICK, ANDREW
>     :> > <au3678 at att.com>
>     :> > Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] Large
>     :> > Contributing OpenStack Operators working group?
>     :> >
>     :> > On 02/02/2017 05:02 PM, Edgar Magana wrote:
>     :> >> 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.
>     :> >
>     :> > Was there any follow-on from that request from the UC?
>     :> >
>     :> >> 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.
>     :> >
>     :> > Sure, no problem.
>     :> >
>     :> >> 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, appreciated. Andrew and Jamey, please do let me
> know
>     :> > if you would like me to rephrase or elaborate on any questions.
>     :> > Happy to do so. I genuinely want to see alignment with other
>     :> > groups in this effort.
>     :> >
>     :> > Best,
>     :> > -jay
>     :> >
>     :> >> 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=haOSpIhsa6KyDvuhRFigFVTLrTJxJ1
> Zv3kfm0JwTTtY&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.or
>     :> >> g_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_openstack-2Ddev&d=DwICAg&c=
> DS6PUFBBr_KiLo
>     :> >> 7Sjt3ljp5jaW5k2i9ijVXllEdOozc&r=G0XRJfDQsuBvqa_
> wpWyDAUlSpeMV4W1qfWqBfc
>     :> >> tlWwQ&m=haOSpIhsa6KyDvuhRFigFVTLrTJxJ1Zv3kfm0JwTTtY&s=
> RzyOgrwm1BfJXW8S
>     :> >> deBdAOpYEAXsisGKWvj_Lk3iEec&e=
>     :> >>
>     :> >>
>     :> >> _______________________________________________
>     :> >> OpenStack-operators mailing list
>     :> >> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
>     :> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
> openstack-operator
>     :> >> s
>     :> >>
>     :> >
>     :> > _______________________________________________
>     :> > OpenStack-operators mailing list
>     :> > OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
>     :> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
> openstack-operators
>     :> >
>     :>
>     :> _______________________________________________
>     :> 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
>
>     --
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/user-committee/attachments/20170203/223bc591/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the User-committee mailing list