[User-committee] [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] Large Contributing OpenStack Operators working group?
UKASICK, ANDREW
au3678 at att.com
Fri Feb 3 22:37:51 UTC 2017
+1 from me as well.
I'd like to throw out this suggestion for some discussion.
Many of us on the "working group" side of things have full-time internal commitments within our various companies. It's VERY difficult to be able to take the time needed to peruse IRC logs, etherpads, email lists, etc. Seriously....
I'm not suggesting any change to those things, but what if we introduced a monthly, or if that's too much, then at least quarterly, meeting organized and hosted by the UC where we could get on a conference bridge in a virtual meeting room and all the various working groups along with the UC could provide updates on what they've done, what they're working on, current vision/planning, things they might need help with, etc. You could record it and post it on youtube for anyone who could not join. Maybe rotate the times so each part of the globe gets a fair shake with the timing?
Something like that would help us to know which logs, etherpads, email keywords we need to pay attentioon too. I think that it would also help us to build more bridges and strengthen relationships.
??
-Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Bell [mailto:Tim.Bell at cern.ch]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 2:29 PM
To: Jonathan Proulx <jon at csail.mit.edu>; lebre.adrien at free.fr
Cc: MCCABE, JAMEY A <jm6819 at att.com>; openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org; UKASICK, ANDREW <au3678 at att.com>; Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com>; Edgar Magana <edgar.magana at workday.com>; user-committee at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [User-committee] [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] Large Contributing OpenStack Operators working group?
+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=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.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
More information about the User-committee
mailing list