Open Stack

Thanks for the interest Jeremy.   Nice to have your observations to explain how things have worked in the past and how unusual some of this is.  Answering in line also and here I'm answering as Jamey as I haven't' sent this out to the rest of the LCOO working group coordination team first.

>> The LCOO is a group of Multi-cloud Operators who are also
>> development contributors (read we have staff who are project
>> members and desire to jointly increase our participation in the
>> project teams).
[...]
>It's unclear to me what definition of "operators" is being used
>there. As far as I'm aware our other working groups are made up of
>individuals, not organizations, [...]
We are trying to first sign up an organization not just individuals.  From the question and reflection I guess this is not the norm.  We do work for companies who are already operating OpenStack though none of the people e.g. leading the Coordination teams is an actual SA, but we all feel we are representing and in fact trying to use the LCOO to encourage those in our companies to come out of the day to operations (and non upstream development) dynamic and contribute upstream.  We are trying to commit our management to the effort first basically so that they let us keep doing this and over time continue to allow and encourage more company staff to the upstream.

> [...] but just want to be clear as to

>the balance you're striking between direct involvement (implementing

>what you need yourself) and indirection (compelling others, perhaps

>in your employ, to implement what you need). The difference may seem

>subtle, but it can have a significant impact on the amount of

>influence you'll manifest or the degree to which your efforts might

>be met with indifference and perhaps even resistance.

> [...]those doing the work to implement fixes and new

>features hold most of the community influence and are the ones who

>ultimately need convincing.
I think you are advising that we (the OS Community) has and wants to retain and even promote the bottom up dynamic that those who are doing the work are in charge of the ultimate decisions of what gets back to the trunk.  This works best when the person doing the coding is the operator themselves and can show the other project team members the value of it.    Ok re-statement is over.   The LCOO is trying to create a path for our companies where more SA types will come to the project teams, but there is certainly truth to your advice as well.   This is aiming at  bigger dynamic.  The LCOO has the desire to link our companies strategies into the bigger efforts and often those involve others in roles not operator.  We have product development, architects, developers and cloud users and we hope to bring them all and their real uses, strategies, coding enthusiasm and use to the table.  To be more clear that table is of like minded companies and also the project devs.    The hope in terms of the coding and +2ing is that these things have been lined up starting with the PWG User Story process - well vetted at the Forum, refined and somewhat committed to at the PTG and so when it comes to +2 it's a joint endeavor that is shared by the project team or at least well understood as being in the mix.  It's hoped that the LCOO member companies devs are participating in the team, not seen as being forced to code for the man.  Hope I didn't take this in the wrong direction.


>[...]https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/LCOO#How_to_Join

>[...] It implies that the individuals who make up the

>working group are systems administrators and contributors to our

>software, but then it says "with at least 4 FTEs" so are these FTEs

>the actual working group members? Or someone "representing" those
>engineers participates in working group meetings on their behalf?
I think the context of the question may be a working group that meets every week or month and talks and plans on a fairly limited set of interests.  The LCOO see's itself differently.  The concept and our behavior so far is that we are finding multiple area's of joint interest and spinning up multiple teams.  We have coordinators who help with that from each company but the members staff that would be more like SAs and dev's would be joining these spinoff teams.   Our new name for these teams is Roadmap Functional Specialty Teams.  You can see them here:    As we read that Charter again now it is a little hard to follow so thanks for pointing it out.  It was something we created to try to get the concept off the ground and the first few member companies coming to the meetings and pulling in more staff.


Thanks again Jeremy


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/user-committee/attachments/20170207/d82bfd34/attachment-0001.html>