On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Tim Bell Tim.Bell@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.
On 03.02.17, 19:16, "Jonathan Proulx" firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 04:34:20PM +0100, email@example.com wrote:
: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.
: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,
:----- Mail original -----
:> De: "Jay Pipes" firstname.lastname@example.org
:> À: "Yih Leong Sun" email@example.com, "Edgar Magana" <
:> firstname.lastname@example.org, user-committee@lists.
:> Cc: "JAMEY A MCCABE" email@example.com, "ANDREW UKASICK" <
:> Envoyé: Vendredi 3 Février 2017 16:14:26
:> Objet: Re: [User-committee] [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev]
Large Contributing OpenStack Operators working
:> Leong, thanks so much for responding. Comments/followup questions
:> 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 .
:> > The co-chair has reached out to Product WG for collaboration
:> > 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,
:> the Telco Operator working group's use cases? Or the Massively
:> Distributed working group's use cases? Or the Enterprise working
:> 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
:> 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
:> > 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.
:> >  https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/LCOO_Participants
:> > Thanks!
:> > ---
:> > Yih Leong Sun, PhD
:> > Senior Software Cloud Architect | Open Source Technology Center |
:> > Intel Corporation
:> > firstname.lastname@example.org | +1 503 264 0610
:> > -----Original Message-----
:> > From: Jay Pipes [mailto:email@example.com]
:> > Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 5:23 PM
:> > To: Edgar Magana firstname.lastname@example.org;
:> > email@example.com;
:> > firstname.lastname@example.org
:> > Cc: MCCABE, JAMEY A email@example.com; UKASICK, ANDREW
:> > firstname.lastname@example.org
:> > 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
:> > 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" email@example.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
:> >> 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
:> >> 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
:> >> 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
:> >> 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.
:> >> 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:
:> >> OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org?subject:
:> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.
:> >> gcgi-2Dbinmailmanlistinfoopenstack-2Ddev&d=DwICAg&c=
:> >> 7Sjt3ljp5jaW5k2i9ijVXllEdOozc&r=G0XRJfDQsuBvqa_
:> >> tlWwQ&m=haOSpIhsa6KyDvuhRFigFVTLrTJxJ1Zv3kfm0JwTTtY&s=
:> >> deBdAOpYEAXsisGKWvj_Lk3iEec&e=
:> >> _______________________________________________
:> >> OpenStack-operators mailing list
:> >> OpenStackemail@example.com
:> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
:> >> s
:> > _______________________________________________
:> > OpenStack-operators mailing list
:> > OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org
:> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
:> User-committee mailing list
:User-committee mailing list
User-committee mailing list
User-committee mailing list