settingsLogin | Registersettings

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

0 votes

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.

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,
adrien

----- Mail original -----

De: "Jay Pipes" jaypipes@gmail.com
À: "Yih Leong Sun" yih.leong.sun@intel.com, "Edgar Magana" edgar.magana@workday.com,
openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org, user-committee@lists.openstack.org
Cc: "JAMEY A MCCABE" jm6819@att.com, "ANDREW UKASICK" au3678@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@intel.com | +1 503 264 0610

-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypipes@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 5:23 PM
To: Edgar Magana edgar.magana@workday.com;
openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org;
user-committee@lists.openstack.org
Cc: MCCABE, JAMEY A jm6819@att.com; UKASICK, ANDREW
au3678@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@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@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.openstack.or
gcgi-2Dbinmailmanlistinfoopenstack-2Ddev&d=DwICAg&c=DS6PUFBBrKiLo
7Sjt3ljp5jaW5k2i9ijVXllEdOozc&r=G0XRJfDQsuBvqa
wpWyDAUlSpeMV4W1qfWqBfc
tlWwQ&m=haOSpIhsa6KyDvuhRFigFVTLrTJxJ1Zv3kfm0JwTTtY&s=RzyOgrwm1BfJXW8S
deBdAOpYEAXsisGKWvj_Lk3iEec&e=


OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operator
s


OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators


User-committee mailing list
User-committee@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee


OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
asked Feb 3, 2017 in openstack-operators by lebre.adrien_at_free (1,360 points)   1 1

5 Responses

0 votes

On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 04:34:20PM +0100, lebre.adrien@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,
:adrien
:
:----- Mail original -----
:> De: "Jay Pipes" jaypipes@gmail.com
:> À: "Yih Leong Sun" yih.leong.sun@intel.com, "Edgar Magana" edgar.magana@workday.com,
:> openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org, user-committee@lists.openstack.org
:> Cc: "JAMEY A MCCABE" jm6819@att.com, "ANDREW UKASICK" au3678@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@intel.com | +1 503 264 0610
:> >
:> >
:> > -----Original Message-----
:> > From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypipes@gmail.com]
:> > Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 5:23 PM
:> > To: Edgar Magana edgar.magana@workday.com;
:> > openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org;
:> > user-committee@lists.openstack.org
:> > Cc: MCCABE, JAMEY A jm6819@att.com; UKASICK, ANDREW
:> > au3678@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@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@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
:> >>
:> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.openstack.or
:> >> gcgi-2Dbinmailmanlistinfoopenstack-2Ddev&d=DwICAg&c=DS6PUFBBrKiLo
:> >> 7Sjt3ljp5jaW5k2i9ijVXllEdOozc&r=G0XRJfDQsuBvqa
wpWyDAUlSpeMV4W1qfWqBfc
:> >> tlWwQ&m=haOSpIhsa6KyDvuhRFigFVTLrTJxJ1Zv3kfm0JwTTtY&s=RzyOgrwm1BfJXW8S
:> >> deBdAOpYEAXsisGKWvj_Lk3iEec&e=
:> >>
:> >>
:> >> _______________________________________________
:> >> OpenStack-operators mailing list
:> >> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
:> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operator
:> >> s
:> >>
:> >
:> > _______________________________________________
:> > OpenStack-operators mailing list
:> > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
:> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
:> >
:>
:> _______________________________________________
:> User-committee mailing list
:> User-committee@lists.openstack.org
:> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
:>
:
:_______________________________________________
:User-committee mailing list
:User-committee@lists.openstack.org
:http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee

--


OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
responded Feb 3, 2017 by jon_at_csail.mit.edu (4,720 points)   1 5 7
0 votes

On 02/03/2017 01:16 PM, Jonathan Proulx wrote:
On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 04:34:20PM +0100, lebre.adrien@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.

+1 from me, I think that sounds like a great suggestion from Adrien.

Best,
-jay


OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
responded Feb 3, 2017 by Jay_Pipes (59,760 points)   3 11 14
0 votes

+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@csail.mit.edu wrote:

On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 04:34:20PM +0100, lebre.adrien@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@gmail.com>
:> À: "Yih Leong Sun" <yih.leong.sun@intel.com>, "Edgar Magana" <edgar.magana@workday.com>,
:> openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org, user-committee@lists.openstack.org
:> Cc: "JAMEY A MCCABE" <jm6819@att.com>, "ANDREW UKASICK" <au3678@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@intel.com | +1 503 264 0610
:> >
:> >
:> > -----Original Message-----
:> > From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypipes@gmail.com]
:> > Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 5:23 PM
:> > To: Edgar Magana <edgar.magana@workday.com>;
:> > openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org;
:> > user-committee@lists.openstack.org
:> > Cc: MCCABE, JAMEY A <jm6819@att.com>; UKASICK, ANDREW
:> > <au3678@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@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@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@lists.openstack.org
:> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operator
:> >> s
:> >>
:> >
:> > _______________________________________________
:> > OpenStack-operators mailing list
:> > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
:> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
:> >
:> 
:> _______________________________________________
:> User-committee mailing list
:> User-committee@lists.openstack.org
:> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
:>
:
:_______________________________________________
:User-committee mailing list
:User-committee@lists.openstack.org
:http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee

-- 

_______________________________________________
User-committee mailing list
User-committee@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee


OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
responded Feb 3, 2017 by Tim_Bell (16,440 points)   1 8 10
0 votes

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@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@csail.mit.edu wrote:

On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 04:34:20PM +0100, lebre.adrien@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,
:adrien
:
:----- Mail original -----
:> De: "Jay Pipes" jaypipes@gmail.com
:> À: "Yih Leong Sun" yih.leong.sun@intel.com, "Edgar Magana" <
edgar.magana@workday.com>,
:> openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org, user-committee@lists.
openstack.org
:> Cc: "JAMEY A MCCABE" jm6819@att.com, "ANDREW UKASICK" <
au3678@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@intel.com | +1 503 264 0610
:> >
:> >
:> > -----Original Message-----
:> > From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypipes@gmail.com]
:> > Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 5:23 PM
:> > To: Edgar Magana edgar.magana@workday.com;
:> > openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org;
:> > user-committee@lists.openstack.org
:> > Cc: MCCABE, JAMEY A jm6819@att.com; UKASICK, ANDREW
:> > au3678@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@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.orgwikiGluonTasks-2DOcata&d=DwICAg&c=DS6PUFBBr
KiLo7Sjt3ljp5jaW5k2i9ijVXllEdOozc&r=G0XRJfDQsuBvqa_
wpWyDAUlSpeMV4W1qfWqBfctlWwQ&m=haOSpIhsa6KyDvuhRFigFVTLrTJxJ1
Zv3kfm0JwTTtY&s=kntt00JEwpizTxQus4U9FhnwF7WicJ7oRncGmkYPGc&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@lists.openstack.org?subject:
unsubscribe
:> >>
:> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.
openstack.or
:> >> g
cgi-2Dbinmailmanlistinfoopenstack-2Ddev&d=DwICAg&c=
DS6PUFBBr
KiLo
:> >> 7Sjt3ljp5jaW5k2i9ijVXllEdOozc&r=G0XRJfDQsuBvqa_
wpWyDAUlSpeMV4W1qfWqBfc
:> >> tlWwQ&m=haOSpIhsa6KyDvuhRFigFVTLrTJxJ1Zv3kfm0JwTTtY&s=
RzyOgrwm1BfJXW8S
:> >> deBdAOpYEAXsisGKWvj_Lk3iEec&e=
:> >>
:> >>
:> >> _______________________________________________
:> >> OpenStack-operators mailing list
:> >> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
:> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
openstack-operator
:> >> s
:> >>
:> >
:> > _______________________________________________
:> > OpenStack-operators mailing list
:> > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
:> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
openstack-operators
:> >
:>
:> _______________________________________________
:> User-committee mailing list
:> User-committee@lists.openstack.org
:> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
:>
:
:_______________________________________________
:User-committee mailing list
:User-committee@lists.openstack.org
:http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee

--

_______________________________________________
User-committee mailing list
User-committee@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee


User-committee mailing list
User-committee@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee


OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
responded Feb 3, 2017 by Yih_Leong,_Sun. (440 points)  
0 votes

+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@cern.ch]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 2:29 PM
To: Jonathan Proulx jon@csail.mit.edu; lebre.adrien@free.fr
Cc: MCCABE, JAMEY A jm6819@att.com; openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org; UKASICK, ANDREW au3678@att.com; Jay Pipes jaypipes@gmail.com; Edgar Magana edgar.magana@workday.com; user-committee@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@csail.mit.edu wrote:

On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 04:34:20PM +0100, lebre.adrien@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 would be a good use of the UC
Forum session.  In the past those had mostly been about what is the UC
and how should it be structured going forward.  With recent by laws
change and upcoming election 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@gmail.com>
:> À: "Yih Leong Sun" <yih.leong.sun@intel.com>, "Edgar Magana" <edgar.magana@workday.com>,
:> openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org, user-committee@lists.openstack.org
:> Cc: "JAMEY A MCCABE" <jm6819@att.com>, "ANDREW UKASICK" <au3678@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@intel.com | +1 503 264 0610
:> >
:> >
:> > -----Original Message-----
:> > From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypipes@gmail.com]
:> > Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 5:23 PM
:> > To: Edgar Magana <edgar.magana@workday.com>;
:> > openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org;
:> > user-committee@lists.openstack.org
:> > Cc: MCCABE, JAMEY A <jm6819@att.com>; UKASICK, ANDREW
:> > <au3678@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@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@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@lists.openstack.org
:> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operator
:> >> s
:> >>
:> >
:> > _______________________________________________
:> > OpenStack-operators mailing list
:> > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
:> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
:> >
:> 
:> _______________________________________________
:> User-committee mailing list
:> User-committee@lists.openstack.org
:> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
:>
:
:_______________________________________________
:User-committee mailing list
:User-committee@lists.openstack.org
:http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee

-- 

_______________________________________________
User-committee mailing list
User-committee@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee


OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
responded Feb 3, 2017 by UKASICK,_ANDREW (320 points)  
...