About Rob H

A Baltimore transplant to Austin, Rob drives an electric car, the RAVolt, and thinks about ways of building software for the clouds using Agile processes. He works for Dell and works software to enable hyperscale clouds.

Your baby is ugly! Picking which code is required for Commercial Core.

babyThere’s no point in sugar-coating this: selecting API and code sections for core requires making hard choices and saying no.  DefCore makes this fair by 1) defining principles for selection, 2) going slooooowly to limit surprises and 3) being transparent in operation.  When you’re telling someone who their baby is not handsome enough you’d better be able to explain why.

The truth is that from DefCore’s perspective, all babies are ugly.  If we are seeking stability and interoperability, then we’re looking for adults not babies or adolescents.

Explaining why is exactly what DefCore does by defining criteria and principles for our decisions.  When we do it right, it also drives a positive feedback loop in the community because the purpose of designated sections is to give clear guidance to commercial contributors where we expect them to be contributing upstream.  By making this code required for Core, we are incenting OpenStack vendors to collaborate on the features and quality of these sections.

This does not lessen the undesignated sections!  Contributions in those areas are vital to innovation; however, they are, by design, more dynamic, specialized or single vendor than the designated areas.

Designated SectionsThe seven principles of designated sections (see my post with TC member Michael Still) as defined by the Technical Committee are:

Should be DESIGNATED:

  1. code provides the project external REST API, or
  2. code is shared and provides common functionality for all options, or
  3. code implements logic that is critical for cross-platform operation

Should NOT be DESIGNATED:

  1. code interfaces to vendor-specific functions, or
  2. project design explicitly intended this section to be replaceable, or
  3. code extends the project external REST API in a new or different way, or
  4. code is being deprecated

While the seven principles inform our choices, DefCore needs some clarifications to ensure we can complete the work in a timely, fair and practical way.  Here are our additions:

8.     UNdesignated by Default

  • Unless code is designated, it is assumed to be undesignated.
  • This aligns with the Apache license.
  • We have a preference for smaller core.

9.      Designated by Consensus

  • If the community cannot reach a consensus about designation then it is considered undesignated.
  • Time to reach consensus will be short: days, not months
  • Except obvious trolling, this prevents endless wrangling.
  • If there’s a difference of opinion then the safe choice is undesignated.

10.      Designated is Guidance

  • Loose descriptions of designated sections are acceptable.
  • The goal is guidance on where we want upstream contributions not a code inspection police state.
  • Guidance will be revised per release as part of the DefCore process.

In my next DefCore post, I’ll review how these 10 principles are applied to the Havana release that is going through community review before Board approval.

Cloud Culture: New IT leaders are transforming the way we create and purchase technology. [Collaborative Series 1/8]

Subtitle: Why L33Ts don’t buy from N00Bs

Brad Szollose and I want to engage you in a discussion about how culture shapes technology [cross post link].  We connected over Brad’s best-selling book, Liquid Leadership, and we’ve been geeking about cultural impacts in tech since 2011.

Rob Hirschfeld

Rob

Brad

In these 8 posts, we explore what drives the next generation of IT decision makers starting from the framework of Millennials and Boomers.  Recently, we’ve seen that these “age based generations” are artificially limiting; however, they provide a workable context this series that we will revisit in the future.

Our target is leaders who were raised with computers as Digital Natives. They approach business decisions from a new perspective that has been honed by thousands of hours of interactive games, collaboration with global communities, and intuitive mastery of all things digital.

The members of this “Generation Cloud” are not just more comfortable with technology; they use it differently and interact with each other in highly connected communities. They function easily with minimal supervision, self-organize into diverse teams, dive into new situations, take risks easily, and adapt strategies fluidly. Using cloud technologies and computer games, they have become very effective winners.

In this series, we examine three key aspects of next-generation leaders and offer five points to get to the top of your game. Our goal is to find, nurture, and collaborate with them because they are rewriting the script for success.

We have seen that there is a technology-driven culture change that is reshaping how business is being practiced.  Let’s dig in!

What is Liquid Leadership?

“a fluid style of leadership that continuously sustains the flow of ideas in an organization in order to create opportunities in an ever-shifting marketplace.”

Forever Learning?

In his groundbreaking 1970s book, Future Shock, Alvin Toffler pointed out that in the not too distant future, technology would inundate the human race with all its demands, overwhelming those not prepared for it. He compared this overwhelming feeling to culture shock.

Welcome to the future!

Part of the journey in discussing this topic is to embrace the digital lexicon. To help with translations we are offering numerous subtitles and sidebars. For example, the subtitle “L33Ts don’t buy from N00Bs” translates to “Digital elites don’t buy from technical newcomers.”

Loosen your tie and relax; we’re going to have some fun together.  We’ve got 7 more posts in this cloud culture series.  

We’ve also included more background about the series and authors…

Continue reading

Patchwork Onion delivers stability & innovation: the graphics that explains how we determine OpenStack Core

This post was coauthored by the DefCore chairs, Rob Hirschfeld & Joshua McKenty.

The OpenStack board, through the DefCore committee, has been working to define “core” for commercial users using a combination of minimum required capabilities (APIs) and code (Designated Sections).  These minimums are decided on a per project basis so it can be difficult to visualize the impact on the overall effect on the Integrated Release.

Patchwork OnionWe’ve created the patchwork onion graphic to help illustrate how core relates to the integrated release.  While this graphic is pretty complex, it was important to find a visual way to show how different DefCore identifies distinct subsets of APIs and code from each project.  This graphic tries to show how that some projects have no core APIs and/or code.

For OpenStack to grow, we need to have BOTH stability and innovation.  We need to give clear guidance to the community what is stable foundation and what is exciting sandbox.  Without that guidance, OpenStack is perceived as risky and unstable by users and vendors. The purpose of defining “Core” is to be specific in addressing that need so we can move towards interoperability.

Interoperability enables an ecosystem with multiple commercial vendors which is one of the primary goals of the OpenStack Foundation.

Ecosystem OnionOriginally, we thought OpenStack would have “core” and “non-core” projects and we baked that expectation into the bylaws.  As we’ve progressed, it’s clear that we need a less binary definition.  Projects themselves have a maturity cycle (ecosystem -> incubated -> integrated) and within the project some APIs are robust and stable while others are innovative and fluctuating.

Encouraging this mix of stabilization and innovation has been an important factor in our discussions about DefCore.  Growing the user base requires encouraging stability and growing the developer base requires enabling innovation within the same projects.

The consequence is that we are required to clearly define subsets of capabilities (APIs) and implementation (code) that are required within each project.  Designating 100% of the API or code as Core stifles innovation because stability dictates limiting changes while designating 0% of the code (being API only) lessens the need to upstream.  Core reflects the stability and foundational nature of the code; unfortunately, many people incorrectly equate “being core” with the importance of the code, and politics ensues.

To combat the politics, DefCore has taken a transparent, principles-based approach to selecting core.   You can read about in Rob’s upcoming “Ugly Babies” post (check back on 8/14) .

7 Open Source lessons from your English Composition class

We often act as if coding, and especially open source coding, is a unique activity and that’s hubris.   Most human activities follow common social patterns that should inform how we organize open source projects.  For example, research papers are very social and community connected activities.  Especially when published, written compositions are highly interconnected activities.  Even the most basic writing builds off other people’s work with due credit and tries create something worth being used by later authors.

Here are seven principles to good writing that translate directly to good open source development:

  1. Research before writing – take some time to understand the background and goals of the project otherwise you re-invent or draw bad conclusions.
  2. Give credit where due – your work has more credibility when you acknowledge and cross-reference the work you are building on. It also shows readers that you are not re-inventing.
  3. Follow the top authors – many topics have widely known authors who act as “super nodes” in the relationship graph. Recognizing these people will help guide your work, leads to better research and builds community.
  4. Find proof readers – All writers need someone with perspective to review their work before it’s finished. Since we all need reviewers, we all also need to do reviews.
  5. Rework to get clarity – Simplicity and clarity take extra effort but they pay huge dividends for your audience.
  6. Don’t surprise your reader – Readers expect patterns and are distracted when you don’t follow them.
  7. Socialize your ideas – the purpose of writing/code is to make ideas durable. If it’s worth writing then it’s worth sharing.  Your artifact does not announce itself – you need to invest time in explaining it to people and making it accessible.

Thanks to Sean Roberts (a Hidden Influences collaborator) for his contributions to this post.  At OSCON, Sean Roberts said “companies should count open source as research [and development investment]” and I thought he’s said “…as research [papers].”  The misunderstanding was quickly resolved and we were happy to discover that both interpretations were useful.

Back of the Napkin to Presentation in 30 seconds

I wanted to share a handy new process for creating presentations that I’ve been using lately that involves using cocktail napkins, smart phones and Google presentations.

Here’s the Process:

  1. sketch an idea out with my colleagues on a napkin, whiteboard or notebook during our discussion.
  2. snap a picture and upload it to my Google drive from my phone,
  3. import the picture into my presentation using my phone,
  4. tell my team that I’ve updated the presentation using Slack on my phone.

Clearly, this is not a finished presentation; however, it does serve to quickly capture critical content from a discussion without disrupting the flow of ideas.  It also alerts everyone that we’re adding content and helps frame what that content will be as we polish it.  When we immediately position the napkin into a deck, it creates clear action items and reference points for the team.

While blindingly simple, having a quick feedback loop and visual placeholders translates into improved team communication.

The Upstream Imperative: paving the way for content creators is required for platform success

Since content is king, platform companies (like Google, Microsoft, Twitter, Facebook and Amazon) win by attracting developers to build on their services.  Open source tooling and frameworks are the critical interfaces for these adopters; consequently, they must invest in building communities around those platforms even if it means open sourcing previously internal only tools.

This post expands on one of my OSCON observations: companies who write lots of code have discovered an imperative to upstream their internal projects.   For background, review my thoughts about open source and supply chain management.

Huh?  What is an “upstream imperative?”  It sounds like what salmon do during spawning then read the post-script!

Historically, companies with a lot of internal development tools had no inventive to open those projects.  In fact, the “collaboration tax” of open source discouraged companies from sharing code for essential operations.   Historically, open source was considered less featured and slower than commercial or internal projects; however, this perception has been totally shattered.  So companies are faced with a balance between the overhead of supporting external needs (aka collaboration) and the innovation those users bring into the effort.

Until recently, this balance usually tipped towards opening a project but under-investing in the community to keep the collaboration costs low.  The change I saw at OSCON is that companies understand that making open projects successful bring communities closer to their products and services.

That’s a huge boon to the overall technology community.

Being able to leverage and extend tools that have been proven by these internal teams strengthens and accelerates everyone. These communities act as free laboratories that breed new platforms and build deep relationships with critical influencers.  The upstream savvy companies see returns from both innovation around their tools and more content that’s well matched to their platforms.

Oh, and companies that fail to upstream will find it increasingly hard to attract critical mind share.  Thinking the alternatives gives us a Windows into how open source impacts past incumbents.

That leads to a future post about how XaaS dog fooding and “pure-play” aaS projects like OpenStack and CloudFoundry.

Post Script about Upstreaming:

Continue reading

Share the love & vote for OpenStack Paris Summit Sessions (closes Wed 8/6)

 

This is a friendly PSA that OpenStack Paris Summit session community voting ends on Wednesday 8/6.  There are HUNDREDS (I heard >1k) submissions so please set aside some time to review a handful.

Robot VoterMY PLEA TO YOU > There is a tendency for companies to “vote-up” sessions from their own employees.  I understand the need for the practice BUT encourage you to make time to review other sessions too.  Affiliation voting is fine, robot voting is not.

If you are interested topics that I discuss on this blog, here’s a list of sessions I’m involved in:

 

 

4 item OSCON report: no buzz winner, OpenStack is DownStack?, Free vs Open & the upstream imperative

Now that my PDX Trimet pass expired, it’s time to reflect on OSCON 2014.   Unfortunately, I did not ride my unicorn home on a rainbow; this year’s event seemed to be about raising red flags.

My four key observations:

  1. No superstar. Past OSCONs had at least one buzzy community super star.  2013 was Docker and 2011 was OpenStack.  This was not just my hallway track perception, I asked around about this specifically.  There was no buzz winner in 2014.
  2. People were down on OpenStack (“DownStack”). Yes, we did have a dedicated “Open Cloud Day” event but there was something missing.  OpenSack did not sponsor and there were no major parties or releases (compared to previous years) and little OpenStack buzz.  Many people I talked to were worried about the direction of the community, fragmentation of the project and operational readiness.  I would be more concerned about “DownStack” except that no open infrastructure was a superstar either (e.g.: Mesos, Kubernetes and CoreOS).  Perhaps, OSCON is simply not a good venue open infrastructure projects compared to GlueCon or Velocity?  Considering the rapid raise of container-friendly OpenStack alternatives; I think the answer may be that the battle lines for open infrastructure are being redrawn.
  3. Free vs. Open. Perhaps my perspective is more nuanced now (many in open source communities don’t distinguish between Free and Open source) but there’s a real tension between Free (do what you want) and Open (shared but governed) source.  Now that open source is a commercial darling, there is a lot of grumbling in the Free community about corporate influence and heavy handedness.   I suspect this will get louder as companies try to find ways to maintain control of their projects.
  4. Corporate upstreaming becomes Imperative. There’s an accelerating upstreaming trend for companies that write lots of code to support their primary business (Google is a primary example) to ensure that code becomes used outside their company.   They open their code and start efforts to ensure its adoption.  This requires a dedicated post to really explain.

There’s a clear theme here: Open source is going mainstream corporate.

We’ve been building amazing software in the open that create real value for companies.  Much of that value has been created organically by well-intentioned individuals; unfortunately, that model will not scale with the arrival for corporate interests.

Open source is thriving not dying: these companies value the transparency, collaboration and innovation of open development.  Instead, open source is transforming to fit within corporate investment and governance needs.  It’s our job to help with that metamorphosis.

DefCore Advances at the Core > My take on the OSCON’14 OpenStack Board Meeting

Last week’s day-long Board Meeting (Jonathan’s summary) focused on three major topics: DefCore, Contribute Licenses (CLA/DCO) and the “Win the Enterprise” initiative. In some ways, these three topics are three views into OpenStack’s top issue: commercial vs. individual interests.

But first, let’s talk about DefCore!

DefCore took a major step with the passing of the advisory Havana Capabilities (the green items are required). That means that vendors in the community now have a Board approved minimum requirements.  These are not enforced for Havana so that the community has time to review and evaluate.

Designated Sections (1)For all that progress, we only have half of the Havana core definition complete. Designated Sections, the other component of Core, will be defined by the DefCore committee for Board approval in September. Originally, we expected the TC to own this part of the process; however, they felt it was related to commercial interested (not technical) and asked for the Board to manage it.

The coming meetings will resolve the “is Swift code required” question and that topic will require a dedicated post.  In many ways, this question has been the challenge for core definition from the start.  If you want to join the discussion, please subscribe to the DefCore list.

The majority of the board meeting was spent discussion other weighty topics that are work a brief review.

Contribution Licenses revolve around developer vs broader community challenge. This issue is surprisingly high stakes for many in the community. I see two primary issues

  1. Tension between corporate (CLA) vs. individual (DCO) control and approval
  2. Concern over barriers to contribution (sadly, there are many but this one is in the board’s controls)

Win the Enterprise was born from product management frustration and a fragmented user base. My read on this topic is that we’re pushing on the donkey. I’m hearing serious rumbling about OpenStack operability, upgrade and scale.  This group is doing a surprisingly good job of documenting these requirements so that we will have an official “we need this” statement. It’s not clear how we are going to turn that statement into either carrots or sticks for the donkey.

Overall, there was a very strong existential theme for OpenStack at this meeting: are we a companies collaborating or individuals contributing?  Clearly, OpenStack is both but the proportions remain unclear.

Answering this question is ultimately at the heart of all three primary topics. I expect DefCore will be on the front line of this discussion over the next few weeks (meeting 1, 2, and 3). Now is the time to get involved if you want to play along.

OpenStack DefCore Review [interview by Jason Baker]

I was interviewed about DefCore by Jason Baker of Red Hat as part of my participation in OSCON Open Cloud Day (speaking Monday 11:30am).  This is just one of fifteen in a series of speaker interviews covering everything from Docker to Girls in Tech.

This interview serves as a good review of DefCore so I’m reposting it here:

Without giving away too much, what are you discussing at OSCON? What drove the need for DefCore?

I’m going to walk through the impact of the OpenStack DefCore process in real terms for users and operators. I’ll talk about how the process works and how we hope it will make OpenStack users’ lives better. Our goal is to take steps towards interoperability between clouds.

DefCore grew out of a need to answer hard and high stakes questions around OpenStack. Questions like “is Swift required?” and “which parts of OpenStack do I have to ship?” have very serious implications for the OpenStack ecosystem.

It was impossible to reach consensus about these questions in regular board meetings so DefCore stepped back to base principles. We’ve been building up a process that helps us make decisions in a transparent way. That’s very important in an open source community because contributors and users want ground rules for engagement.

It seems like there has been a lot of discussion over the OpenStack listservs over what DefCore is and what it isn’t. What’s your definition?

First, DefCore applies only to commercial uses of the OpenStack name. There are different rules for the integrated code base and community activity. That’s the place of most confusion.

Basically, DefCore establishes the required minimum feature set for OpenStack products.

The longer version includes that it’s a board managed process that’s designed to be very transparent and objective. The long-term objective is to ensure that OpenStack clouds are interoperable in a measurable way and that we also encourage our vendor ecosystem to keep participating in upstream development and creation of tests.

A final important component of DefCore is that we are defending the OpenStack brand. While we want a vibrant ecosystem of vendors, we must first have a community that knows what OpenStack is and trusts that companies using our brand comply with a meaningful baseline.

Are there other open source projects out there using “designated sections” of code to define their product, or is this concept unique to OpenStack? What lessons do you think can be learned from other projects’ control (or lack thereof) of what must be included to retain the use of the project’s name?

I’m not aware of other projects using those exact words. We picked up ‘designated sections’ because the community felt that ‘plug-ins’ and ‘modules’ were too limited and generic. I think the term can be confusing, but it was the best we found.

If you consider designated sections to be plug-ins or modules, then there are other projects with similar concepts. Many successful open source projects (Eclipse, Linux, Samba) are functionally frameworks that have very robust extensibility. These projects encourage people to use their code base creatively and then give back some (not all) of their lessons learned in the form of code contributes. If the scope returning value to upstream is too broad then sharing back can become onerous and forking ensues.

All projects must work to find the right balance between collaborative areas (which have community overhead to join) and independent modules (which allow small teams to move quickly). From that perspective, I think the concept is very aligned with good engineering design principles.

The key goal is to help the technical and vendor communities know where it’s safe to offer alternatives and where they are expected to work in the upstream. In my opinion, designated sections foster innovation because they allow people to try new ideas and to target specialized use cases without having to fight about which parts get upstreamed.

What is it like to serve as a community elected OpenStack board member? Are there interests you hope to serve that are difference from the corporate board spots, or is that distinction even noticeable in practice?

It’s been like trying to row a dragon boat down class III rapids. There are a lot of people with oars in the water but we’re neither all rowing together nor able to fight the current. I do think the community members represent different interests than the sponsored seats but I also think the TC/board seats are different too. Each board member brings a distinct perspective based on their experience and interests. While those perspectives are shaped by their employment, I’m very happy to say that I do not see their corporate affiliation as a factor in their actions or decisions. I can think of specific cases where I’ve seen the opposite: board members have acted outside of their affiliation.

When you look back at how OpenStack has grown and developed over the past four years, what has been your biggest surprise?

Honestly, I’m surprised about how many wheels we’ve had to re-invent. I don’t know if it’s cultural or truly a need created by the size and scope of the project, but it seems like we’ve had to (re)create things that we could have leveraged.

What are you most excited about for the “K” release of OpenStack?

The addition of platform services like database as a Service, DNS as a Service, Firewall as a Service. I think these IaaS “adjacent” services are essential to completing the cloud infrastructure story.

Any final thoughts?

In DefCore, we’ve moved slowly and deliberately to ensure people have a chance to participate. We’ve also pushed some problems into the future so that we could resolve the central issues first. We need to community to speak up (either for or against) in order for us to accelerate: silence means we must pause for more input.