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:

 

 

Who’s in charge here anyway? We need to start uncovering OpenStack’s Hidden Influencers

After the summit (#afterstack), a few of us compared notes and found a common theme in an under served but critical part of the OpenStack community.  Sean Roberts (HIS POST), Allison Randal (her post), and I committed to expand our discussion to the broader community.

PortholesLack of Product Management¹ was a common theme at the Atlanta OpenStack summit.  That effectively adds fuel to the smoldering “lacking a benevolent dictator” commentary that lingers like smog at summits.  While I’ve come think this criticism has merit, I think that it’s a dramatic oversimplification of the leadership dynamic.  We have plenty of leaders in OpenStack but we don’t do enough to coordinate them because they are hidden.

One reason to reject “missing product management” as a description is that there are LOTS of PMs in OpenStack.  It’s simply that they all work for competing companies.  While we spend a lot of time coordinating developers from competing companies, we have minimal integration between their direct engineering managers or product managers.

We spend a lot of time getting engineering talking together, but we do not formally engage discussion between their product or line managers.  In fact, they likely encourage them to send their engineers instead of attending summits themselves; consequently, we may not even know those influencers!

When the managers are omitted then the commitments made by engineers to projects are empty promises.

At best, this results in a discrepancy between expected and actual velocity.  At worst, work may be waiting on deliveries that have been silently deprioritized by managers who do not directly participate or simply felt excluded the technical discussion.

We need to recognize that OpenStack work is largely corporate sponsored.  These managers directly control the engineers’ priorities so they have a huge influence on what features really get delivered.

To make matters worse (yes, they get worse), these influencers are often invisible.  Our tracking systems focus on code committers and completely miss the managers who direct those contributors.  Even if they had the needed leverage to set priorities, OpenStack technical and governance leaders may not know who contact to resolve conflicts.

We’ve each been working with these “hidden influencers” at our own companies and they aren’t a shadowy spy-v-spy lot, they’re just human beings.  They are every bit as enthusiastic about OpenStack as the developers, users and operators!  They are frequently the loudest voices saying “Could you please get us just one or two more headcount for the team, we want X and Y to be able to spend full-time on upstream contribution, but we’re stretched too thin to spare them at the moment”.

So it’s not intent but an omission in the OpenStack project to engage managers as a class of contributors. We have clear avenues for developers to participate, but pretty much entirely ignore the managers. We say that with a note of caution, because we don’t want to bring the managers in to “manage OpenStack”.

We should provide avenues for collaboration so that as they’re managing their team of devs at their company, they are also communicating with the managers of similar teams at other companies.

This is potentially beneficial for developers, managers and their companies: they can gain access to resources across company lines. Instead of being solely responsible for some initiative to work on a feature for OpenStack, they can share initiatives across teams at multiple companies. This does happen now, but the coordination for it is quite limited.

We don’t think OpenStack needs more management; instead, I think we need to connect the hidden influencers.   Transparency and dialog will resolve these concerns more directly than adding additional process or controls.

Continue reading

Just for fun, putting themes to OpenStack Conferences

I’ve been to every OpenStack summit and, in retrospect, each one has a different theme.  I see these as community themes beyond the releases train that cover how the OpenStack ecosystem has changed.

The themes are, of course, highly subjective and intented to spark reflection and discussion.

City Release Theme My Commentary
ATL Ice House Its my sandbox! The new marketplace is great and there are also a lot of vendors who want to differentiate their offering and are not sure where to play.
HK Havana Project land grab It felt like a PTL gold rush as lots of new projects where tossed into the ecosystem mix.  I’m wary of perceived “anointed” projects that define “the way” to do things.
PDX Grizzly Shiny new things We went from having a defined core set of projects to a much richer and varied platforms, environments and solutions.
SD Folsom Breaking up is hard to do Nova began to fragment (cinder & quantum neutron)
SF Essex New kids are here Move over Rackspace.  Lots of new operating systems, providers, consulting and hosting companies participating.  Stackalytics makes it into a real commit race.
BOS Diablo Race to be the first Everyone was trying to show that OpenStack could be used for real work.  Lots of startups launched.
SJC Cactus Oh, you like us! We need some process This is real so everyone was exporing OpenStack.  We clearly needed to figure out how to work together.  This is where we migrated to git.
SA Bexar We’re going to take over the world We handed out rose-colored classes that mostly turned out pretty accurate; however. many some top names from that time are not in the community now (Citrix, NASA, Accenture, and others).
ATX Austin We choose “none of the above” There was a building sense of potential energy while companies figured out that 1) there was a gap and 2) they wanted to fill it together.

OpenStack ATL Recap to the 11s: the danger of drama + 5 challenges & 5 successes

HallwayI’ve come to accept that the “Hallway Track” is my primary session at OpenStack events.  I want to thank the many people in the community who make that the best track.  It’s not only full of deep technical content; there are also healthy doses of intrigue, politics and “let’s fix that” in the halls.

I think honest reflection is critical to OpenStack growth (reflections from last year).  My role as a Board member must not translate into pom-pom waving robot cheerleader.

 

What I heard that’s working:

  1. Foundation event team did a great job on the logistics and many appreciate the user and operator focus.  There’s is no doubt that OpenStack is being deployed at scale and helping transform cloud infrastructure.  I think that’s a great message.
  2. DefCore criteria were approved by the Board.  The overall process and impact was talked about positively at the summit.  To accelerate, we need +1s and feedback because “crickets” means we need to go slower.  I’ll have to dedicate a future post to next steps and “designated sections.”
  3. Marketplace!  Great turn out by vendors of all types, but I’m not hearing about them making a lot of money from OpenStack (which is needed for them to survive).  I like the diversity of the marketplace: consulting, aaServices, installers, networking, more networking, new distros, and ecosystem tools.
  4. There’s some real growth in aaS services for openstack (database, load balancer, dns, etc).   This is the ecosystem that many want OpenStack to drive because it helps displace Amazon cloud.  I also heard concerns that to be sure they are pluggable so companies can complete on implementation.
  5. Lots of process changes to adapt to growing pains.  People felt that the community is adapting (yeah!) but were concerned having to re-invent tooling (meh).

There are also challenges that people brought to me:

  1. Our #1 danger is drama.  Users and operators want collaboration and friendly competition.  They are turned off by vendor conflict or strong-arming in the community (e.g.: the WSJ Red Hat article and fallout).  I’d encourage everyone to breathe more and react less.
  2. Lack of product management is risking a tragedy of the commons.  Helping companies work together and across projects is needed for our collaboration processes to work.  I’ll be exploring this with Sean Roberts in future posts.
  3. Making sure there’s profit being generated from shared code.  We need to remember that most of the development is corporate funded so we need to make sure that companies generate revenue.  The trend of everyone creating unique distros may indicate a problem.
  4. We need to be more operator friendly.  I know we’re trying but we create distance with operators when we insist on creating new tools instead of using the existing ecosystem.  That also slows down dealing with upgrades, resilient architecture and other operational concerns.
  5. Anointed projects concerns have expanded since Hong Kong.  There’s a perception that Heat (orchestration), Triple0 (provisioning), Solum (platform) are considered THE only way OpenStack solves those problems and other approaches are not welcome.  While that encourages collaboration, it also chills competition and discussion.
  6. There’s a lot of whispering about the status of challenged projects: neutron (works with proprietary backends but not open, may not stay integrated) and openstack boot-strap (state of TripleO/Ironic/Heat mix).  The issue here is NOT if they are challenged but finding ways to discuss concerns openly (see anointed projects concern).

I’d enjoy hearing more about success and deeper discussion around concerns.  I use community feedback to influence my work in the community and on the board.  If you think I’ve got it right or wrong then please let me know.

Hugs & Rants Welcome: OpenStack reaching out with “community IRC office hours”

2013-07-11_20-07-21_286This is a great move by the OpenStack community managers that I feel like is worth amplifying.  Copied from community email:

Hello folks

one of the requests in Atlanta was to setup carefully listening ears for developers and users alike so they can highlight roadblocks, vent frustration and hopefully also give kudos to people, suggest solutions, etc.

I and Tom have added two 1 hour slots to the OpenStack Meetings calendar

    •  Tuesdays at 0800 UTC on #openstack-community (hosted by Tom)
    • Fridays at 1800 UTC on #openstack-community (hosted by Stefano)

so if you have anything you’d like the Foundation to be aware of please hop on the channel and talk to us. If you don’t/can’t use IRC, send us an email and we’ll use something else: just talk to us.

Regards,

Stef

https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Community

How DefCore is going to change your world: three advisory cases

The first release of the DefCore Core Capabilities Matrix (DCCM) was revealed at the Atlanta summit.  At the Summit, Joshua and I had a session which examined what this means for the various members of the OpenStack community.   This rather lengthy post reviews the same advisory material.

DefCore sets base requirements by defining 1) capabilities, 2) code and 3) must-pass tests for all OpenStack products. This definition uses community resources and involvement to drive interoperability by creating the minimum standards for products labeled “OpenStack.”

As a refresher, there are three uses of the OpenStack mark:

  • Community: The non-commercial use of the word OpenStack by the OpenStack community to describe themselves and their activities. (like community tweets, meetups and blog posts)
  • Code: The non-commercial use of the word OpenStack to refer to components of the OpenStack framework integrated release (as in OpenStack Compute Project Nova)
  • Commerce: The commercial use of the word OpenStack to refer to products and services as governed by the OpenStack trademark policy. This is where DefCore is focused.

In the DefCore/Commerce use, properly licensed vendors have three basic obligations to meet:is_it_openstack_graphic

  1. Pass the required Refstack tests for the capabilities matrix in the version of OpenStack that they use. Vendors are expected (not required) to share their results.
  2. Run and include the “designated sections” of code for the OpenStack components that you include.
  3. Other basic obligations in their license agreement like being a currently paid up corporate sponsor or foundation member, etc.

If they meet these conditions, vendors can use the OpenStack mark in their product names and descriptions.

Enough preamble!  Let’s see the three Advisory Cases

MANDATORY DISCLAIMER: These conditions apply to fictional public, private and client use cases.  Any resemblence to actual companies is a function of the need to describe real use-cases.  These cases are advisory for illustration use only and are not to be considered definitive guidenance because DefCore is still evolving.

Public Cloud: Service Provider “BananaCloud”

A popular public cloud operator, BananaCloud has been offering OpenStack-based IaaS since the Diablo release. However, they don’t use the Keystone component. Since they also offer traditional colocation and managed services, they have an existing identity management system that they use. They made a similar choice for Horizon in favor of their own cloud portal.

banana

  1. They use Nova a custom scheduler and pass all the Nova tests. This is the simplest case since they use code and pass the tests.
  2. In the Havana DCCM, the Keystone capabilities are a must pass test; however, there are no designated sections of code for Keystone. So BananaCloud must implement a Keystone-compatible API on their IaaS environment (an effort they had underway already) that will pass Refstack, and they’re good to go.
  3. There are no must pass tests for Horizon so they have no requirements to include those features or code. They can still be OpenStack without Horizon.
  4. There are no must pass tests for Trove so they have no brand requirements to include those features or code so it’s not a brand issue; however, by using Trove and promoting its use, they increase the likelihood of its capabilities becoming must pass features.

BananaCloud also offers some advanced OpenStack capabilities, including Marconi and Trove. Since there are no must pass capabilities from these components in the Havana DCCM, it has no impact on their offering additional services. DefCore defines the minimum requirements and encourages vendors to share their full test results of additional capabilities because that is how OpenStack identifies new must pass candidates.

Note: The DefCore DCCM is advisory for the Havana release, so if BananaCloud is late getting their Keystone-compatibility work done there won’t be any commercial impact. But it will be a binding part of the trademark license agreement by the Juno release, which is only 6 months away.

Private Cloud: SpRocket Small-Business OpenStack Software

SpRocket is a new OpenStack software vendor, specializing in selling a Windows-powered version of OpenStack with tight integration to Sharepoint and AzurePack. In their feature set, they only need part of Nova and provide an alternative object storage to Swift that implements a version of the Swift API. They do use Heat as part of their implementation to set up applications back ended by Sharepoint and AzurePack.

  1. sprocketFor Nova, they already use the code and have already implemented all required capabilities except for the key-store. To comply with the DefCore requirement, they must enable the key-store capability.
  2. While their implementation of Swift passes the tests, We are still working to resolve the final disposition of Swift so there are several possible outcomes:
    1. If Swift is 0% designated then they are OK (that’s illustrated here)
    2. If Swift is 100% designated then they cannot claim to be OpenStack.
    3. If Swift is partially designated then they have to adapt their deploy to include the required code.
  3. Their use of Heat is encouraged since it is an integrated project; however, there are no required capabilities and does not influence their ability to use the mark.
  4. They use the trunk version of Windows HyperV drivers which are not designated and have no specific tests.

Ecosystem Client: “Mist” OpenStack-consuming Client Library

Mist is a client library for load+kt programmers working on applications using the OpenStack APIs. While it’s an open source project, there are many commercial applications that use the library for their applications. Unlike a “pure” OpenStack program, it also supports other Cloud APIs.

Since the Mist library does not ship or implement the OpenStack code base, the DefCore process does not apply to their effort; however, there are several important intersections with Mist and OpenStack and Core.

  • First, it is very important for the DefCore process that Mist map their use of the OpenStack APIs to the capabilities matrix. They are asked to help with this process because they are the best group to answer the “works with clients” criteria.
  • Second, if there are APIs used by Mist that are not currently tested then the OpenStack community should work with the Mist community to close those test gaps.
  • Third, if Mist relies on an API that is not must-pass they are encouraged to help identify those capabilities as core candidates in the community.

DefCore Capabilities Scorecard & Core Identification Matrix [REVIEW TIME!]

Attribution Note: This post was collaboratively edited by members of the DefCore committee and cross posted with DefCore co-chair Joshua McKenty of Piston Cloud.

DefCore sets base requirements by defining 1) capabilities, 2) code and 3) must-pass tests for all OpenStack products. This definition uses community resources and involvement to drive interoperability by creating minimum standards minimum standards for products labeled “OpenStack.”

The OpenStack Core definition process (aka DefCore) is moving steadily along and we’re looking for feedback from community as we move into the next phase.  Until now, we’ve been mostly working out principles, criteria and processes that we will use to answer “what is core” in OpenStack.  Now we are applying those processes and actually picking which capabilities will be used to identify Core.

TL;DR! We are now RUNNING WITH SCISSORS because we’ve reached the point there you can review early thoughts about what’s going to be considered Core (and what’s not).  We now have a tangible draft list for community review.

capabilities_selectionWhile you will want to jump directly to the review draft matrix (red means needs input), it is important to understand how we got here because that’s how DefCore will resolve the inevitable conflicts.  The very nature of defining core means that we have to say “not in” to a lot of capabilities.  Since community consensus seems to favor a “small core” in principle, that means many capabilities that people consider important are not included.

The Core Capabilities Matrix attempts to find the right balance between quantitative detail and too much information.  Each row represents an “OpenStack Capability” that is reflected by one or more individual tests.  We scored each capability equally on a 100 point scale using 12 different criteria.  These criteria were selected to respect different viewpoints and needs of the community ranging from popularity, technical longevity and quality of documentation.

While we’ve made the process more analytical, there’s still room for judgement.  Eventually, we expect to weight some criteria more heavily than others.  We will also be adjusting the score cut-off.  Our goal is not to create a perfect evaluation tool – it should inform the board and facilitate discussion.  In practice, we’ve found this approach to bring needed objectivity to the selection process.

So, where does this take us?  The first matrix is, by design, old news.  We focused on getting a score for Havana to give us a stable and known quantity; however, much of that effort will translate forward.  Using Havana as the base, we are hoping to score Ice House ninety days after the Juno summit and score Juno at K Summit in Paris.

These are ambitious goals and there are challenges ahead of us.  Since every journey starts with small steps, we’ve put ourselves on feet the path while keeping our eyes on the horizon.

Specifically, we know there are gaps in OpenStack test coverage.  Important capabilities do not have tests and will not be included.  Further, starting with a small core means that OpenStack will be enforcing an interoperability target that is relatively permissive and minimal.  Universally, the community has expressed that including short-term or incomplete items is undesirable.  It’s vital to remember that we are looking for evolutionary progress that accelerates our developer, user, operator and ecosystem communities.

How can you get involved?  We are looking for community feedback on the DefCore list on this 1st pass – we do not think we have the scores 100% right.  Of course, we’re happy to hear from you however you want to engage: in intentionally named the committed “defcore” to make it easier to cross-reference and search.

We will eventually use Refstack to collect voting/feedback on capabilities directly from OpenStack community members.

DefCore Core Capabilities Selection Criteria SIMPLIFIED -> how we are picking Core

I’ve posted about the early DefCore core capabilities selection process before and we’ve put them into application and discussed them with the community.  The feedback was simple: tl;dr.  You’ve got the right direction but make it simpler!

So we pulled the 12 criteria into four primary categories:

  1. Usage: the capability is widely used (Refstack will collect data)
  2. Direction: the capability advances OpenStack technically
  3. Community: the capability builds the OpenStack community experience
  4. System: the capability integrates with other parts of OpenStack

These categories summarize critical values that we want in OpenStack and so make sense to be the primary factors used when we select core capabilities.  While we strive to make the DefCore process objective and quantitive, we must recognize that these choices drive community behavior.

With this perspective, let’s review the selection criteria.  To make it easier to cross reference, we’ve given each criteria a shortened name:

Shows Proven Usage

  • Widely Deployed” Candidates are widely deployed capabilities.  We favor capabilities that are supported by multiple public cloud providers and private cloud products.
  • “Used by Tools” Candidates are widely used capabilities:Should be included if supported by common tools (RightScale, Scalr, CloudForms, …)
  • Used by Clients” Candidates are widely used capabilities: Should be included if part of common libraries (Fog, Apache jclouds, etc)
Aligns with Technical Direction
  • Future Direction” Should reflect future technical direction (from the project technical teams and the TC) and help manage deprecated capabilities.
  • “Stable” Test is required stable for >2 releases because we don’t want core capabilities that do not have dependable APIs.
  • “Complete” Where the code being tested has a designated area of alternate implementation (extension framework) as per the Core Principles, there should be parity in capability tested across extension implementations.  This also implies that the capability test is not configuration specific or locked to non-open technology.

Plays Well with Others

  • “Discoverable” Capability being tested is Service Discoverable (can be found in Keystone and via service introspection)
  • “Doc’d” Should be well documented, particularly the expected behavior.  This can be a very subjective measure and we expect to refine this definition over time.
  • “Core in Last Release”  A test that is a must-pass test should stay a must-pass test.  This make makes core capabilities sticky release per release.  Leaving Core is disruptive to the ecosystem

Takes a System View

  • Foundation” Test capabilities that are required by other must-pass tests and/or depended on by many other capabilities
  • “Atomic” Capabilities is unique and cannot be build out of other must-pass capabilities
  • “Proximity” (sometimes called a Test Cluster) selects for Capabilities that are related to Core Capabilities.  This helps ensure that related capabilities are managed together.

Note: The 13th “non-admin” criteria has been removed because Admin APIs cannot be used for interoperability and cannot be considered Core.

Anyone else find picking OpenStack summit sessions overwhelming?!

Choices!The scope and diversity of sessions for the upcoming OpenStack conference in Atlanta are simply overwhelming.   As a board member, that’s a positive sign of our success as a community; however, it’s also a challenge as we attempt to pick topics.  That’s why we turn to you, the OpenStack community, to help sift and select the content.

Even if you are not attending, we need your help in selection!  Content from the summits is archived and has a much larger outside of the two conference days.  You’re voice matters for the community.

While it’s a simple matter to ask you to vote for my DefCore presentation and some excellent ones from my peers at Dell, I’d also like share some of my thoughts about general trends I saw illustrated by the offerings:

  • Swift has a strong following as a solution outside of other products
  • Ceph seems to emerging as a critical component with Cinder
  • Neutron has breath but not depth in practice
  • HA and Upgrades remain challenges
  • We are starting to see specializations emerge (like NFV)
  • OpenStack case studies!  There are many – some of uncertain utility as references
  • Some community members and companies are super prolific in submitting sessions.  Perhaps these sessions are all great but on first pass it seems out of balance.
  • Vendor pitch or conference session?  You often get both in the same session.  We’re still not certain how to balance this.

The number and diversity of sessions is staggering – we need your help on voting.

We also need you to be part of the dialog about the conference and summits to make sure they are meeting the community needs.  My review of the sessions indicates that we are trying to serve many different audiences in a very limited time window.  I’m interested in hearing yours!  Review some sessions and let me know.

Spinning up OpenStack “DefCore” Committee by spotting elephants

ElephantsThis week, Joshua McKenty, me and a handful of interested individuals (board member Eileen Evans included) met to start organizing the DefCore* Committee.  This standing committee was established by an OpenStack Foundation resolution just before the Hong Kong Summit.  Joshua and I were nominated as co-chairs (and about half the board volunteered to be members).    This action was an immediate result of the unanimous passage of the 10 Principles that I was driving in the DefCore “Spider” cycle.

We heard overwhelmingly at the Hong Kong summit that defining core should be a major focus for the Board.

The good news is that we’re doing exactly that in CoreDef.  Our challenge is to go quickly but not get ahead of community consensus.  So far, that means eating the proverbial elephant in small bites and intentionally deferring topics where we cannot find consensus.

This meeting was primarily about Joshua and I figuring out how to drive DefCore quickly (go fast!) without exceeding the communities ability to review and discuss (build consensus!).  While we had future-post-worthy conceptual discussions, we had a substantial agenda of get-it-done in front of us too.

Here’s a summary of key outcomes from the meeting:

1)      We’ve established a tentative schedule for our first two meetings (12/3 and 12/17).

  1. We’ve started building agendas for these two meetings.
  2. We’ve also established rules for governance that include members to do homework!

2)      We’ve agreed it’s important to present a bylaws change to the committee for consideration by the board.

  1. This change is to address confusion around how core is defined and possibly move towards the bylaws defining a core process not a list of core projects.
  2. This is on an accelerated track because we’d like to include it with the Community Board Member elections.

3)      We’ve broken DefCore into clear “cycles” so we can be clearer about concrete objectives and what items are out of scope for a cycle.  We’re using names to designate cycles for clarity.

  1. The first cycle, “Spider,” was about finding the connections between core issues and defining a process to resolve the tension in those connections.
  2. This cycle, “Elephant,” is about breaking the Core definition into
  3. The next cycle(s) will be named when we get there.  For now, they are all “Future”
  4. We agreed there is a lot of benefit from being clear to community about items that we “kick down the road” for future cycles.  And, yes, we will proactively cut off discussion of these items out of respect for time.

4)      We reviewed the timeline proposed at the end of Spider and added it to the agenda.

  1. The timeline assumes a staged introduction starting with Havana and accelerating for each release.
  2. We are working the timeline backwards to ensure time for Board, TC and community input.

5)      We agreed that consensus is going to be a focus for keeping things moving

  1. This will likely drive to a smaller core definition
  2. We will actively defer issues that cannot reach consensus in the Elephant cycle.

6)      We identified some concepts that may help guide the process in this cycle

  1. We likely need to create categories beyond “core” to help bucket tests
  2. Committee discussion is needed but debate will be time limited

7)      We identified the need to start on test criteria immediately

  1. Board member John Zannos (in absentia) offered to help lead this effort
  2. In defining test criteria, we are likely to have lively discussions about “OpenStack’s values”

8)      We identified some out of scope topics that are important but too big to solve.

  1. We are calling these “elephants” (or the elephant in the room).
  2. The list of elephants needs to be agreed by DefCore and clearly communicated
  3. We expect that the Elephant cycle will make discussing these topics more fruitful

9)      We talked about RefStack code features

  1. Allowing users to upload/post test results from their clouds to enable white box test reporting
  2. Allowing users who have uploaded results to +/- vote on tests they think are important
  3. We established a requirement that posting results requires an OpenStack ID
  4. We established a requirement that only a single Corporate designate (provided by the Foundation) can make a result official for their company.
  5. Collecting opt-in data with test results using tags for things like alternate implementations use, host operating system(s), deployment method, size of cloud, and hypervisor.
  6. We discussed (but did not resolve) that it could be possible to have people run RefStack against public cloud end points and post their results
  7. We agreed that RefStack needs to be able to run locally or as a hosted site.

10)   We identified a lot of missing communication channels

  1. We created a DefCore wiki page to be a home for information.
  2. Joshua and I (and others?) will work with the Foundation staff to create “what is core” video to help the community understand the Principles and objectives for the Elephant cycle.
  3. We are in the process of setting up mail lists, IRC, blog tags, etc.

Yikes!  That’s a lot of progress priming the pump for our first DefCore meeting!

* We picked “DefCore” for the core definition committee name.  One overriding reason for the name is that it has very clean search results.  Since the word “core” is so widely used, we wanted to make sure that commentary on this topic is easy to track against the noisy term core.  We also liked 1) the reference to DefCon and 2) that the Urban Dictionary defines it as going deaf from standing too close to the speakers.