OpenStack DefCore Community Review – TWO Sessions April 21 (agenda)

During the DefCore process, we’ve had regular community check points to review and discuss the latest materials from the committee.  With the latest work on the official process and flurry of Guidelines, we’ve got a lot of concrete material to show.

To accommodate global participants, we’ll have TWO sessions (and record both):

  1. April 21 8 am Central (1 pm UTC) https://join.me/874-029-687 
  2. April 21 8 pm Central (9 am Hong Kong) https://join.me/903-179-768 

Eye on OpenStackConsult the call etherpad for call in details and other material.

Planned Agenda:

  • Background on DefCore – very short 10 minutes
    • short description
    • why board process- where community
  •  Interop AND Trademark – why it’s both – 5 minutes
  •  Vendors AND Community – balancing the needs – 5 minutes
  •  Mechanics
    • testing & capabilities – 5 minutes
    • self testing & certification – 5 minutes
    • platform & components & trademark – 5 minutes
  • Quick overview of the the Process (to help w/ reviewers) – 15 minutes
  • How to get involved (Gerrit) – 5 minute

OpenStack DefCore Process Draft Posted for Review [major milestone]

OpenStack DefCore Committee is looking for community feedback about the proposed DefCore Process.

Golden PathMarch has been a month for OpenStack DefCore milestones.  At the March Board meeting, we approved the first official DefCore Guideline (called DefCore 2015.03) and we are poised to commit the first DefCore Process draft.

Once this initial commit is approved by the DefCore Committee (expected at DefCore Scale.8 Meeting 3/25 @ 9 PT), we’ll be ready for broader input by the community using the standard OpenStack Gerrit review process.  If you are not comfortable with Gerrit, we’ll take your input anyway that you want to give it except via telepathy (we’ve already got a lot on our minds).

Note: We’re also looking for input on the 2015.next Guideline targeted for 2015.04,

The DefCore Process documents the rules (who, what, when and where) that will govern how we create the DefCore Guidelines.  By design, it has to be detailed and specific without adding complexity and confusion.  The why of DefCore is all that work we did on principles that shape the process.

This process reflects nearly a year of gestation starting from the June 2014 DefCore face-to-face.  Once of the notable recent refinements was to organize material into time phases and to be more specific about who is responsible for specific actions.

To make review easier, I’ve reposted the draft.  Comments are welcome here and on the patch (and here after it lands).

DRAFT: OpenStack DefCore Process 2015A (reposted from OpenStack/DefCore)

This document describes the DefCore process required by the OpenStack bylaws and approved by the OpenStack Technical Committee and Board.

Expected Time line:

Time Frame Milestone Activities Lead By
-3 months S-3 “preliminary” draft (from current) DefCore
-2 months S-2 ID new Capabilities Community
-1 month S-1 Score capabilities DefCore
Summit S “solid” draft Community
Advisory items selected DefCore
+1 month S+1 self-testing Vendors
+2 months S+2 Test Flagging DefCore
+3 months S+3 Approve Guidance Board

Note: DefCore may accelerate the process to correct errors and omissions.

Process Definition

Continue reading

DefCore Process 9 Point Graphic balances Community, Vendor, Goverance

I’ve been working on the OpenStack DefCore process for nearly 3 years and our number #1 challenge remains how to explain it simply.

10 days ago, the DefCore committee met face-to-face in Austin to work on documenting the process that we want to follow (see Guidelines).  As we codify DefCore, our top priority is getting community feedback and explaining the process without expecting everyone to read the actual nut-and-bytes of the process.

I think of it as writing the DefCore preamble: “We, the community, in order to form a more perfect cloud….”

defcore 9 pointsI don’t think we’ve reached that level of simplicity; however, we have managed to boil down our thinking into nine key points.  I’m a big Tufte fan and believe that visualizations are essential to understanding complex topics.  In my experience, it takes many many iterations with feedback to create excellent graphics.  This triangle is my first workable pass.

An earlier version of these points were presented to the OpenStack board in December 2014 and we’ve been able to refine these during the latest DefCore community discussions.

We’re interested in hearing your opinions.  Here are the current (2015-Feb-22) points:

  1. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
    1. MAPPING FEATURE AVAILABILITY: We are investing in gathering data driven and community involved feedback tools to engage the largest possible base for core decisions.   This mapping information will be available to the community.
    2. COMMUNITY CHOSEN CAPABILITIES :  Going forward, we want a community process to create, cluster and describe capabilities.  DefCore bootstrapped this process for Havana.  Further, Capabilities are defined by tests in Tempest so test coverage gaps (like Keystone v2) translate into Core gaps that the community will fill by writing tests.
    3. TESTS AS TRUTH: DefCore could expand in the future, but uses Tempest as the source of tests for now.  Gaps in Test will result in DefCore gaps.  We are hosting final documents in the Gerrit, using the OpenStack review process to ensure that we work within the community processes.
  2. VENDOR
    1. CLEAR RESULTS (PASS-FAIL): Vendors must pass all required core tests as defined by this process.  There are no partial results.  Passing additional tests is encouraged but not required.
    2. VENDORS SELF-TEST: Companies are responsible for running tests and submitting to the Foundation for validation against the DefCore criteria.  Approved vendor reports will be available for the community.
    3. APPEAL PROCESS / FLAGGED TESTS: There is a “safety valve” for vendors to deal with test scenarios that are currently difficult to recreate in the field.  We expect flags to be temporary.
  3. GOVERNANCE
    1. SCORING BASED ON TRANSPARENT PROCESS (DEFCORE): The 2015 by-laws change requires the Board and TC to agree to a process by which the Foundation can hold OpenStack Vendors accountable for their use of the trademarks.
    2. BOARD IS FINAL AUTHORITY: The Board is responsible for approving the final artifacts based on the recommendations.  By having a transparent process, community input is expected in advance of that approval.
    3. TIMELY GUIDANCE: The process is time sensitive.  There’s a need for the Board to produce DefCore guidance in a timely way after each release and then feed that result into the next cycle.  The guidance is expected to be drafted for review at each Summit and then approved at the Board meeting three months after the draft is posted.

OpenStack DefCore Accelerates & Simplifies with Clear and Timely Guidelines [Feedback?]

Last week, the OpenStack DefCore committee rolled up our collective sleeves and got to work in a serious way.  We had a in-person meeting with great turn out
with 5 board members, Foundation executives/staff and good community engagement.

defcore timelineTL;DR > We think DefCore deliverables should be dated milestone guidelines instead tightly coupled to release events (see graphic).

DefCore has a single goal expressed from two sides: 1) defining the “what is OpenStack” brand for Vendors and 2) driving interoperability between OpenStack installations.  From that perspective, it is not about releases, but about testable stable capabilities.  Over time, these changes should be incremental and, most importantly, trail behind new features that are added.

For those reasons, it was becoming confusing for DefCore to focus on an “Icehouse” definition when most of the capabilities listed are “Havana” ones.  We also created significant time pressure to get the “Kilo DefCore” out quickly after the release even though there were no “Kilo” specific additions covered.

In the face-to-face, we settled on a more incremental approach.  DefCore would regularly post a set of guidelines for approval by the Board.  These Guidelines would include the required, deprecated (leaving) and advisory (coming) capabilities required for Vendors to use the mark (see footnote*).  As part of defining capabilities, we would update which capabilities were included in each component and  which components were required for the OpenStack Platform.  They would also include the relevant designated sections.  These Guidelines would use the open draft and discussion process that we are in the process of outlining for approval in Vancouver.

Since DefCore Guidelines are simple time based lists of capabilities, the vendors and community can simply reference an approved Guideline using the date of approval (for example DefCore 2015.03) and know exactly what was included.  While each Guideline stands alone, it is easy to compare them for incremental changes.

We’ve been getting positive feedback about this change; however, we are still discussing it and appreciate your input and questions.  It is very important for us to make DefCore simple and easy.  For that, your confused looks and WTF? comments are very helpful.

* footnote: the Foundation manages the OpenStack brand and the process includes multiple facets.  The DefCore Guidelines are just one part of the brand process.

My OpenStack Vancouver Session Promotion Dilemma – please, vote outside your block

We need people to promote their OpenStack Sessions, but how much is too much?

Megaphone!Semi-annually, I choose to be part of the growing dog pile of OpenStack summit submissions.  Looking at the list, I see some truly amazing sessions by committed and smart community members.  There are also a fair share of vendor promotions.

The nature of the crowded OpenStack vendor community is that everyone needs to pick up their social media megaphones (and encourage some internal block voting) to promote their talks.   Consequently, please I need to ask you to consider voting for my list:

  1. DefCore 2015 
  2. The DefCore Show: “is it core or not” feud episode
  3. Mayflies: Improve Cloud Utilization by Forcing Rapid Server Death [Research Analysis] (xref)
  4. It’s all about the Base. If you want stability, start with the underlay [Crowbar] 
  5. State of OpenStack Product Management

Why am I so reluctant to promote these excellent talks?  Because I’m concerned about fanning the “PROMOTE MY TALKS” inferno.

For the community to function, we need for users and operators to be heard.  The challenge is that the twin Conference/Summit venue serves a lot of different audiences.

In my experience, that leads to a lot of contributor navel gazing and vendor-on-vendor celebrations.  That in turn drowns out voices from the critical, but non-block-enabled users and operators.

Yes, please vote those sessions of mine that interest you; however, please take time to vote more broadly too.  The system randomized which talks you see to help distribute voting too.

Thanks.

Voting time for OpenStack! Your help needed to push Bylaws & DefCore forward.

1/17 Update: We did it!  We reached quorum and approved all the changes!  Also, I am honored to have been re-elected to the Board.  Thank you for the support!

What does OpenStack mean to you?

Vote Now!To me, it’s more than infrastructure software: it’s a community of people and companies working together in revolutionary way.  To make that work, we need people who invest time to bring together diverse interests and perspectives.

I have worked hard to provide neutral and inclusive view points on the OpenStack board.  The critical initiatives I focused on [DefCore, Gold Membership, Product Managers] need focused leadership to progress.  I have proven my commitment to those efforts and would be honored to be re-elected [see my platforms for 2012, 2013 & 2014].

But more important than voting for me, is that we reach a 25% quorum!

Why?  Because there are critical changes to the OpenStack bylaws on the ballot.

What type of changes?  Basically, the changes allow OpenStack governance to keep up with the pace of our evolution.    These are pragmatic changes that have been thoroughly discussed in the community.  They enable OpenStack to:

  • set a smarter quorum – past elections only achieved half the required turn out to changes the bylaws
  • enable the DefCore process – current core is defined as simply using code in select projects.
  • improve governance of required committees
  • tweak release language to match current practice,

To hit 25%, we need everyone, not just the typical evangelists to encourage voting.  We need you to help spread the word and get others to do the same.

I’m counting on you, please help. 

10 pounds of OpenStack cloud in a 5 pound bag? Do we need a bigger bag?

Yesterday, I posted about cloud distruptors that are pushing the boundaries of cloud. The same forces pull at OpenStack where we are working to balance between including all aspects of running workloads and focusing on a stable foundation.

Note: I am seeking re-election to the 2015 OpenStack Board.  Voting starts 1/12.

For weeks, I’ve been reading and listening to people inside and outside the community.  There is considerable angst about the direction of OpenStack.  We need to be honest and positive about challenges without simply throwing stones in our hall of mirrors.

Closing 2014, OpenStack has gotten very big, very fast.  We’ve exploded scope, contributions and commercial participants.  Unfortunately, our process infrastructure (especially the governance by-laws) simply have not kept pace.  It’s not a matter of scaling processes we’ve got; many of the challenges created by growth require new approaches and thinking (Thierry’s post).

OpenStack BagIn 2015, we’re trying to put 10 pounds of OpenStack in a 5 pound bag.  That means we have to either a) shed 5 pounds or b) get a bigger bag.  In classic OpenStack style, we’re sort of doing both: identifying a foundational base while expanding to allow more subprojects.

To my ear, most users, operators and business people would like to see the focus being on the getting the integrated release scope solid.  So, in spirit of finding 5 pounds to shave, I’ve got five “shovel ready” items that should help:

  1. Prioritizing stability as our #1 feature.  Accomplishing this will require across the broad alignment of the vendor’s product managers to hold back on their individual priorities in favor of community.  We’ve started this effort but it’s going to take time to create the collaboration needed.
  2. Sending a clear signal about the required baseline for OpenStack.  That’s the purpose of DefCore and should be felt as we work on the Icehouse and Juno definitions.
  3. Alignment of the Board DefCore project with Technical Committee’s Levels/Big Tent initiative.  By design, these efforts interconnect.  We need to make sure the work is coordinated so that we send a clearly aligned message to the technical, operator, vendor and user communities.
  4. Accelerate changes from single node gate to something that’s either a) more services focused or b) multi-node.  OpenStack’s scale of community development  requires automation to validate the new contributions do not harm the existing code base (the gate).  The current single-node gate does not reflect the multi-node environments that users target with the code.  While it’s technically challenging to address this mismatch, it’s also essential so we ensure that we’re able to validate multi-node features.
  5. Continue to reduce drama in the open source processes.   OpenStack is infrastructure software that should enable an exciting and dynamic next generation of IT.  I hear people talk about CloudStack as “it’s not as exciting or active a community but their stuff just works.”  That’s what enterprises and operators want.  Drama is great for grabbing headings but not so great for building solid infrastructure.

What is the downside to OpenStack if we cannot accomplish these changes?  Forks.

I already see a clear pattern where vendors are creating their own distros (which are basically shallow forks) to preserve their own delivery cycle.  OpenStack’s success is tied to its utility for the customers of vendors who fund the contributors.  When the cost of being part of the community outweighs the value, those shallow forks may become true independent products.

In the case of potential forks, they allow vendors to create their own bag and pick how many pounds of cloud they want to carry.  It’s our job as a community in 2015 to make sure that we’ve reduced that temptation.

1/9/15 Note: Here’s the original analogy image used for this post