More Signal & Less Noise: my OpenStack Tokyo Restrospective

We’re building real business on OpenStack. This seems especially true in Asia where the focus is on using the core not expanding it. At the same time, we’ve entered the “big tent” era where non-core projects are proliferating.

Let’s explore what’s signal and what’s noise … but before we start, here are quick links to my summit videos:


OpenStack summits are really family reunions. While aunt and uncles (Vendors) are busying showing off, all the cousins (Projects) are getting re-acquainted. Like any family it’s fun, competitive, friendly and sometimes dysfunctional.

Signal: Global Users and Providers

There are real deployments of OpenStack and real companies building businesses around the code base. I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the number of people quietly making OpenStack work. Why quietly? It’s still more of a struggle than it should be.

Signal: Demand for Heterogeneous and Interop Environments

There’s no such thing as a mono-lithic cloud. Even within the community, Monty’s Shade API normalizer, is drawing attention. More broadly, everyone is using multiple cloud platforms and the trend accelerates due to container portability.

Signal: Container Workloads

Containers are dominating the cloud discussion for good reasons. They are pushing into OpenStack at the top (Platform), bottom (Deployment) and side (Scheduler). While OpenStack must respond architecturally, it’s not clear yet if it can pivot from virtualization focused to something broader fast enough (Mesos?).

Signal: Ansible

The lightweight DevOps tool seems to be winning the popularity contest. It may not be the answer to all problems, but it’s clearly part of helping solve a lot of them. Warning: Ansible complexity explodes on multi-tiered, scale and upgrade orchestration.

Signal: DefCore and Product Working Group (PWG)

Both efforts have crossed from a concept into decision-making bodies within the community. The work is far from over. DefCore needs users to demand compliance from vendors. Product WG needs developers to demand their management sign on to PWG roadmaps.

Noise: Distro vs Service Argument

There are a lot of ways to consume OpenStack. None of them are wrong but some are more aligned with individual vendor strategies than others. Saying one way to run OpenStack is more right is undermining our overall operability and usability objectives.

Noise: Contributor Metrics

We’ve created a very commit economy and summits are vendors favorite time to brag about their dedication to community via upstreaming. These metrics are incomplete at best and potentially destructive to the health of the project as vendors compete to win the commit race instead of the quality and ecosystem race.

Noise: Big Tent

We’ve officially entered the “big tent” era of OpenStack. This governance change was lead by the Technical Committee to address how we manage projects; however, there are broader user, operator, vendor and ecosystem implications. Unfortunately, even within the community, the platform implications of a loosely governed, highly inclusive community not completely understood.

Overall, I left Tokyo enthusiastic about OpenStack’s future as a platform and community; however, I also see that we have not structured how we mingle platform, community and ecosystem. This is especially true because OpenStack is just a part in the much broader cloud market and work outside OpenStack is continue to disrupt our plans. As a Board member, I’ll hoping to start a discussion about this and want to hear your opinions.

DefCore Update – slowly taming the Interop hydra.

Last month, the OpenStack board charged the DefCore committee to tighten the specification. That means adding more required capabilities to the guidelines and reducing the number of exceptions (“flags”).  Read the official report by Chris Hoge.

Cartography by Dave McAlister is licensed under a. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

It turns out interoperability is really, really hard in heterogenous environments because it’s not just about API – implementation choices change behavior.

I see this in both the cloud and physical layers. Since OpenStack is setup as a multi-vendor and multi-implementation (private/public) ecosystem, getting us back to a shared least common denominator is a monumental challenge. I also see a similar legacy in physical ops with OpenCrowbar where each environment is a snowflake and operators constantly reinvent the same tooling instead of sharing expertise.

Lack of commonality means the industry wastes significant effort recreating operational knowledge for marginal return. Increasing interop means reducing variations which, in turn, increases the stakes for vendors seeking differentiation.

We’ve been working on DefCore for years so that we could get to this point. Our first real Guideline, 2015.03, was an intentionally low bar with nearly half of the expected tests flagged as non-required. While the latest guidelines do not add new capabilities, they substantially reduce the number of exceptions granted. Further, we are in process of adding networking capabilities for the planned 2016.01 guideline (ready for community review at the Tokyo summit).

Even though these changes take a long time to become fully required for vendors, we can start testing interoperability of clouds using them immediately.

While, the DefCore guidelines via Foundation licensing policy does have teeth, vendors can take up to three years [1] to comply. That may sounds slow, but the real authority of the program comes from customer and vendor participation not enforcement [2].

For that reason, I’m proud that DefCore has become a truly diverse and broad initiative.

I’m further delighted by the leadership demonstrated by Egle Sigler, my co-chair, and Chris Hoge, the Foundation staff leading DefCore implementation.  Happily, their enthusiasm is also shared by many other people with long term DefCore investments including mid-cycle attendees Mark Volker (VMware), Catherine Deip (IBM) who is also a RefStack PTL, Shamail Tahir (EMC), Carol Barrett (Intel), Rocky Grober (Huawei), Van Lindberg (Rackspace), Mark Atwood (HP), Todd Moore (IBM), Vince Brunssen (IBM). We also had four DefCore related project PTLs join our mid-cycle: Kyle Mestery (Neutron), Nikhil Komawar (Glance),  John Dickinson (Swift), and Matthew Treinish (Tempest).

Thank you all for helping keep DefCore rolling and working together to tame the interoperability hydra!

[1] On the current schedule – changes will now take 1 year to become required – vendors have a three year tail! Three years? Since the last two Guideline are active, the fastest networking capabilities will be a required option is after 2016.01 is superseded in January 2017. Vendors who (re)license just before that can use the mark for 12 months (until January 2018!)

[2] How can we make this faster? Simple, consumers need to demand that their vendor pass the latest guidelines. DefCore provides Guidelines, but consumers checkbooks are the real power in the ecosystem.

@NextCast chat about DefCore, Metal Ops and OpenStack evolution

In Vancouver, I sat down with Scott Sanchez (EMC) and Jeff Dickey (Redapt) for a NextCast discussion.   We covered a lot of my favorite subjects including DefCore and Ready State bare metal operations.

One of the things I liked about this discussion was that we were able to pull together the seemly disparate threads that I’m work on around OpenStack.

OpenStack Vancouver six observations: partners, metal, tents, defore, brands & breakage

As always, OpenStack conferences/summits are packed with talks and discussions.  Any one of these six points could be a full post; however, I would rather post now and start discussions.  Let me know what you think!

1. Partnering Everywhere – it’s froth, not milk

Everyone is partnering with everyone! It’s a good way to appear to cover more around and appear more open. Right now, I believe these partnerships are for show and very shallow. There will be blood when money is flowing and both partners want the lion’s share.

2. Metal is Hot! attention on Ironic & MaaS

Metal is very hot topic. No surprise, but I do not think that either MaaS or Ironic have the right architecture to deal with the real complexity of automating metal in a generalized way. The consequence is that they are limited and hard to operate.

Container talks were also very hot and I believe are ultimately disruptive.  The very fact that all the container talks were overflowing is an indication of the challenges facing virtualization.

3. DefCore – Just in the Nick of Time

I think that the press and analysts were ready to proclaim that OpenStack was fragmenting and being unable to deliver the “one cloud, multiple vendors” vision. DefCore (presented as Interopability by Jonathan Bryce, DefCore shout out!) came in on the buzzer to buy us more time.

4. Big Tent Concerns – what is ecosystem & release?

Big Tent is shorthand for project governance changes that make it easier for new projects to become OpenStack projects and removes the concept of integrated releases.  The exact definition is still a work in progress.

The top concerns I have are:

  1. We cannot tell difference between community & ecosystem. We’re back to anointed projects because we’re now telling projects they have to join OpenStack to work with OpenStack.
  2. We’re changing the definition of the release but have not defined how it will change. I acknowledge that continuous release is ideal but we’re confusing people again.

5. Brands are battling – will they destroy the city?

OpenStack is hard for startups – read the full post here.  The short version is that big companies are taking up all the air.

While some are leading, others they are learning how to collaborate.  Those new to open source are slow to trust and uncertain about where to invest.  Unfortunately, we’ve created a visible contributions economy that does not reward doing the scut work so it’s no surprise that there are concerns that some of the bigger companies are free riding.

6. OpenStack is broken talks – could we reboot?  no.

It’s a sign of OpenStack’s age that Bias, Termie and others suggested we need clean slate.  Frankly, I think that OpenStack would be irrelevant by the time a rewrite was completed and it not helpful to suggest it.

What would I suggest?  I’d promote a strong core (doing!), ensure big companies collaborate on roadmap (doing!) and stop having a single node install as gate and dev reference (I’d happily help use OCB for this with partners)

PS: Apparently Neutron is not broken.

I’m very excited about the “just give me a network” work to make Neutron duplicate Nova-Net functionality.  Finally. Interview on DefCore, project management, and the future of OpenStack

Reposted from My Interview with RedHat’s Jason Baker

Rob Hirschfeld has been involved with OpenStack since before the project was even officially formed, and so he brings a rich perspective as to the project’s history, its organization, and where it may be headed next. Recently, he has focused primarily on the physical infrastructure automation space, working with an an enterprise version of OpenCrowbar, an “API-driven metal” project which started as an OpenStack installer and moved to a generic workload underlay.

Rob is speaking on two panels at the upcoming OpenStack Summit in Vancouver, including DefCore 2015 and the State of OpenStack Project Management. We caught up with Rob to get updates about these two topics and what else lies ahead for OpenStack.

We asked you to help walk us through DefCore as it was being developed last year; just as a reminder, what is DefCore and why should people care about it?

DefCore creates a minimal definition for OpenStack vendors to help ensure interoperability and stability for the user community. While DefCore definitions apply only to vendors asking to use the OpenStack trademark, there are technical impacts on the tests and APIs that we select as required. We’ve worked hard to make sure the that selection process for picking “core” is transparent and fair.

What did the changes approved by the OpenStack Foundation membership earlier this year mean for DefCore?

The by-laws changes approved by the community were important to allow us to use DefCore more granular definition of Core. The previous by-laws were much more project focused. The changes allow us to select specific APIs and code components from a project as required instead of picking everything blindly. That allows projects to have both stable and new innovative components.

What can we expect from OpenStack’s structure and organization as we move forward towards the next release?

There are a lot of changes still to come. The technical leadership is making it easier to become part of the OpenStack code base. I’ve written about this change having potentially both positive and negative impacts on OpenStack to make it appear more like a suite of projects than a tightly integrate product. In many ways, DefCore helps vendors define OpenStack as a product as the community is expanding to include more capabilities. In my discussions, this is a good balance.

Switching gears a bit, you’ve also been heavily involved in the OpenStack project management working group. How has that group been progressing since they convened at the Paris Summit?

This group has made a lot of progress. We’ve seen non-board leadership step in and lead the group. That leadership is more organic and based in the companies that are directly contributing. I think that’s resulted in a lot of good ideas and documentation from the group. We’ll see some excellent results in Vancouver from them. It’s going to come back to the community and technical leadership to leverage that work. I think that’s the real test: we have to share ownership of direction between multiple perspectives. The first step in doing that is writing it down (which is what they have been doing).

Aside from the organization, let’s talk about the software itself. What are you hoping to see from the Liberty release?

I’m hoping to see adoption of Neutron accelerate. Having two network approaches makes it impossible to really have an interoperability story. That means Neutron has to be working technically, but also for operators and users. To be brutally honest, it also has to overcome its own reputation. If Neutron does not become the dominate choice, we are going to effectively have two major flavors of OpenStack. From the DefCore, vendor, or user perspective, that’s a very challenging position.

Anything else you’d like to add?

We’ve accomplished a lot together. In some ways, chasing too many targets is our biggest threat. I think that container workloads and orchestration are already being very disruptive for OpenStack. I’m hoping that we focus on delivering a stable core infrastructure. That’s why I’ve been working so hard on DefCore. Looking forward, there’s an increasing risk of trying to chase too many targets and losing the core of what users want.

This article is part of the Speaker Interview Series for OpenStack Summit Vancouver, a five-day conference for developers, users, and administrators of OpenStack Cloud Software.

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) 
  2. April 21 8 pm Central (9 am Hong Kong) 

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 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