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


The DefCore Guideline process has two primary phases: Draft and Review. During the Draft phase (A), the DefCore Committee is working with community leaders to update and score the components of the guideline. During the Review phase (B), general community and vendors have an opportunity to provide input and check the guidelines (C) against actual implementations. Review phase ends with Board approval of the draft guideline (D).

This section provides specific rules and structure for each phase.

NOTE: To ensure continuity of discussion, process components defined below must _not_ reuse numbers in future revisions. The numbering pattern follows draft, section and sub-item numbering, e.g.: 20015A.B2.2. This requirement may create numbering gaps in future iterations that will help indicate changes.

Guidelines Draft Phase (A)

Starting: S-3

A1. New Guidelines Start From Previous Guidelines

  1. Receive DefCore Dedicated Section Guidelines
  2. New Guidelines start from the previous Board approved document.
  3. New Guidelines are given the preliminary name of the target year and .next.

A2. Community Groups Tests into Capabilities

  1. DefCore Committee coordinates community activities with the TC and PTLs to revise the capabilities based on current technical needs and functionality.
  2. Groupings may change between iterations.
  3. Tests must have unique identifiers that are durable across releases and grouping changes to be considered.
  4. Tests must be under OpenStack governance.

A3. PTLs Recommend Changes to Designated Sections

A4. DefCore Committee identifies required capabilities

  1. DefCore uses Board approved DefCore scoring criteria to evaluate capabilities.
  2. DefCore needs Board approval to change scoring criteria.
  3. Scoring criteria factor or weights cannot change after Draft is published.
  4. DefCore identifies cut-off score for determining that a capability is required.
  5. Capabilities will not be removed without being deprecated in the previous Guideline.
  6. Capabilities will not be added without being advisory in the previous Guideline.

A5. Foundation recommends OpenStack Components and OpenStack Platform Scope

  1. Foundation recommends capabilities to include in each OpenStack Component.
  2. Foundation recommends which Components are required for the OpenStack Platform.

A6. Additional Capabilities and Tests

  1. DefCore will work with the community to define new capabilities.
  2. Test grouping for new capabilities will be included in the DefCore documents.
  3. DefCore will publish a list of missing and gapped capabilities.

A7. DefCore Committee creates recommendation for Draft.

  1. DefCore Committee coordinates activities to create draft.
  2. DefCore Committee may choose to ignore recommendations with documented justification.

Guidelines Review Phase (B)

Starting: Summit

B1. All Reference Artifacts are reviewed via Gerrit

  1. Draft Guideline
  2. Designated sections
  3. Test-Capability groupings
  4. Flagged Test List
  5. Capability Scoring criteria and weights
  6. Not in Gerrit: Working materials (spreadsheets, etc)

B2. Presentation of Draft Guidelines

  1. DefCore will present Draft Guidelines to the Board for Review
  2. DefCore will distribute Draft Guidelines to the community
  3. Foundation provides Draft to vendors for review

B3. Changes to Guideline made by Gerrit Review Process

  1. Community discussion including vendors must go through Gerrit
  2. All changes to draft must go through Gerrit process

B4. For Gerrit reviews, DefCore CoChairs act as joint PTLs

  1. Board committee members of DefCore serve as “core” reviewers (+2).
  2. Requests for changes, must be submitted as patches by the requested party.
  3. DefCore Committee members cannot proxy for community change requests.

Community Review & Vendor Self-Test (C)

Starting: S and continues past S+3

C1. Vendor Self-Tests

  1. Vendors are responsible for executing these tests identified by the DefCore committee.
  2. The Foundation may, but is not required to, provide tooling for running tests.
  3. The Foundation may, but is not required to, define a required reporting format.
  4. Self-test results may be published by Vendors in advance of Foundation review, but must be clearly labeled as “Unofficial Results – Not Yet Accepted By The OpenStack Foundation”. Vendors who publish self-tests MUST provide them in the same format that would be submitted to the OpenStack Foundation but MAY provide additional formats if they choose to do so.
  5. Self-test results cannot be used as proof of compliance.

C2. Vendor submits results to Foundation for review

  1. The Foundation determines the acceptable format for submissions.
  2. The Foundation has final authority to determine if Vendor meets criteria.
  3. The Foundation must provide a review of the results within 30 days.

C3. Vendor Grievance Process

  1. Vendors may raise concerns with specific tests to the DefCore committee.
  2. The DefCore committee may choose to remove tests from a Guideline (known as flagging).
  3. The DefCore committee must respond to vendor requests to flag tests within 30 days.
  4. Vendors may not request flagging all tests in a capability.

C4. Results of Vendor Self-Tests will be open

  1. The Foundation will make the final results of approved vendors available to the community.
  2. The Foundation will not publish incomplete or unapproved results.
  3. Only “pass” results will be reported. Skipped and failed results will be omitted from the reports.
  4. Reports will include individual test results, not just capability scoring.

C5. API Usage Data Report

  1. The Foundation will provide DefCore committee with an open report about API usage based on self-tests.
  2. To the extent the data is available, capabilities beyond the DefCore list will be included in the report.

Guideline Approval (D)

Starting: S+3

D1. Board will review and approve DefCore Guideline from draft

  1. Guidelines are set at the Platform, Component and Capability level only.
  2. Text guideline document is authorative over the JSON representation.
  3. DefCore will provide JSON representation for automated scoring
  4. Guidelines only apply to the identified releases (a.k.a. release tags).

D2. DefCore Committee has authority on test categorization

  1. Can add flagged tests before and after Guideline approval.
  2. Cannot change Test to Capability mappings after approval.
  3. Maintains the test to capability mappings in the JSON representation.

D3. Designated sections only enforced for projects with required capabilities

  1. Designated sections may be defined for any project.
  2. Designated sections applies to the release (a.k.a. release tags) identified in the Guideline.

D4. Guidelines are named based on the date of Board approval

  1. Naming pattern will be 4 digital year dot and 2 digit month.

4 thoughts on “OpenStack DefCore Process Draft Posted for Review [major milestone]

  1. Pingback: OpenStack Community Weekly Newsletter (Mar 20 – 27) - GREENSTACK

  2. Pingback: OpenStack DefCore Community Review – TWO Sessions April 21 (agenda) | Rob Hirschfeld

  3. Pingback: OpenSource.com Interview on DefCore, project management, and the future of OpenStack | Rob Hirschfeld

  4. Pingback: My OpenStack 2016 Analysis: Continue Core, Stop Confusing Ecosystem, Change Hybrid Approach | Rob Hirschfeld

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s