OpenStack DefCore Committee is looking for community feedback about the proposed DefCore Process.
March 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:
||“preliminary” draft (from current)
||ID new Capabilities
|Advisory items selected
Note: DefCore may accelerate the process to correct errors and omissions.
If you’ve been following my DefCore posts, then you already know that DefCore is an OpenStack Foundation Board managed process “that 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™.”
In this post, I’m going to be very specific about what we think “community resources and involvement” entails.
The draft process flow chart was provided to the Board at our OSCON meeting without additional review. It below boils down to a few key points:
- We are using the documents in the Gerrit review process to ensure that we work within the community processes.
- Going forward, we want to rely on the technical leadership 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.
- We are investing in data driven and community involved feedback (via Refstack) to engage the largest possible base for core decisions.
- There is a “safety valve” for vendors to deal with test scenarios that are difficult to recreate in the field.
- 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.
- The process is time sensitive. There’s a need for the Board to produce Core definition in a timely way after each release and then feed that into the next one. Ideally, the definitions will be approved at the Board meeting immediately following the release.
Process shows how the key components: designated sections and capabilities start from the previous release’s version and the DefCore committee manages the update process. Community input is a vital part of the cycle. This is especially true for identifying actual use of the capabilities through the Refstack data collection site.
- Blue is for Board activities
- Yellow is or user/vendor community activities
- Green is for technical community activities
- White is for process artifacts
This process is very much in draft form and any input or discussion is welcome! I expect DefCore to take up formal review of the process in October.