October 2013 - Foundation - lists.openinfra.dev

Re: [OpenStack Foundation] OpenStack core and interoperability
by Monty Taylor 11 Nov '13

11 Nov '13

This is how it works now. You're required to run the code. Thing is, this is about legal contracts. So enforcement is hazy. Essentially, if hp signs a trademark usage thing that says we have to run it, our own lawyers won't let us do different. I think the first step is to say "OpenStack requires you run the code" ... Then as violations are brought to our attention, we look in to it. On a parallel tack, compatible is testable. I think it's also useful. An OpenStack could not be compatible based on config. You could be compatible with being an OpenStack. Mark McLoughlin <markmc(a)redhat.com> wrote: >On Thu, 2013-10-31 at 13:55 -0500, Mark Collier wrote: >> The OpenStack Mission is to: >> >> To produce the ubiquitous OpenSource Cloud Computing platform that >> will meet the needs of public and private clouds regardless of size, >> by being simple to implement and massively scalable. >> >> IMHO the operative (action) word is "produce." This is why I agree >> with Monty that it is critical that if we start somewhere, it should >> be with a program based on people running the code, who have a vested >> interest in the code's continual evolution and survival. If we take >> our eye of of that it could invite fragmentation and dilution of any >> meaning for "what is openstack". >> >> >> That said, it seems to me that technically speaking, we might only >> need 1 set of tests that could feed the two distinct programs being >> described ("openstack cloud" and "compatible"). So there might be to >> two (marketing/business/logo) *programs* with unique requirements >> other than testing, but with one test suite. >> >> >> Therefore, IMHO, the best place to start is with the development of >> the test itself while continuing to discuss the ways in which the >> results might be applied to two distinct (logo) *prorgrams*. Now I >> understand that you cant develop a test in the absence of requirements >> such as which projects to include, but we could probably come up with >> a sensible starting point and add additional coverage over time >> (increasing test coverage not necessarily implying that each must pass >> to qualify for a specific program). > >Ok, I'd be totally cool with all that ... if I had any idea how we were >going to go about creating "a program based on people running the code". >I see a near bottomless pit of issues we'd need to work through before >putting that into place and I don't want to block making >interoperability progress on these issues. > >Am I missing something? What's (roughly) your take on how such a program >would work? > >To be clear, I mean - assuming we know what code should be required to >run - how do we express those requirements precisely and certify that >providers are meeting them? > >Thanks, >Mark. > >

6 6

Re: [OpenStack Foundation] OpenStack core and interoperability
by Monty Taylor 31 Oct '13

31 Oct '13

I don't see compatible as being any easier for us to put in place than OpenStack. Both require us to make the same high level decision about which services need to be either run or implemented. The difference is in enforcement or assertion. I think we can do both. As OpenStack, I do not think we need to go out of our way to enable people to not collaborate. We can stop it, and I think it's everyone's right to choose NIH and to do whatever, but it's not my job to help them or give them kudos when they do. Ceph, BTW, I think is a great counter example. They existed first, but went and added integration. That's an example of a positive and helpful alternate impl... But honestly, it's such an exception I think we can all directly make the actual judgement call when we see it. Stefano Maffulli <stefano(a)openstack.org> wrote: >On 10/31/2013 07:52 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: >> I could see us having two trademark programs "OpenStack Cloud" - where >> you know that the provider is running a "faithful implementation" of >> OpenStack code - and "OpenStack Compatible Cloud" - where you just know >> the provider is compatible with the interfaces. > >Highlighting a risk with putting 'compatible cloud' first: I have the >feeling that the worst case scenario would be that this would accelerate >centrifugal push out of OpenStack code base and into 'improved' code >bases, but 'compatible at API level'. We may end up with having less >attractivity for the central pieces of OpenStack. > >Not necessarily bad per se, just something to be aware of and manage. > >/stef > >-- >Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org > >_______________________________________________ >Foundation mailing list >Foundation(a)lists.openstack.org >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation >

4 4

[OpenStack Foundation] OpenStack core and interoperability
by Thierry Carrez 31 Oct '13

31 Oct '13

Mark McLoughlin posted a very interesting view at: http://blogs.gnome.org/markmc/2013/10/30/openstack-core-and-interoperabilit… I agree with him. "Core" is not a goal, it's just a means to an end. A "market of interoperable OpenStack clouds" is the goal. By focusing on the means rather than the end goal, we face the risk of missing the target. If you focus on the end goal, you realize there is a choice between two approaches: the common denominator approach (aim for a small set to make sure most current "OpenStack clouds" will stay "OpenStack clouds"), and the prescriptive approach (define what would make a "complete" OpenStack cloud, and use the power of the trademark to encourage everyone to converge towards that). There is no way around that choice and we should have the courage to tackle it early rather than late. I like Rob's approach to the problem because it tries to be neutral and technical, however I'm concerned that it defers the hard (and political) choice between those approaches, concentrates on the mechanics and hopes that those will somehow tell us where the finish line is. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx)

9 14

Re: [OpenStack Foundation] OpenStack core and interoperability
by Monty Taylor 31 Oct '13

31 Oct '13

Yes, learning from the past. And yes open web. However, note that the numbers of players and scale of early stage business attention is quite different. Also, this is the second time you've suggested that you think OpenStack thinks it's too special and could learn more from its predecessors. I think that you're potentially missing the fact that OpenStack is largely descended from Ubuntu and MySQL in it's structure and approach and has taken many lessons to heart. But it's also important to forge the ground in front of us now, and not get blinded by the battles of 20 years ago, both good and bad. New times call for new choices sometimes. Apache created a new license back when, ignoring the existing ones. We're using it, learning. But, we're also forging ahead where it makes sense. So far, I think we're doing pretty well. Jim Jagielski <jimjag(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Monty Taylor <mordred(a)inaugust.com> wrote: > >If OpenStack all of a sudden became a > >set of interfaces, then the goal of an Open cloud would, I'm pretty >certain, become lost. > > >It really depends on the strength of the community around those "interfaces"... > > >I use the term interface, in this context at least, very loosely. Think of it more as the set or protocols and standards. In this meaning, having a default, FOSS implementation, managed by a neutral entity with a real strong community behind it is *crucial*. > > >Not to reference Apache httpd again, but the concerns and issues regarding an "Open Cloud" is not so much different than the "old" days of an "Open Web". During those times, there was *significant* incentive for externals to drive the web, to create their own "version" of the web. AOL tried it, and it was the availability of Apache, as well as the huge amount of community around Apache and its status as a reference implementation that allowed us back then to stop AOL's efforts in their tracks. You can find similar parallels in other areas as well. > > >Let's not think that OpenStack is sooooo unique that it has nothing that can be learned by others who came before. Isn't that what true Open Source is about? >

2 1

Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Openstack] Making the Hong Kong Summit as inclusive as possible
by Lauren Sell 22 Oct '13

22 Oct '13

Hi everyone, As a quick update, the community code of conduct has now been publicized on the Summit website, wrapped in more event-specific language recommended by this thread and the PyCon code of conduct. There is also a clear process for reporting and responding to any complaints. http://www.openstack.org/summit/openstack-summit-hong-kong-2013/the-opensta… We're planning to promote the code of conduct in an email blast to all registered attendees this week, make printed copies available at the registration desk on-site and provide a reminder on the back of each badge. We're also sending it directly to sponsors because there are special notes about booth and party conduct. Please let us know if you have any additional feedback or ideas. Thanks! Lauren On Oct 3, 2013, at 9:58 AM, Lauren Sell <lauren(a)openstack.org> wrote: > Hi Anne, David, > > Yes, the transparency committee update is on the board meeting agenda, but I think the code of conduct for our Summit is a different issue. > > The transparency committee had three main tasks: develop a written policy documenting our approach to transparency, investigate creating an independent ombudsman, and figuring out a way to move non-confidential Board communications to a public mailing list. I circulated the transparency policy on the Foundation mailing list (http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2013-July/001447.html) for comment, and we're hoping to review the policy in today's Board meeting. You can see the latest version here (https://docs.google.com/a/openstack.org/document/d/1sGBtza-mjRXcDzFBSS9aUrY…). > > Regarding the Summit code of conduct, I have an update since my last email about working on reporting/response procedures. We have a draft going here (https://etherpad.openstack.org/reporting-response-procedures) and had a good call with the Ada Initiative last week for input. We're also planning to engage with them to train our event staff before the Summit. I'd welcome any feedback on the procedures, as well as if there are any other policies we should be looking at (our procedures are based largely on PyCon, also influenced by Ada Initiative) or other organizations we should be engaging with along these lines. > > While we won't be able to change the official code of conduct before the Summit, we can wrap it with more specific behavior examples like David had suggested and publicize the reporting/response procedures on our website, in a pre-event email to attendees and on-site. If there are any issues in the meantime, the Foundation staff, including Jonathan, Stef, Tom and me, are always available and happy to get involved. > > As a reminder, I encourage anyone who is interested to dial into the board meeting. The meeting invites are always posted to the Foundation mailing list, and there's a link to register in the agenda: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/3Oct2013BoardMeeting > > Thanks, > Lauren > > On Oct 1, 2013, at 12:53 PM, David Mortman <launchpad(a)mortman.com> wrote: > >> Thanks Anne! >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Anne Gentle <anne(a)openstack.org> wrote: >> Hi David and list and everybody, >> >> The Board meets Oct 3, and Josh has an agenda item for the Transparency WorkGroup. https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/3Oct2013BoardMeeting >> >> Anne >> >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:25 PM, David Mortman <launchpad(a)mortman.com> wrote: >> So given that it's been nearly two weeks since anyone has responded is it time to rebrand it the Opacity Committee? >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 8:23 PM, David Mortman <launchpad(a)mortman.com> wrote: >> Joshua, >> >> I found this answer hilariously short and opaque especially given the context of it being part of the Transparency Committee. Can you go into more details about what has been discussed in the past as well as what might be proposed at the next board meeting. Speaking of which, when is the next board meeting anyways? >> >> thanks >> >> -David >> >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Joshua McKenty <joshua(a)pistoncloud.com> wrote: >> David - yes, the ombudsperson office is one of the goals of the Transparency Committee, and we've got an agenda item to dig into again at the next board meeting. >> >> -- >> >> Joshua McKenty >> Chief Technology Officer >> Piston Cloud Computing, Inc. >> +1 (650) 242-5683 >> +1 (650) 283-6846 >> http://www.pistoncloud.com >> >> "Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!" >> "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has." >> >> On Sep 15, 2013, at 5:18 PM, David Mortman <launchpad(a)mortman.com> wrote: >> >>> Joshua, >>> >>> I'll leave it up to the event staff to determine how they want to handle it in this on-site case. Certainly someone needs to be empowered or the exercise is pointless. For the community as a whole, does the Board of Directors have the authority to create an ombuds office? >>> >>> -DM >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Joshua McKenty <joshua(a)pistoncloud.com> wrote: >>> David, while I think having an onsite group able to field complaints and address incidents is critical, we need to make sure that such a group has the ability to address any complaints. So I'd suggest we pass this directly to the foundation staff, and make sure that the event coordination team is coached appropriately. Having community members act as ombudsperson is both complicated from a legal standpoint, and potentially inappropriate. >>> >>> Lauren, can you make sure the on-site events team is briefed on the proposed code-of-conduct, and is ready to respond to any complaints that might arise? >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Joshua McKenty >>> Chief Technology Officer >>> Piston Cloud Computing, Inc. >>> +1 (650) 242-5683 >>> +1 (650) 283-6846 >>> http://www.pistoncloud.com >>> >>> "Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!" >>> "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has." >>> >>> On Sep 15, 2013, at 3:59 AM, David Mortman <launchpad(a)mortman.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 4:26 PM, David Mortman <launchpad(a)mortman.com> wrote: >>>> Agreed. There should be at least a small group, especially for events, so that one person doesn't get hammered but also so there's a committee to make judgement calls etc. Love the idea of some training too. >>>> >>>> Given the closeness of the summit (only 2 months away), it's seems like a good idea to put together the initial group of folks who can be the onsite committee to help address any issues that hopefully won't arise. While I'll continue to participate in this effort, unfortunately, I won't be attending the summit myself so I can't help onsite. I will however like nominate both Anne Gentle and George Reese be initial members of the committee. Anyone else interested? A group of three is probably plenty. >>>> >>>> thanks >>>> -David >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack >>>> Post to : openstack(a)lists.openstack.org >>>> Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >

4 5

[OpenStack Foundation] Transparency Policy - Draft
by Lauren Sell 22 Oct '13

22 Oct '13

Hi everyone, The Board of Directors created a subcommittee at the February meeting to discuss transparency and communication processes. One deliverable of the subcommittee was to create an official Transparency Policy, outlining the steps the Board is taking to be transparent, and to provide clear explanation around the types of information that is confidential or embargoed. The subcommittee presented an outline for the Transparency Policy at the April board meeting, and then the Foundation's legal counsel DLA Piper created an initial draft. Please view the draft policy here, and comment in the Google doc or via the mailing list: https://docs.google.com/a/openstack.org/document/d/1sGBtza-mjRXcDzFBSS9aUrY… The main questions remaining for me are the mechanics of opening the Board mailing list and document store for confidential info (reference 2.1e in the draft), and Mark McLoughlin and Monty Taylor/CI team have been working on those pieces. Please comment by July 19, so we can incorporate feedback before the next board meeting scheduled August 6. Once finalized, the Transparency Policy will be published on the OpenStack Governance wiki. Thanks, Lauren

2 2

[OpenStack Foundation] October 17, 2013 Board Meeting Summary
by Jonathan Bryce 21 Oct '13

21 Oct '13

Hi everyone, Last Thursday, the Foundation Board of Directors held a special telephone meeting to discuss updates for the Individual Director elections. As a reminder, the Board created an Election Committee earlier this year. The Election Committee has been meeting to discuss potential changes to the voting method used in Individual Director elections and had narrowed possible options for new methods to Single Transferrable Vote (STV) and Condorcet. The Election Committee has an open mailing list (http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/elections-committee) and a wiki page (https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/ElectionsCommittee) which both contain most of the information from their discussions. Coming into the Board meeting, Monty Taylor had prepared a briefing on Condorcet and Simon Anderson had prepared material on STV. In the Board meeting on Thursday, Monty presented the Condorcet method and some of the specific details around how it works and how we could implement it. Simon then did the same for the STV method. The documents they prepared are available on the Election Committee wiki page. After the presentations the Board asked questions and held a discussion about the methods and the merits and weaknesses of each. Todd Moore laid out the timeline for continuing to educate and gather feedback from the Board and overall community on making a change to the voting method with this being an important item for the in-person November 4th Board meeting in Hong Kong. The timeline is also linked on the wiki page. One important upcoming date is October 29th when the Election Committee is planning to hold online feedback sessions to present the options and gather input from anyone who is interested in this topic. There will be two sessions held at different times to maximize timezone coverage. More details will follow. If you are interested in this topic, I would encourage you to join the mailing list mentioned above as well as making time to participate in the October 29th meetings. Jonathan

1 0

[OpenStack Foundation] Training session reminder: OpenStack Board Meeting October 17, 2013 - Requested Session
by messenger＠webex.com 16 Oct '13

16 Oct '13

Hello Foundation Mailing List, Alan Clark invites you to participate as an attendee in the OpenStack Board meeting: Topic: OpenStack Board Meeting October 17, 2013 - Requested Session Host: Alan Clark Date: Thursday, October 17, 2013 Time: 4:00 pm, Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco, GMT-07:00) Session number: 922 514 295 Session password: This session does not require a password. ------------------------------------------------------- To join the session ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://openstack.webex.com/openstack/k2/j.php?ED=243475827&UID=1713093867&… 2. Enter your name and email address (or registration ID). 3. Enter the session password: This session does not require a password. 4. Click "Join Now". 5. Follow the instructions that appear on your screen. To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link https://openstack.webex.com/openstack/k2/j.php?ED=243475827&UID=1713093867&… ------------------------------------------------------- To join the session by phone only ------------------------------------------------------- To receive a call back, provide your phone number when you join the training session, or call the number below and enter the access code. Call-in toll number (US/Canada):1-650-479-3207 Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada):1-855-244-8681 Having trouble dialing in? Try these backup numbers: Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada):1-855-244-8681 Call-in toll number (US/Canada):1-650-479-3207 Global call-in numbers: https://openstack.webex.com/openstack/globalcallin.php?serviceType=TC&ED=24… Show toll-free dialing restrictions: http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf Access code: 922 514 295 ------------------------------------------------------- For assistance ------------------------------------------------------- You can contact Alan Clark at: aclark(a)suse.com To add this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft Outlook), click this link: https://openstack.webex.com/openstack/k2/j.php?AT=down&ED=243475827&EF=MA&U… http://www.webex.com IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio and any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the session to be recorded. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to the recording, discuss your concerns with the meeting host prior to the start of the recording or do not join the session. Please note that any such recordings may be subject to discovery in the event of litigation.

1 0

[OpenStack Foundation] Help with Condorcet/Schulze Description related to Foundation Board Elections
by Monty Taylor 15 Oct '13

15 Oct '13

Hey all! Some of us working on making a good position paper on why we think the Concorcet is a better choice for voting. Other folks are working on a similar thing for STV. One of the big keys that we need is a clear and understandable description of how it works, such that our electorate can be expected to understand how their vote works, and also, since this is for a board of directors, a judge needs to be able to understand whether or not our vote was held in accordance to how we said it should be held if there was ever an issue. That's tricky, because the method is best described using math. However... the fine folks at Debian gave us a head start, which I've included. That's when I realized... We're an Open Source project - why am I working on this by myself? The text is here: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/condorcet-briefing So, anybody who wants to pitch in on fleshing out the case for Condorcet, please jump right on it. Thanks! Monty

1 0

[OpenStack Foundation] Board meeting update: OpenStack Board Meeting October 17, 2013 - Requested Session
by messenger＠webex.com 14 Oct '13

14 Oct '13

Hello Foundation Mailing List, Alan Clark updated the following board meeting session: Topic: OpenStack Board Meeting October 17, 2013 - Requested Session Host: Alan Clark Date: Thursday, October 17, 2013 Time: 4:00 pm, Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco, GMT-07:00) Session number: 922 514 295 Session password: This session does not require a password. Agenda: http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation ------------------------------------------------------- To join the meeting ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://openstack.webex.com/openstack/k2/j.php?ED=243475827&UID=1713093867&…. 2. Enter your name and email address (or registration ID). 3. Enter the session password: This session does not require a password. 4. Click "Join Now". 5. Follow the instructions that appear on your screen. To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link https://openstack.webex.com/openstack/k2/j.php?ED=243475827&UID=1713093867&… ------------------------------------------------------- To join the session by phone only ------------------------------------------------------- To receive a call back, provide your phone number when you join the training session, or call the number below and enter the access code. Call-in toll number (US/Canada):1-650-479-3207 Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada):1-855-244-8681 Having trouble dialing in? Try these backup numbers: Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada):1-855-244-8681 Call-in toll number (US/Canada):1-650-479-3207 Global call-in numbers: https://openstack.webex.com/openstack/globalcallin.php?serviceType=TC&ED=24… Show toll-free dialing restrictions: http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf Access code: 922 514 295 ------------------------------------------------------- For assistance ------------------------------------------------------- You can contact Alan Clark at: aclark(a)suse.com To update this session to your calendar program (for example Microsoft Outlook), click this link: https://openstack.webex.com/openstack/k2/j.php?AT=down&ED=243475827&EF=EMA&… http://www.webex.com

1 0