February 2014 - Foundation - lists.openinfra.dev

[OpenStack Foundation] Training session reminder: OpenStack Board Meeting March 4, 2014 (F2F meeting)
by messenger＠webex.com 25 Feb '14

25 Feb '14

Hello Foundation Mailing List, Alan Clark invites you to participate as an attendee in the OpenStack Board meeting: Topic: OpenStack Board Meeting March 4, 2014 (F2F meeting) Host: Alan Clark Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 Time: 9:00 am, Pacific Standard Time (San Francisco, GMT-08:00) Session number: 926 584 365 Session password: This session does not require a password. ------------------------------------------------------- To join the session ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://openstack.webex.com/openstack/k2/j.php?MTID=t7f162cbf8667e42cc4c43f… 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?MTID=tb74dc31225bf9c2c3a45c1… ------------------------------------------------------- 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=27… Show toll-free dialing restrictions: http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf Access code: 926 584 365 ------------------------------------------------------- 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?MTID=t8c379f2c453e2fe18a8691… 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] Invitation to OpenStack Board Meeting March 4, 2014 (F2F meeting)
by messenger＠webex.com 19 Feb '14

19 Feb '14

Hello Foundation Mailing List, The OpenStack Board invites you to participate as an attendee in the following OpenStack board meeting. We will be using WebEx to facilitate the meeting and audio conferencing. Please join the WebEx session then follow the instructions to either join the telephone conference service or to join via VOIP. Topic: OpenStack Board Meeting March 4, 2014 (F2F meeting) Host: Alan Clark Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 Time: 9:00 am, Pacific Standard Time (San Francisco, GMT-08:00) Session number: 926 584 365 Session password: This session does not require a password. Agenda: http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Foundation ------------------------------------------------------- To join the session ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://openstack.webex.com/openstack/k2/j.php?MTID=t7f162cbf8667e42cc4c43f… 2. Enter your name and email address. 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 add this session to your calendar program (for example Microsoft Outlook), click this link: https://openstack.webex.com/openstack/k2/j.php?MTID=t8c379f2c453e2fe18a8691… To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link https://openstack.webex.com/openstack/k2/j.php?MTID=tb74dc31225bf9c2c3a45c1… ------------------------------------------------------- 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=27… Show toll-free dialing restrictions: http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf Access code: 926 584 365 ------------------------------------------------------- For assistance ------------------------------------------------------- You can contact Alan Clark at: aclark(a)suse.com 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] The two types of interoperability
by Thierry Carrez 10 Feb '14

10 Feb '14

Hi everyone, As you all know, the DefCore effort is working on redefining "core" (and associated permitted usage of the OpenStack trademark), with the end goal of fostering interoperability. Interoperability is good, and everyone agrees we need it. However, "interoperability" is a single word describing two very different outcomes, and using that word until now prevented having a necessary discussion on what type of interoperability we are actually after. There are two types of interoperability. I call the first one "loose interoperability". The idea is to minimize the set of constraints, and maximize the ecosystem able to call themselves "openstack" (or "interoperable"). I call the second one "total interoperability". The idea is to maximize the set of constraints, and have less deployments be able to call themselves "openstack" (but have that lucky few share more common traits). Loose interoperability enables differentiation and is business-friendly (larger ecosystem). Total interoperability enables federation and is end-user-friendly (easier to move workloads from one openstack to another, as they share more). We can continue defining the process, but now we need to choose between those two types of interoperability, as it affects the implementation details (how we designate "must-use" parts of the code and determine "must-pass" tests). I think it's more than time we look beyond the process and decide what is our end goal here. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx)

11 15

Re: [OpenStack Foundation] The two types of interoperability
by Rob_Hirschfeld＠Dell.com 10 Feb '14

10 Feb '14

This thread has been very interesting to read and I find merit in ALL of the viewpoints. Most of them are already part of the discussion record and have been factored into the DefCore plans (including the multiple uses of "core" and "brand"). The whole point of "spider" was that there are multiple correct yet divergent viewpoints around OpenStack. Alan and I called these "tensions" and felt they were healthy in keeping us balanced. I am also very impatient to move faster; however, experience has shown that we build consensus when we resolve concrete issues and chip away problems like "core", "interop" and "brand." In this cycle, we're making progress on defining core capabilities that should help move towards both interop and brand usage. Some of the issues in this thread are addressed specifically in how we are defining the criteria used to select-must pass tests (criteria list<http://robhirschfeld.com/2014/01/07/defcore-critieria/>). We could use help on this and support helping explain the approach. Note: There is also conflict on commercial vs. project brand use that we're running into and will need further clarification. I'd been hoping this could hold off until after the must-pass test cycle. Rob Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 10:27:19 +0100 From: Thierry Carrez <thierry(a)openstack.org> To: Randy Bias <randyb(a)cloudscaling.com> Cc: "foundation(a)lists.openstack.org" <foundation(a)lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] The two types of interoperability Message-ID: <52F4A6F7.3010205(a)openstack.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Randy Bias wrote: > [...] > I see it as a simple issue: we either stifle choice OR we facilitate > choice and compromise on interoperability. > [...] Yes, that's another way to frame the question. My point in the original email is that I know there are, in OpenStack, strong proponents of both end goals. We shouldn't delay anymore that necessary discussion on what should be our common long-term goal. That said, I like Nicolas's point about the various types of trademark usage (project names, distributions, deployments) and that slightly different rules could be used for each of those. I also agree with Boris that trademark usage is not the only weapon we could use to encourage portability of workloads. And I like your point that even in the case of "total interoperability", specific deployment choices will affect portability, so unless you build architectural clones (which I think nobody actually wants), interoperability will never be perfect. To come back to your point, IMHO there is value in maximizing the *feature set* that is common between deployments, even if deployment architectures differ. You might need to adjust your workload to go from a flat to a multi_host deployment, or have your app support both cases. But if you rely on Heat API on the first one and the other one doesn't propose Heat at all, you just have to rewrite your workload completely. Cheers, -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Foundation mailing list Foundation(a)lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation End of Foundation Digest, Vol 27, Issue 7 *****************************************

1 0

[OpenStack Foundation] Jan 30 Board Meeting
by Mark McLoughlin 07 Feb '14

07 Feb '14

Hey Here's my informal summary of our recent board meeting: http://blogs.gnome.org/markmc/2014/02/07/jan-30-openstack-foundation-board-… Thanks, Mark.

1 0

Re: [OpenStack Foundation] The two types of interoperability
by Thierry Carrez 06 Feb '14

06 Feb '14

Mark Collier wrote: > To get close to total interop (which I think is the goal, or ideal at least) you have to start where you are (bootstrap). > > If we were to, at this moment, define OpenStack as something no current cloud would qualify for, that wouldn't be very practical. I think we can bootstrap while encouraging the trend to move towards the ideal over time. As far as we clearly establish that "total interoperability" is the end goal, then I think it's OK to start with some compromises to bootstrap the effort, then gradually (but constantly) increase constraints. That said, that only works if there is a bit of consensus in OpenStack companies that this is the end goal, otherwise you won't be able to increase the constraints. Does everyone agree on the end goal ? In all cases, there is a lot of value in having the board clearly stating it. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx)

4 3

Re: [OpenStack Foundation] The two types of interoperability
by Mark Collier 05 Feb '14

05 Feb '14

+1 markmc To get close to total interop (which I think is the goal, or ideal at least) you have to start where you are (bootstrap). If we were to, at this moment, define OpenStack as something no current cloud would qualify for, that wouldn't be very practical. I think we can bootstrap while encouraging the trend to move towards the ideal over time. I also think just having the information (the good, the bad, and the ugly) about what current clouds (and distributions used to build them) support will improve market efficiency. Regardless of where any lines might be drawn about what the results mean. Users/customers can and will draw their own conclusions. On Feb 5, 2014 6:14 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc(a)redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 13:04 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > > To put the question another way - which helps users more? The ability to > > > write interoperable code which uses a large number of OpenStack APIs, > > > but which is only actually interoperable between a small number of > > > OpenStack clouds? Or interoperability whereby you have a smaller set of > > > interoperable APIs, but code that uses only those APIs would be > > > interoperable with a much larger number of OpenStack clouds? > > > > I like your way of framing the question. > > > > Personally I think going for loose interoperability is short-sighted. > > Yes you'll have a lot of providers but you'll forever have a bad > > experience moving workloads around. > > > > With total interoperability, you may have less providers at start, but > > at least they provide a great experience moving workloads around. And as > > more join them, it only gets better. Total interoperability is basically > > the only way to potentially reach one day the nirvana of "lots of > > providers + great end user experience". > > > > The trick is to bootstrap it. If you have 0 or 1 "true openstack" cloud > > available at first, it's hard to get any benefit from that hypothetical > > federation. Total interop requires a bit of a leap of faith. > > Right, it's about bootstrapping - I'm all for total interoperability, > but feel it will need to be "looser than total" in order to bootstrap > it. > > > So yet another way to frame that discussion (at board level) is: are you > > more interested in convergence and federation (and beating Amazon all > > together), or are you more interested in competing (and be a set of > > individual loosely-coupled small competitors to Amazon). > > I'd hope there would be consensus around convergence and, if so, I'd > like to see a discussion about bootstrapping tactics. > > Mark. > > > _______________________________________________ > Foundation mailing list > Foundation(a)lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

1 0