On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Armando M. <arma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 30 April 2016 at 14:24, Fawad Khaliq <fa...@plumgrid.com> wrote: >> >> Hi folks, >> >> Hope everyone had a great summit in Austin and got back safe! :) >> >> At the design summit, we had a Neutron stadium evolution session, which >> needs your immediate attention as it will impact many stakeholders of >> Neutron. > > > It's my intention to follow up with a formal spec submission to > neutron-specs as soon as I recover from the trip. Then you'll have a more > transparent place to voice your concern. > >> >> >> To summarize for everyone, our Neutron leadership made the following >> proposal for the “greater-good” of Neutron to improve and reduce burden on >> the Neutron PTL and core team to avoid managing more Neutron drivers: > > > It's not just about burden. It's about consistency first and foremost. > >> >> >> Quoting the etherpad [1] >> >> "No request for inclusion are accepted for projects focussed solely on >> implementations and/or API extensions to non-open solutions." > > > By the way, this was brought forward and discussed way before the Summit. In > fact this is already implemented at the Neutron governance level [1]. > >> >> To summarize for everyone what this means is that all Neutron drivers, >> which implement non open source networking backends are instantly out of the >> Neutron stadium and are marked as "unofficial/unsupported/remotely >> affiliated" and rest are capable of being tagged as "supported/official”. > > > Totally false. > > All this means is that these projects do not show up in list [1] (minus [2], > which I forgot): ie. these projects are the projects the Neutron team > vouches for. Supportability is not a property tracked by this list. You, > amongst many, should know that it takes a lot more than being part of a list > to be considered a supported solution, and I am actually even surprised that > you are misled/misleading by bringing 'support' into this conversation. > > [1] http://governance.openstack.org/reference/projects/neutron.html > [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/309618/ > >> >> >> This eliminates all commercial Neutron drivers developed for many service >> providers and enterprises who have deployed OpenStack successfully with >> these drivers. It’s unclear how the OpenStack Foundation will communicate >> its stance with all the users but clearly this is a huge set back for >> OpenStack and Neutron. Neutron will essentially become closed to all >> existing, non-open drivers, even if these drivers have been compliant with >> Neutron API for years and users have them deployed in production, forcing >> users to re-evaluate their options. > > > Again, totally false. > > The Neutron team will continue to stand behind the APIs and integration > mechanisms in a way that made the journey of breaking down the codebase as > we know it today possible. Any discussion of evolving these has been done > and will be done in the open and with the support of all parties involved, > non-open solutions included. > >> >> >> Furthermore, this proposal will erode confidence in Neutron and OpenStack, >> and destroy much of the value that the community has worked so hard to build >> over the years. >> >> >> As a representative and member of the OpenStack community and maintainer >> of a Neutron driver (since Grizzly), I am deeply disappointed and disagree >> with this statement [2]. Tossing out all the non-open solutions is not in >> the best interest of the end user companies that have built working >> OpenStack clusters. This proposal will lead OpenStack end users who deployed >> different drivers to think twice about OpenStack communities’ commitment to >> deliver solutions they need. Furthermore, this proposal punishes OpenStack >> companies who developed commercial backend drivers to help end users bring >> up OpenStack clouds. > > > What? Now you're just spreading FUD. > > What is being discussed in that etherpad is totally in line with [1], which > you approved and stood behind, by the way! No-one is breaking anything, > we're simply better reflecting what initiatives the Neutron core team is > supposed to be accountable for and, as a result, empower the individual core > teams of those vendor drivers. I appreciate there might be a gap in where to > describe the effort of these initiatives in [2], but I believe there's > something like the marketplace [3] that's better suited for what you're > after. IMO, [2] was never intended to be that place, and I stand corrected > if not. > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/309618/ > [2] http://governance.openstack.org/ > [3] https://www.openstack.org/marketplace/drivers/ > To further support Armando here, I agree that the marketplace is the best place to host these drivers. In fact, Thierry and I briefly discussed this, and I think advocating for the Foundation to help put in place more of a specific drivers program and manage it makes a lot of sense, especially as most of the benefits both developers and users are looking for here are more around marketing and consistency.
Thanks, Kyle >> >> Also, we have to realize that this proposal divides the community rather >> than unifying it. If it proceeds, it seems all OpenStack projects should >> follow for consistency. For example, this should apply to Nova which means >> HyperV and vShphere can't be part of Nova, PLUMgrid can't be part of Kuryr, >> and ABC company cannot have a driver/plugin for a XYZ project. > > > Every project is different, comparing Nova to Neutron or Cinder etc is not a > like-for-like comparison. > >> >> >> Another thing to note is, for operators, the benefit is that the >> flexibility up until now has allowed them to embark on successful OpenStack >> deployments. For those operators, yanking out support they’ve come to depend >> on makes things worse. While certain team members may prefer only >> open-source technology, it’s better to let the end users make that decision >> in the free competition of the marketplace without introducing notion of >> official/supported vs unofficial/unsupported drivers purely based on >> open-source nature of the driver backend despite having complete compliance >> with the OpenStack ecosystem. > > > As as I said, this is not about support. Solutions will continue to work > (well or badly) as they used to, even if they are no longer part of that > list. > >> >> So if the Neutron PTL is over burdened, we should all help him somehow so >> he does not have to make decisions and solve problems in a way that >> OpenStack community breaks like this. >> >> I hope we see people offer ideas, time to help and discuss this and that >> our Neutron leadership understands the points I am raising and we can avoid >> going towards such a route to prevent Neutron, OpenStack, and its ecosystem >> from expanding so we continue to see "one" OpenStack community with one open >> API. > > > As I said earlier, it's my intention to follow up with a formal spec > submission to neutron-specs so that we can all better articulate thoughts, > and get to a more formal closure/consensus. > >> >> >> [1] >> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/newton-neutron-community-stadium-evolution >> [2] "No request for inclusion are accepted for projects focussed solely on >> implementations and/or API extensions to non-open solutions." >> >> Thanks, >> Fawad Khaliq >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
