Armando has submitted the proposal on Gerrit [1]. Let's take the discussion there.
[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/312199/7 Fawad Khaliq On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Doug Wiegley <doug...@parksidesoftware.com> wrote: > Were we looking at the same etherpad? I think the ‘inclusion criteria’ > and ‘benefits of the proposal’ sections cover those two points. Are you > referring to something else? > > Thanks, > doug > > > On May 2, 2016, at 12:18 PM, Gal Sagie <gal.sa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Maybe it can help if instead of trying to define criteria to which > projects dont fit into > the stadium, try to define in your spec what IT IS, and for what purpose > its there. > > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:53 PM, Kyle Mestery <mest...@mestery.com> wrote: > >> 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://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://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://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org/?subject:unsubscribe> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > > > -- > Best Regards , > > The G. > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
