It\u00a0is an exciting time to be part of the OpenStack community. \u00a0It was a\u00a0great conference with lots of momentum around OpenStack. \u00a0The speed and\u00a0growth of the community is\u00a0amazing.<\/p>\n
Tuesday\u00a0morning during the Summit, we continued the tradition of Breakfast With\u00a0The Board (BwtB). \u00a0We wish to thank all who participated. \u00a0As board\u00a0members we very much\u00a0appreciated your\u00a0comments of support, feedback and ideas. \u00a0We heard many positive and\u00a0encouraging comments \u00a0and participated in many lively discussions.<\/p>\n
Through this writeup we would like to share what we heard. \u00a0 There\u00a0was a wide variety of topics discussed, including:<\/p>\n
Summit Design Session Growing Pains<\/strong> Many\u00a0ideas were voiced at the BwtB as to how to address the issue, including\u00a0room moderators, attendee prioritization, seating arrangements and\u00a0session segregation.<\/p>\n \u201cScotty we need more power er WIFI\u201d<\/strong> Who the heck is…<\/strong> Traveling to the Fall Summit<\/strong> Driving Priorities<\/strong> At\u00a0the BwtB, several of the discussions converged on the notion of\u00a0contribution. \u00a0Contribution either in the form of code, leadership or\u00a0voice. \u00a0One company simply cannot\u00a0pretend to make choices for resources\u00a0in another company. At most you can find other resources from a \u00a0company\u00a0which share a problem you are helping describe and\u00a0therefore solve.<\/p>\n A\u00a0familiar saying in the open source world is \u201cscratch the itch\u201d. \u00a0It is\u00a0this saying which has driven open source developers for years. \u00a0If you\u00a0find a need that nothing out there\u00a0can meet, write a solution yourself\u00a0or better yet voice the need to help find those who share in the need\u00a0and write a solution together contributing in ways that leverage your\u00a0experience and expertise or providing support to those who can\u00a0contribute for you.<\/p>\n Big Vision<\/strong> Align the Doc<\/strong> What comprises OpenStack?<\/strong> Interoperability<\/strong> Marketing OpenStack<\/strong> Others\u00a0pondered why FUD is generated by open source competition with a \u00a0lack\u00a0of sense of those for who their competition really should be\u00a0(proprietary software).<\/p>\n And\u00a0others voiced concern over perceptions around OpenStack. \u00a0These\u00a0perceptions include, complexity, talent shortages, security gaps and\u00a0that it takes too many people to\u00a0run OpenStack. \u00a0Such perceptions create\u00a0a barrier to adoption.<\/p>\n Transparency<\/strong> Attendees\u00a0also voiced the importance for direct participation within project\u00a0processes. \u00a0It is important that the TC and board to listen to what the\u00a0project have to say.<\/p>\n Elections<\/strong> Conclusion<\/strong> Regards,<\/p>\n OpenStack Board of Directors<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" It\u00a0is an exciting time to be part of the OpenStack community. \u00a0It was a\u00a0great conference with lots of momentum around OpenStack. \u00a0The speed and\u00a0growth of the community is\u00a0amazing. Tuesday\u00a0morning during the Summit, we continued the tradition of Breakfast With\u00a0The Board (BwtB). \u00a0We wish to thank all who participated. \u00a0As board\u00a0members we very much\u00a0appreciated your\u00a0comments of… Read more »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":54,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[3,21,9,28,435,450,1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.openstack.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4186"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.openstack.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.openstack.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.openstack.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/54"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.openstack.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4186"}],"version-history":[{"count":17,"href":"https:\/\/www.openstack.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4186\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4201,"href":"https:\/\/www.openstack.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4186\/revisions\/4201"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.openstack.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4186"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.openstack.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4186"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.openstack.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4186"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nDespite\u00a0a variety of changes tested and introduced over the past Summits,\u00a0accommodating all who wish to participate in the Summit design sessions\u00a0continue to exhibit\u00a0growing pains. \u00a0The design sessions are \u201cintended to\u00a0be small, focused developer working sessions where the roadmap is set\u00a0by active contributors on the project.\u201d \u00a0With\u00a0such a description it is\u00a0easy to see why so many business persons, users, and developers want to\u00a0participate or listen in. Yet the fear is that a varied large audience\u00a0will\u00a0decrease session output.<\/p>\n
\nWhile\u00a0the conference survey will prioritize on \u00a0what items will be most\u00a0relevant to improve for the next Summit, one of the vocal suggestion at\u00a0the BwtB was the never ending\u00a0need for more WIFI. \u00a0We techies live on\u00a0WIFI.<\/p>\n
\nLeading\u00a0the list for reasons to attend the Summit is to simply meet people we\u00a0work with on IRC and other community channels. \u00a0A simple suggestion was\u00a0made that we add\u00a0IRC nicks\u00a0in a nice big font\u00a0to the\u00a0front and back of the\u00a0conference badges.\u00a050% of the time you see the back of someone’s badge and don’t know who they are.<\/p>\n
\nFor those traveling to the fall Summit from the\u00a0North\u00a0America,\u00a0concerns over prohibitive travel costs was raised. \u00a0Determining a\u00a0Summit location is made up of many different\u00a0factors. \u00a0Cost of travel\u00a0being one. \u00a0 \u00a0A Summit location effects attendance, whether it be in\u00a0Portland or Hong Kong. \u00a0Balancing that cost can be tricky. \u00a0 The\u00a0planning committee\u00a0investigations concluded that attendees will find\u00a0that\u00a0the travel rates will not be the feared prohibitive if they do some research and book early.<\/p>\n
\nSeveral\u00a0discussions evolved around the idea of how customer priorities are\u00a0injected into each projects focus and features. Typically in a corporate\u00a0development model such\u00a0interests are captured and formulated into the\u00a0development model through Product Owners (PO) or Product Managers (PM).\u00a0\u00a0How does this map to the OpenStack model?\u00a0\u00a0Which is easily generalized\u00a0to how does this map to the open source world?<\/p>\n
\nAlso\u00a0discussed at the BwtB was the notion of having the TC play more of a\u00a0role across the various projects, for things like security and API\u00a0versioning, aligning and setting\u00a0direction across the groups. Citing the\u00a0need for the TC (or someone at least) to give more cross project\u00a0consideration for:
\nAPI compatibility and consistency
\narchitectural consistency
\nsecurity
\nInput from Users to guide our path<\/p>\n
\nOpinions\u00a0voiced concerns that the documentation lags the implementations. \u00a0So\u00a0how do we \u00a0make the OpenStack documentation more up-to-date and improve\u00a0quality and\u00a0timelines? \u00a0That was the question raised by attendees at the\u00a0BwtB. \u00a0Offered suggestions included a requirement for documentation\u00a0changes to be checked in concurrent with\u00a0the code, rather than just\u00a0setting a flag that the doc’s might be effected.<\/p>\n
\nA\u00a0couple of tables discussed the current progress around the current\u00a0Core\/Integrated\/Incubated framework with input on moving forward; people\u00a0seem to prefer the\u00a0kernel\/drivers analogy. There is confusion regarding\u00a0the new approach to core-integrated-incubation, \u00a0what the differences\u00a0are, who gets seats on the TC, etc. \u00a0Early and\u00a0continued discussions at\u00a0Technical Committee and Board on this are important for next phases of\u00a0the effort. It is important \u00a0to ensure that the TC and Board sign off on\u00a0all steps\u00a0with formal statements by the foundation when we arrive at\u00a0any and all conclusions.<\/p>\n
\nThere\u00a0is a lot of interop interest. Folks at the BwtB seemed to be mostly\u00a0happy with the refstack approach. They voiced opinions about whether\u00a0API-based interop or same-codebase interop is appropriate in various\u00a0projects and for having verification teams for plug-ins.<\/p>\n
\nWhere\u00a0does OpenStack as the data center operating system model go? \u00a0How to\u00a0support that? \u00a0Marketing discussions ranged across several of the\u00a0tables. \u00a0Including a\u00a0conversation at one of the tables \u00a0on how to best\u00a0explain OpenStack to CIO\/IT Directors. Participants in the discussion\u00a0felt that the video overviews available on the OpenStack\u00a0website as well\u00a0as the user stories presented at the Summit Keynotes were of great\u00a0help.<\/p>\n
\nThe Board at its February meeting, launch a committee\u00a0to\u00a0improve transparency and foster collaboration between the foundation\u00a0members and members of the board,\u00a0technical committee, user committee\u00a0and other committees. \u00a0Members of the committee took the opportunity to\u00a0discuss, at their tables, the committee ideas and efforts.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone is\u00a0all for transparency and seeking a balance between transparency and\u00a0compromising the strategic position of the project was accepted as an\u00a0important\u00a0consideration. The ombudsman and staggered release were seen\u00a0as valid solutions.<\/p>\n
\nThe\u00a0Board at its February meeting also launched an effort to improve the\u00a0Individual member election process. \u00a0The board members engaged in this\u00a0effort took the opportunity\u00a0to gather feedback at the BwtB on the ideas\u00a0and efforts underway. \u00a0Many were pleased that a schedule for\u00a0implementation of changes is being set and were pleased with the\u00a0efforts\u00a0so far.<\/p>\n
\nAs\u00a0you can see there was a wide range of topics raised and discussed. \u00a0Each of which could be worthy of a full writeup on its own. As a board\u00a0we appreciate the input. \u00a0We\u00a0will delve into the issues further and will\u00a0use this input to guide the prioritization of our efforts. \u00a0So again\u00a0thank you for your participation. We look forward to the next BwtB at\u00a0the fall Summit.<\/p>\n