Disclaimer: Relative to my expertise in something like OpenStack, or
relative to the expertise of folks who are working daily on driving
advancements in the fundamentals of Blockchain and related
technologies, I know next to nothing about Blockchain. However,
relative to the average member of the public, I believe I have enough
understanding as a technologist to help demystify the subject for
The context for this post is that I attended the recent Climate
Innovation Summit in
Dublin, which primarily focused on the challenge of financing
solutions in the area of Climate Change mitigation and adaptation. To
my surprise, the subject of Blockchain seemed to be the main pure
technology topic that came up again and again.
Before this event, and without exploring the area too deeply, I had a
suspicion that Blockchain is all too often "a solution in search of a
problem". This all too common tendency of technologists makes me
grumble at the best of times, but when the subject is a technology
that is impenetrable to many people, and the problem space is what I
believe to be an existential threat to our way of life ... I have
grave reservations, to put it mildly.
Blockchain is designed to be an alternative to centralized
systems. What does that mean? Well imagine:
A database with no central administrator
A currency with no central bank
A contract that is enforceable without recourse to a judiciary
and you start to get a sense of this problem space. This is quite
appealing, on the face of it. A decentralized system should be more
fault tolerant and attack resistant because there is no single point
of failure, and it should also be more trustworthy and resistant to
abuses of power because of the transparency it offers.
Scaling human traditional institutions in a reliable and secure
manner requires increasing [the number of] accountants, lawyers,
regulators, and police, along with the increase in bureaucracy,
risk, and stress that such institutions entail."
Solving problems without needing any more lawyers? Hurrah!
Why is Decentralization a Hard Problem?
The Climate-KIC report does a nice job of explaining the 5 components
of this solution to the decentralization challenge:
Cryptography - public key encryption and hashing functions allows
protecting the privacy, integrity, and even the anonymity of data in
the system. This is familiar technology used in secure websites with
HTTPS, for example.
Hash tree - this is
simply a list of records whose integrity is protected by a
cryptographic hash on each record which combines the hash of the
previous record, a timestamp, and the transaction data. This is a
well-understood concept that is used to good effect in systems like
the Git Version Control System
Peer-to-peer networks -
this is allows you to build resilient storage by having peers in a
network replicate data to other peers. Heard of Napster and
mechanism - how can you authenticate and validate a transaction
in a peer-to-peer network without appealing to a central authority?
Take a look at the Byzantine General's
Problem. It's difficult.
Sybil control mechanism - how do you protect against an actor in
the system generating a large number of fake identities, known as a
Sybil attack. This too
is hard. Bitcoin's answer is to make it prohibitively expense to abuse
the system this way, with its "Proof of Work" system known as mining.
The first three components - cryptography, hash trees, and
peer-to-peer networks - are well established, and it would be possible
to use them to build an effective, highly-distributed database with
the aid of a central authority (to e.g. decide who can be trusted to
write to the database).
However, to make that database fully decentralized - especially with
anonymous actors writing to the database - some really difficult
challenges are introduced, and that's where the consensus and Sybil
control mechanisms come in. These are much more challenging problems,
and Blockchain is one relatively recent foray into this area.
Note - in the report, the "Do you need a Blockchain?" flowchart
highlights the idea of a "Permissioned Blockchain" suitable for a case
where all actors are known but untrusted. That does eliminate some of
the difficult problems in this space, but catering for untrusted
writers is where much of the complexity remains.
Note also - the report also references an excellent article called
The Truth About Smart Contracts by Jimmy
which highlights the challenge with attempting to specify and enforce
the rules of a contract using (potentially buggy) computer code
without allowing for appeals to a central authority to interpret the
"spirit" of the contract. And also the challenges of attempting to
link such decentralized contracts with the physical world.
Given the challenges that full decentralization brings, it's not
surprising that Blockchain has some drawbacks. To quote some of the
points that jumped out at me in the Climate-KIC report:
DLT is a highly inefficient database technology that is up to 1
million times less efficient than a centralised database, which in
turn leads to much higher energy consumption and GHG emissions.
Given that we're talking about Blockchain in the context of Climate
Change mitigation, that seems important to consider!
the trade-off between low energy efficiency and higher levels of
decentralisation is the key question in the DLT for climate action
ecosystem and needs to be addressed for each potential DLT solution
Blockchain's inefficiency and higher emissions should be weighed up
against a need for decentralization.
To determine whether DLT is the right tool to solve a given problem,
it should be validated that DLT is the only solution to the given
problem. If DLT is not the only solution, also a more efficient
centralised database can solve the problem.
In other words, you should only consider Blockchain if you've already
eliminated the possibility that a centralized system could be
A more entertaining take on whether Blockchain is a good fit for your
application, from James Mickens:
How Important is Decentralization To Addressing Climate Change?
This is the key point. As Kirsten
Dunlop said in her keynote at the
Climate Innovation Summit:
We have 12 years to set in place profound structural change in
almost every system of cause and effect in our society
Some of "Climate Action" use cases and examples for Blockchain listed
in the Climate-KIC report includes:
Energy - peer-to-peer energy trading
Supply chain management - reduce paperwork, fraud, and errors
Carbon trading - a more transparent carbon marketplace
Transportation - decentralized ride sharing
Open government - increased transparency and accountability in
Measurement Reporting and Verification (MRV) - more transparency
in carbon tracking
Finance - new ways of financing climate projects
More or less implied here is that the problems associated with
centralized systems are on the critical path to effectively addressing
these use cases.
The Climate-KIC report says:
While climate change is a truly global problem, it is well
recognised that it requires a decentralised, multi-stakeholder,
bottom-up approach to be solved
And that's hard to argue with! I'm a big proponent of bottom-up
innovation guided by a unifying mission, and certainly such a huge
problem space can't be tackled top-down. Mariana Mazzucato's report on
Mission-oriented research & innovation in the European
looks like an excellent framework. And when it comes to Climate
Change, we are all stakeholders.
But ... does that really imply that the technology platforms we use
must be decentralized? For example, a crowd-funding platform hosted by
a single legal entity can still be effective, without itself being
decentralized. Can a sufficiently high level of trust and transparency
be achieved without fully decentralizing the platform? I believe that
is often the case.
To quote the Climate-KIC report again:
DLT’s main power lies in decentralisation. It currently is unclear
how the physical centralised world can be decentralised. [...] As
many climate action solutions are more valuable when synchronised
with the physical world, this barrier is a key barrier to overcome.
Decentralization and anonymity brings up some pretty fundamental
questions about how human society is organized. And undoubtedly,
tackling Climate Change effectively is going to require fundamental
changes in our society. As Naomi Klein put it, This Changes
But are the problems that Blockchain claims to solve really the key
problems getting in the way of effective Climate Change mitigation and
adaptation efforts? Even if they are, are there other "good enough"
solutions without the drawbacks of Blockchain that can be deployed
What I really worry about here is the danger that Climate Change will
be perceived by some as a smokescreen for people pushing pre-existing
agendas that aren't strictly related to the challenges posed by
Climate Change. To take a more extreme example, how likely are we to
mobilize the sort of action needed if people sense they are also being
asked to buy into Anarchism as a political philosophy?
There is no doubt that Blockchain is a super interesting technology,
and it has opened the door to exciting advances in some truly
difficult computer science problems.
If you are motivated to explore how technology can be used to move
towards a more decentralized society, by all means you should go down
the Blockchain rabbit hole!
However, if you are primarily motivated to rapidly implement Climate
Change mitigation and adaptation solutions in the real world, I would
suggest that you can safely focus your limited resources on
technologies other than Blockchain.
The usual disclaimer applies - this my informal recollection of the
meeting. It’s not an official record.
Foundation Events Update
We began with an update from Lauren, Jonathan, and Mark on the events
that have happened so far this year, the Project Teams Gathering (PTG)
in Denver this week, and the coming OpenStack Summit in Sydney.
Lauren outlined some details of the recent Pike release, emphasizing
the positive media coverage of the release, with the "composable
Jonathan talked about the many OpenStack Days events that happened
over the summer, including Melbourne, Tel Aviv, Budapest, Korea,
Taiwan, Japan, and China. Jonathan has attended all of these, covering
13 countries since the OpenStack Summit in Boston and he spoke about
the many new users and new use cases that he learned about over the
course of these events. More OpenStack Days are
including Benelux, UK, Italy, Turkey, Nordic, Canada, France, and
Mark spoke about the OpenDev event held
the previous week in San Francisco. The goal was to bring in people
who are experts in different domains, and the important and emerging
use case of "Edge Computing" was chosen for this first event. The
keynote from Dr Satya of Carnegie Mellon
University was mentioned as one
particularly inspiring contribution.
An particularly interesting conclusion from one of the
was a simple definition of what Edge Computing actually is:
Edge is the furthest boundary that separates application-agnostic
scheduled computing workloads within the same operator's domain of
control, from applications or devices that can't schedule workloads,
and are outside the same operator's control.
The PTG was touched on next - more
than 400 contributors in attendance from 35 project teams, with the
first two days focused on the strategic goals of simplification,
adjacent technologies, onboarding new contributors, etc.
Back in March, at the Strategic Planning Workshop in
we developed a set of 5 strategic focus areas and formed working
groups around each of these. For each of those focus areas, the
working group presented their findings and progress, followed by some
Better communicate about OpenStack
Thierry Carrez and Lauren Sell lead the discussion of this topic with
a set of
We began by discussing progresson developing a map of OpenStack
deliverables. The idea is for the map to make it easy for users of the
software to make sense of what OpenStack has to offer, and one key
part of this mapping effort is to categorize deliverables into
openstack-user: Things an end user installs to consume the IaaS
openstack-operations: Things an operator uses to manage an openstack
cloud once installed
openstack-lifecyclemanagement: Things that help deploy/upgrade
OpenStack or standalone components
openstack-adjacentenablers: Things that other infrastructure stacks
can use to leverage individual OpenStack components
Some of the outstanding questions include how to represent projects
which are coming down the line, where various types of plugins should
live, and whether Glance is tied to Compute or should be represented
as a Shared Service.
Next, we discussed at some length how OpenStack has been affected by
"Big Tent" concept where we welcome collaboration, experimentation,
and innovation on "infrastructure things" beyond the core OpenStack
technology. We've know that users have found it difficult to make
sense of the breadth of project teams, and we have created further
confusion around "what is OpenStack".
Our discussion on this revolved around the idea of separating the
technologies directly related to the deliverables map above (which we
could call "OpenStack IaaS and friends"), the "software forge"
infrastructure project, and the
free-for-all project hosting area previously known as
Stackforge. There was broad consensus that we should give each of
those its own identity, which is particularly exciting when you think
of the potential for "Infra" to have an identity that isn't so closely
tied with OpenStack. We also discussed the potential to extend this
model to other projects in the future, but also our desire to not
become a "Foundation of Foundations" or a collection of entirely
The focus of this discussion was on the creation of OpenStack Special
(SIGs) as a mechanism
to have cross-community collaboration on a given topic, without the
work being under the umbrella of any one governance body.
The SIGs created so far are:
a Meta SIG to discuss how to improve SIG processes
a still-forming Ansible SIG, with the goal of facilitating
collaboration between Ansible and OpenStack projects.
On this topic, Steve Dake talked us through some efforts to help grow
the next generation of leaders in the OpenStack community, supporting
people who wish to become a core contributor or PTL. Steve
particularly highlighted efforts along these lines within the Kolla
Increase complementary with adjacent technologies
Steve Dake again took the lead on presenting this
focusing on success stories of collaboration between OpenStack and
other communities - Ansible and Helm, in particular.
For Ansible, it was observed that OpenStack has built upon Ansible's
highly reusable technology in many ways, and OpenStack members have
contributed significantly to the Ansible modules for OpenStack based
on Shade. The conclusion was that the success was down to (a)
building releationships between the communities, (b) leadership
endorsement, and (c) the simplified collaboration process adopted by
For Helm, the collaboration has been focused in areas where Helm is
being used to deploy OpenStack services on Kubernetes.
For our final strategic focus area, Mike Perez gave an
update on progress. He
described projects which have recently been retired, the OpenStack
manuals project migration, and the status of a number of projects who
are seeing low levels of contribution activity.
Clarifying and communicating where help is needed
Next up, Thierry walked us through the TC's mechanism for exposing
areas where help is needed in the community. We talked through this
"top 5 help wanted
and had a good discussion on the two items currently on the list -
Documentation and Glance.
The first item of business was to approve the 2017.09
guideline. Both the compute and
object components gained some new capabilities in this update.
As discussed in the previous
the working group proposed the creation of "add-on" programs which
would focus on interoperability between different implementations of a
given service, without having to add that service as a requirement in
the core OpenStack Powered programs. As a starting point, it was
proposed to create advisory add-ons for DNS
(Designate) and Orchestration
(Heat). After some
discussions on the implications of these additions, they were formally
approved by the board.
The topics of the discussion are laid out in the working group's
with Egle covering the upcoming 2017.08 guideline, Mark covering the
proposal for extension programs, and Chris covering version 2.0 of the
The extension programs proposal
resulted in the most discussion. Mark described how the proposal
explains how the OpenStack Powered trademark programs work today, the
history of those programs, and how the additional programs would work.
The first type of program is a "vertical" program - examples given
include "OpenStack Powered for NFV" or "OpenStack Powered for
Containers". These would add requirements for additional capabilities
specific to these use cases, provided those capabilities are already
widely deployed in the context of those use cases.
The second type of program is an "add-on" program - for example,
"OpenStack Powered DNS". This would require capabilities specific to
that service, and ensure interoperability between implementations of a
given service. It is anticipated that individual project teams would
be responsible for definining the interop requirements.
Anni asked how these programs would relate to the idea of
"constellations" as a way of describing OpenStack components, but the
working group didn't see any immediate overlap with that idea.
I raised a concern that if obscure projects are free to define add-on
programs of their own, it could dilute the value of the OpenStack
Powered programs overall. However, it was clarified that, while the
individual project teams could define interop requirements, each
individual new program would require board approval.
Anni also raised a concern that vertical programs should not be
exclusive - i.e. it should be possible for a single product to qualify
for all vertical programs at once, so these programs need to not have
conflicting requirements. The working group agreed with this, and
explained that they had already taken this feedback into account.
Finally, the working group explained that their goal is for the board
to approve this framework at our Fall meeting.
The last topic for the board to consider was some membership changes
and applications. Put simply, Canonical wished to move from being a
Platinum member to being a Gold member, and Ericsson wished to apply
for Canonical's Platinum member slot.
Chris Price presented Ericsson's case for Platinum
membership. Interestingly, this was the second time that Ericsson had
applied for Platinum membership in the past year. The previous time,
at the March 9 board
Ericsson and Huawei applied for the slot left vacant by HPE. Huawei
was successful with their application that time around.
Chris explained Ericsson's vision for OpenStack, and how they plan to
continue developing and driving forward the OpenStack ecosystem. He
also explained Ericsson's role in working with adjacent communities
like OpenDaylight and OPNFV, as well as their role in related
Next up, Mark Baker described how Canonical felt that with several
"industry giants" looking to take up Platinum membership, that the
right thing for a smaller entity like Canonical to do from a community
perspective, was to take a step back and allow others with greater
resources to take their Platinum member slot. However, he also
emphasized how OpenStack remains at the core of Canonical's business.
After some brief questions, the board went into executive session and,
on return, both applications were approved.
The board's next meeting is a 2 hour conference call on Tuesday,
August 22. Our next in-person meeting will be in Denver on Sunday,
He talked about perception challenges that the Foundation is working
to address, emphasizing the messages of "costs less, does more" and
"all apps need Open Infrastructure".
He described how the Foundation has been iterating on a "pitch deck"
and had completed twenty or so interviews with journalists where they
presented this deck in a concerted effort to "change the
narrative". This begins by talking about some recent industry trends,
including a slowdown in the rate of public cloud growth and the
coverage of Snap's significant spending on public cloud services
compared to their revenues.
It goes on to compare "Gen 1" and "Gen 2" private clouds, with the
challenges moving from technology and people to culture and
processes. The advantage of a multi-cloud strategy, with sophisticated
workload placement was discussed as well as some detailed information
backing up the claim that companies are achieving cost savings with
Jonathan described how this presentation had been very well received,
and had resulted in some very positive
Jonathan briefly touched on key improvements in Ocata and information
about the profile of our contributors. This resulted in some debate
about the value of "vanity metrics" and there was general agreement
that while there continues to be demand for this information, we we
should all be cautious in over-emphasizing it.
Finally, Jonathan reflected on feedback from the Project Team
Gathering in Atlanta. Attendance was strong and attendees reported
feeling less distractions and a greater ability to have important
discussions because of the smaller venue and attendee count. While it
was mostly seen as a great success, there are areas for improvement
including the approach to choosing hotels and committing to hotel room
bookings, how scheduling is organized, the size of some rooms,
etc. Jonathan mentioned the success of the Forum and the OpenStack
Summit in Boston will be key.
User Committee and Compensation Committee
The board spent a fairly short time discussing two matters from its
Firstly, a proposal from the User Committee Product Working Group for
facilitating the organization of the schedule for The Forum in Boston
was well received, but since the board encouraged all interested
parties to work with the Foundation staff who are coordinating the
planning, particularly Tom Fifield and Thierry Carrez.
Secondly, the board approved Jonathan's goals for 2017, which had been
prepared by the Compensation Committee and sent to board members
earlier for review. The board only sets Jonathan's goals, and empower
him to set the goals for the rest of the staff. Related to Jonathan's
goals, the board also had some discussion later around documenting the
goals of the board itself.
Significant time during the day was given over to considering some
corporate membership applications.
With HPE resigning its Platinum membership, we had invited
applications to take over its slot and received applications from
Ericsson and Huawei. Both companies had previously applied in
November, 2014 at the OpenStack Summit in Paris to replace Nebula as
Platinum member, but Intel had been successful that time.
Anni Lai presented for Huawei and Chris
Price presented for Ericsson. Both
described their employer's vision for OpenStack, and their wide range
of contributions to date. Both also talked about their position in the
market, their key customers, and how they are growing the OpenStack
ecosystem. The presentations were well received and, after an
executive session, the board voted to approve Huawei as a Platinum
member. The board expressed their gratitude for Ericsson's interest
and preparation, observing that having multiple companies interested
in Platinum membership opportunities is a sign of the strength of our
Representatives from H3C also presented
their application for Gold membership. H3C is a prominent IT vendor in
China's enterprise IT market, distributes an OpenStack based cloud
product, has several very large reference customers, and is
establishing itself as a technical contributor to the project. After
executive session, the board voted to approve H3C as a Gold member.
The Board also approved the promotion of Thierry Carrez to VP of
Engineering for the OpenStack Foundation. Thierry has been a leader
in the technical community since the beginning of OpenStack and has
also built a team within the Foundation focused on upstream
I think it's safe to say the board were warmly supportive of this
change, wished Thierry every success in this new role, and looked
forward to working more closely with Thierry than ever before.
And, with that, the board dispersed feeling pretty fried after an
intense couple of days of discussions!
The first day was a joint workshop with the Technical Committee, User
Committee, and Foundation staff. The workshop was planned in response
to the "OpenStack Futures" discussion at our three previous board
conference calls in
We began the workshop with very brief personal introductions, followed
by Alan, Thierry, and Edgar giving an overview of the roles and
responsibilities of the Board of Directors, the Technical
and the User
Mark spent some time trying to demystify the Big Tent change,
describing how the previous Stackforge/Incubation/Integrated stages
have been replaced by almost any project being welcome to use
OpenStack infrastructure with the TC responsible for reviewing
applications to join the set of official OpenStack projects known as
"The Big Tent".
Mark then described one of the key changes happening in OpenStack
right now as the containerization of the control plane, with projects
like Kolla, openstack-helm, and TripleO all tackling this area. He
also talked about the work happening around running containers on
OpenStack itself with projects like Kuryr, Fuxi, Magnum, and Zun, but
he also wondered aloud whether we're addressing all the right
integration points. He also described some of the ongoing debates
about the scope of OpenStack and our technology choices, with topics
like the use of golang, the Gluon project, whether we welcome
competition within the Big Tent, and community-wide goals.
Finally, Mark gave us a preview of the work happening around version 2
of the OpenStack Project
talked about how this will play a key role in helping people
understand what OpenStack provides and how it can be used.
Mark also gave a preview of some detractor quotes from our user
survey, and emphasized a common theme - the perceived and actual
complexity of OpenStack, both in terms of understanding and operating
Mark classified the various sets of adjacent communities that we are
particularly interested in developing strong relationships
with. Container technologies like Kubernetes, Docker, and Mesos. PaaS
technologies like CloudFoundry and OpenShift. NFV projects like OPNFV
and Cloudify. Provisioning technologies like Terraform, Puppet, and
Saltstack. And specific ecosystem relationships, with companies like
Mark described the change in the Foundation's event strategy,
targeting events like KubeCon, DockerCon, CoreOS Fest, etc. as key
events where we should be positioning the OpenStack brand and
He also described particular focus areas of individual staff members
which are relevant to the topic - Chris Hoge working with upstream
Kubernetes and running OpenStack SIG meetings, David Flanders working
on a report around the gaps when running platforms on OpenStack (like
Cloud Foundry, OpenShift, Kubernetes, and Terraform), and how Ildiko
Vancsa and Kathy Cacciatore are both working closely with OPNFV.
Finally, Mark talked about the Open Source Days event at the OpenStack
Summit in Boston, as well as some very early stage discussions for an
OpenDev event which would be a small, focused event around improving
the integration between applications frameworks and open
The final area of discussion was the subject of community health, and
Mark first put out some statistics that he felt painted a very
reassuring picture of the community's health. In 2016, we had 3,500
unique contributors, 1,850 of which were retained from 2015. In Ocata,
we had fewer developers than Newton, most likely because it was a
Mark contrasted challenges with projects like Trove and Designate
losing contributors, while projects like Kuryr, Kolla, and Zun seeing
the greatest number of new contributors.
Similarly, Mark talked about HPE laying off upstream developers, Cisco
killing off intercloud, a small slowdown in Summit sponsorships, while
we have also added 7 more Gold members, and many first-time corportate
members and Summit sponsors.
Strategic Planning Exercise
The rest of the day was given over to a multi-stage strategic planning
exercise prepared by Allison and Alan. The idea was to discuss these
focus areas, gather everyone's ideas for
summarize and categorize these ideas, vote on ideas in each focus
area, and finally agree on how to proceed with concrete goals for the
next 6-9 months.
The initial discussion covered a lot of ground. Allison introduced
each focus area by describing the input we gathered via the etherpads
and input she gathered through 1:1 interviews with a variety of
One topic of discussion related to how OpenStack can simplify how we
describe OpenStack, particularly to reduce confusion introduced with
the Big Tent change. Various ideas around categorization, tagging,
vertical definitions, a concept of constellations, maturity ratings,
and much more, were discussed.
We talked about the promise for the future that OpenStack
provides. That there will be evolution over time, that we deliver the
cloud solutions of today and will deliver the solutions of
tomorrow. That the challenge of smooth upgrades is part of our
challenge in delivering "future proof infrastructure".
We talked about the challenges of scalability, manageability, and
complexity. The theme of containerized deployments, the need for
vertically focused views of OpenStack, for example for Telco users. We
discussed the need for OpenStack to be able to evolve over time, with
refactoring or rewriting components being only one of the possible
approaches we may see over time.
We talked at great length about how OpenStack could work more closely
with adjacent communities. How the relationship with these communities
should bring value to both communities. We particularly emphasized the
need for a closer relationship with the CNCF and the Kubernetes
Over lunch, everyone wrote their concrete, actionable ideas for
improvement on sticky notes and put them on flipcharts for each of the
Jonathan volunteered to group the ideas into themes, and summarized
these themes for the group, facilitating further discussion before
voting on which theme in each area we should particularly focus on.
On the subject of communicating about "what is OpenStack", the main
themese were marketing activities, various categorization ideas, and
idea Allison talk about earlier referred to as "constellations". We
later voted to focus on the categorization area and formed a group of
Communicate about OpenStack: Categorize (objective data) and map
(subjective approach) OpenStack projects as base versus optional
(within a specific use case), integrated versus independent release,
emerging versus mature, stability, adoption metrics, what works
together, services versus consumption (operational tools/client
libraries), and other criteria
Names: Thierry Carrez [lead], Alan Clark, Allison Randal, Jon
Proulx, Melvin Hillsman, Lauren Sell, Tim Bell, Mark Baker, Kenji
For unanswered requirements, we discussed how to prioritize, ideas
around a solution focus, scalability challenges, and a list of
specific features that people felt were important. A counter-point was
made that rather than focusing on any of these ideas, perhaps the
focus should be on working with adjacent communities. Later, we
discussed the need to grow the connection between the Product Working
Group, the TC, and individual projects. The outcome and group for this
Requirements: Bring different groups (UC/technical/etc) together at
Forum to collaborate/communicate aroud user stories, gap analysis,
what fits in the current state of tech, prioritize what would have
the greatest impact in reducing pain for users.
Names: Melvin Hillsman [lead], Yih Leong Sun, Jon Proulx, Rob Esker,
Emilien Macchi, Doug Hellmann, Tim Bell, Shamail Tahir
On the topic of adjacent communities, we observed that by far the most
dominant area of discussion was the need to create better connection
with the Kubernetes community. The themes were community engagement,
technical engagement, OpenStack consuming technology from the
Kubernetes and containers world, and making OpenStack technology more
consumable by Kubernetes. In the end, there was strong consensus to
focus on the consumability of OpenStack technologies:
Adjacent Technologies: Make our technology more consumable
(independently) by other communities/projects.
Names: Chris Price [lead], Alan Clark, Dims, Rob Esker, Mark
Collier, Steven Dake, Mark McLoughlin, Shamail Tahir
For changes to the technology, we discussed simplifications, making
containers first class citizens, recording tribal knowlede, culling
failed efforts, converging deployment tools, and welcoming emerging or
competing projects. The theme we voted to focus on was:
Changes to the Technology: Workstream to simplify existing projects,
reduce dependency options, reduce config options.
Names: Mike Perez [lead], --> TC project
Finally, on the subject of community health, we talked about
onboarding contributors, reworking our processes, community tools,
growing leaders, corporate involvement in the project, and recognizing
work with adjacent communities. We voted to focus on the leadership
Community Health: Grow next generation of
leadership/experts/cross-project devs within the community
Names: Steven Dake [lead], Chris Price, Jeremy Stanley, Dims,
AlanClark, Joseph Wang
For each of these focus areas, the lead person in the group committed
to organizing a kick-off meeting by March 22nd. The real work will