Versions Compared

Old Version 7

changes.mady.by.user Andrew Ukasick

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Andrew Ukasick

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Date

at UTC 1400: | http://bit.ly/2k5ja6k | LCOO Roadmap Coordinators170209.ics 2017.02.09 Roadmap Coordinator Meeting

Meeting Link to join: https://join.att.com/meet/jm6819/KPWSCJ58 

Join by phone Toll Free : 8443439499 (USA, Global) Conference ID: 87579340  Forgot your dial-in PIN? |Help  

Attendees

Discussion items

TimeItemWhoNotes

Review PWG "Story" Process: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ProductTeam/User_Stories#User_Story_Workflow

https://github.com/openstack/openstack-user-stories/tree/master/user-stories/proposed

https://review.openstack.org/gitweb?p=openstack/openstack-user-stories.git;a=tree;f=user-stories/proposed

  • More detail here:
12326384
  • 2017.02.09 Roadmap Coordinator Meeting
  • Question: Should we follow this process in all cases where there is a significant cross-project impact? What if we have the resources to drive it completely by ourselves end to end?
  • PWG "User Story Tracker" challenge and sub-team


Aditya suggests taking on one or two "Stories" as an LCOO now.

Need to select a commonly valued Story to propose or take over an existing one if it's in need of an owner.



Discuss "LCOO Roadmap"

What should be considered part of our LCOO roadmap and what should not? For example, ATT is driving Gluon, but if no other members are interested in that should it be considered part of an "LCOO" roadmap? Or is it just part of personal ATT's roadmap?

What do we want to really collaborate on? Different levels:

  1. Sharing awareness, seeking feedback, garnering support
  2. Sharing in requirements definition and/or coding
  3. Actual mutual ownership of a significant cross-project initiative (via PWG Process)

Discuss: What is our Identity? How do we work with other working groups?  How do we differentiate ourselves from the Large Deployment Team, the Telco/NFV Team, the Enterprise WG, Massively Distributed Cloud WG, etc?



We also share experiences, best practices, key learnings, etc.

Any "Story" we take on should at least have a few companies collaborating to share ownership. Do not need to have all.

How do we determine relative priority of one thing over another? By Majority opinion/vote?

Begin with a first Story now.

Good idea to sit in on the project meetings for any key stakeholders in the Story.

We can create an LCOO sub-team team focused on owning each "Story" and sharing the "Ownership". Then do overall coordination across all our activity in our roadmap team meetings. Like the way that OPNFV does it.

Need to approach in stages. First discuss issues, pain points, leading to consensus around Stories we would want to propose and drive.

Need to be diligent about including key stakeholders in this Story Process at all times in the life cycle.

Shintaro has a few Stories out there. The one on Disruptive Testing is already through the first step.

Possible Action Items:

  • Decisions? - Do we want to start with individual FSTs immediately? or do we want to decide on a few specific features and then form the FSTs?
  •  Andrew Ukasick meet with PWG and find out what Stories are in need of help, ownership? Find out the status.
  •  Invite Leong of the PWG to our next meeting to provide insight into the existing Stories.
  •  Everyone - review the existing Stories and come to the net meeting with suggestions for what we might want work on. Also bring suggestions of any Stories we want to create/ propose ourselves.
  •  Everyone bring a top 2 or 3 Story suggestions.
  •  Megan Rossetti - Create a page in Confluence for Story info and discussions.



PWG asked us to consider taking the Logging Story:


Do we want to pursue this any further?

Are there other things people would like propose we collaborate on? Shintaro Mizuno (Unlicensed) Destructive testing?? Disruptive testing story is already proposed and merged! (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/396142/)

Next steps? → Discuss with QA team at PTG. Design architecture (need help here). Find a place to deploy where people can jointly build and maintain (need help here the most). Create test cases (also need help). Run as 3rd party CI and give results back to community (after stable release?)



Possible Action Items:

  • Next Steps

Review/demo JIRA configuration.

Seek consensus around how we will use it.



Possible Action Items:

  • Additional Admins?
  • Provide each company with one or more JIRA project spaces
  • Start entering what each company is working on in JIRA

Share PTG Plans

  • Attendees, focus, priorities and contact info
  • Want to connect people
  • Want to understand Members priorities and support one another

Atlanta PTG Atlanta, Feb 20-24, 2017



Possible Action Items:

  • Create a page for all to post this info?

Probably related to Network FST: It's requested to have an LCOO session about the OpenStack Helm project - review of the Proof Of Concept.  This in general is a solution for Containerization of the Control Plan.  This POC (now project)started between Intel and AT&T.  It's also proposed that we start the user story process out of this effort.

https://github.com/att-comdev/openstack-helm

JameySK Telecom will be very interested in. We are willing to participate in user story process as well.
Optional as time allowsSet Proposed Milestones and Action Items:  
  • date ______  FST's kicked off
  • date ______ Individual Member's Epics/Stories in their JIRA projects
  • date ______ Commit to Joint Initiative ("Story") with PWG
  • date ______ Joint Initiative ("Story") Epics/Stories in JIRA
  • date ______  'Publish' LCOO Roadmap for Queens

Other Important Dates:

  • 3/13 Meet with PWG in Milan? 
  • 3/ 27 Submit Forum time slot requests


Optional as time allows

(Maybe for the Larger Governance call)

Summit plans update:

  • "Birds of a Feather" session - To introduce LCOO and what we're all about to the Community
  • Meetings at the Summit


Optional as time allows

From the February 8 Telco/NFV WG meeting.  The Telco NFV main projet for this cycle is to draft a reference architecture.  For this with NFV plans for OpenStack, please help out here:

https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/generic-nfv-platform

This WG meets very 2 weeks, next is February 15 1500 UTC in IRC:#openstack-meeting-4  see https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ops-telco-nfv-meeting-agenda. 

Jamey


Action items

  •