09:01:57 <cdent> #startmeeting tc
09:01:58 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Jun 26 09:01:57 2018 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is cdent. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
09:01:59 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
09:02:01 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
09:02:02 <cdent> i guess we are still doing this
09:02:04 <cdent> #chair ttx
09:02:05 <openstack> Current chairs: cdent ttx
09:03:53 <ttx> Did we come to a decision for a TC workshop meet ? Several conferences were floated as potential anchor points for a workshop
09:04:17 * ttx may CFP to OpenSource Summit EU in Edinburgh
09:04:27 <ttx> (deadline July 1st)
09:05:37 <cdent> I don't think that conversation got much further. I suppose we either need to have it in email or at the thursday office hour
09:05:48 <ttx> cdent: re Basic "OpenStack" design tenets chapter for the Project Team Guide, I think I'll just draft a base content and propose it as a review. Baby steps
09:06:16 <cdent> seems a good plan
09:06:33 <ttx> Will try to come up with something today
09:07:06 <ttx> cdent: I'd like to point to API guidelines, what's the best doc pointer I shall use ?
09:07:31 <cdent> probably http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/api-wg/#guidelines
09:07:49 <ttx> great, thanks
09:09:57 * ttx reviews progress on the brainstorming at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tech-vision-2018
09:11:15 <cdent> I added a couple of notes there yesterday, but nothing huge
09:12:31 <cdent> I suspect part of the challenge there is we are trying to define what we see at the same time as what we want to see
09:12:50 <ttx> yeah, which is why I think agreeing on terms and history is a first step
09:13:40 <ttx> because it feels like we are trying to frame it as two completely opposite views, using strong terms, and in the end it's not that different
09:14:43 <cdent> I think there was an initial goal of trying to describe those two different views as a way of understanding the issues, but that may be misleading.
09:14:49 <ttx> like "collection of abstraction layers"... isn't every software some collection of abstraction layers ?
09:15:16 <cdent> I think that could be translated as "more assembly required"
09:15:24 <cdent> (rather than "some assembly required")
09:15:53 <ttx> could you expand on that ?
09:16:13 <ttx> because I feel like I'm missing something
09:17:48 <cdent> I may be wrong, but when people use the phrase "collection of abstraction layers" they are saying "there's not enough here for you to install it and run a cloud, you need to put some pieces together, below and above what's provided by openstack to have a 'real' cloud"
09:18:48 <cdent> the more positive spin on that is: these people allow you to build a cloud that works for you in the way you want it to OR with these pieces you can create the basis for a marketplace of added value
09:19:09 <cdent> all of those descriptions lack something that is important to the people who want OpenStack to be "a cloud"
09:19:21 <ttx> Cloud construction kit vs. Cloud product with options ?
09:19:38 <cdent> the missing piece is "this is the same software and interface from installation to installation and you can use them all the same way"
09:19:41 <cdent> pretty much, yeah
09:21:44 <ttx> OK, so historically we shied away from seeing it as a "product", giving the "construction kit" aspect more weight, but today, some (at least me) are taking the opportunity to have more of a product approach (like with the map), so we could have a more opinionated product with options
09:22:46 <ttx> That evolution creates some tension, plus additional discussions as the "product" could go multiple ways
09:23:03 <cdent> yes, and there's also a sort of divergent or middle ground:
09:25:00 <cdent> that's the model of "just" infrastructure which doesn't have enough of the user interface and user experience layers to be "a cloud" but is tightly focused on what were traditionally the "core" projects within openstack. Some people like that model because it is narrow and think focus would be used.
09:25:04 <cdent> s/used/useful/
09:25:32 <ttx> My analogy would be whether we want to do old-style Lego boxes where you'd just get a set of random bricks with an  example booklet of things you could build with it, or new-style lego box where you are supposed to build something, even if you can obviously hack it into something else.
09:25:33 <cdent> I'm sometimes in that camp out of frustration and desire to reduce noise.
09:25:58 <cdent> that's a useful analogy
09:28:01 <ttx> cdent: ok, taking that analogy one step too far, that would be wanting a box with only the most basic lego blocks in, because we could actually do a great job at producing that.
09:28:49 <cdent> yes, it's like the highest quality basic lego blocks; on this foundation you may build castles in the sky
09:29:22 <cdent> but I think that understates the product-ness of a good infrastructure as a service service
09:29:33 <ttx> The real question being -- what do people want ? OpenStack was pretty successful in adoption with its "let's do all the shapes" approach -- consumers were mostly complaining that it's hard to communicate what it is, not that they don't get what they need
09:29:38 <cdent> things like "this is the best way for you to host cloud foundry or kubernetes"
09:29:46 <cdent> rather than "this is the best way for you to have your own cloud"
09:30:11 <ttx> cdent: I see
09:30:45 <cdent> just to be clear: I'm not stating my own opinion here (I've not fully formed mine), more trying to illuminate the options and ideas
09:31:13 <ttx> Trick is, people out there are using it in all shapes and forms. Which I think is a good thing. We build technology that enables people
09:31:59 <cdent> In an ideal world with time and money what we would be doing is making the best public cloud to replace amazon, gc and azure. But I'm pretty sure we're not in that world, so I'm trying to keep my mind open :)
09:32:12 <cdent> s/an/my/
09:32:36 <ttx> heh, yes. thanks, that was useful, i think I understand the discussion a bit better now
09:32:38 <cdent> Yes, people do use it in all shapes and sizes but if there are limited contribution resources we have to have some way to choose.
09:34:03 <cdent> So to some extent what we're trying to do with a techincal vision is figure out a way to make sure the right people are showing up and for those people who are already here to know what to work on.
09:34:54 <cdent> right now we have a model which is driven in fairly bizarre ways that I struggle to track. The number of actual _users_ who want all the complexity added by NFV is presumably quite small. But companies want it.
09:35:00 <cdent> that's a complex calculus
09:37:03 <cdent> effort to audience ratio
09:45:53 * ttx has fun researching lego box pictures
10:04:34 <openstackgerrit> Thierry Carrez proposed openstack/project-team-guide master: Meetings no longer have to be in meeting channels  https://review.openstack.org/578055
10:04:46 <ttx> Hmm, we should close the office hour
10:04:49 <ttx> #endmeeting