10:27 a.m.
Hi all,
During Flock PRD discussion, a proposal was put up about changing the
name of the WG to Atomic. We have few open questions from last week's meeting. I
will try to put those down here, if anyone wants to add to that list, or
explain things better, please go ahead and reply to the thread :)
* If we rename how to make sure that the users know that we are not
abandoning the cloud?
* If we create a new group, then who else are still interested about
helping out the Cloud WG?
* We will require new user stories related to Atomic. This also brings
in the question about old user stories in current PRD. They are still
mostly valid. PRD updation is surely one major point towards Atomic WG.
* Who will maintain Atomic workstation? If it is workstation wg, then
how to reduce duplication of efforts?
* What will happen to the Cloud Base image?
* Who will maintain the Vagrant images?
* What will happen to our effort to push Fedora to different public
cloud services? We have AMI(s) right now, we also push to Digital
Ocean.
Kushal
--
Fedora Cloud Engineer
CPython Core Developer
https://kushaldas.in
https://dgplug.org
11:20 a.m.
Le mercredi 24 août 2016 à 20:57 +0530, Kushal Das a écrit :
Hi all,
During Flock PRD discussion, a proposal was put up about changing the
name of the WG to Atomic.
I think the name Atomic is already over used. People have no idea on
what is atomic, and adding one more things named atomic is just gonna
add to the confusion.
We have few open questions from last week's meeting. I
will try to put those down here, if anyone wants to add to that list, or
explain things better, please go ahead and reply to the thread :)
* If we rename how to make sure that the users know that we are not
abandoning the cloud?
* If we create a new group, then who else are still interested about
helping out the Cloud WG?
* We will require new user stories related to Atomic. This also brings
in the question about old user stories in current PRD. They are still
mostly valid. PRD updation is surely one major point towards Atomic WG.
* Who will maintain Atomic workstation? If it is workstation wg, then
how to reduce duplication of efforts?
* What will happen to the Cloud Base image?
* Who will maintain the Vagrant images?
* What will happen to our effort to push Fedora to different public
cloud services? We have AMI(s) right now, we also push to Digital
Ocean.
Kushal
--
Michael Scherer
Sysadmin, Community Infrastructure and Platform, OSAS
4:37 p.m.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 06:20:10PM +0200, Michael Scherer wrote:
> During Flock PRD discussion, a proposal was put up about
changing the
> name of the WG to Atomic.
I think the name Atomic is already over used. People have no idea on
what is atomic, and adding one more things named atomic is just gonna
add to the confusion.
I'm confused by your confusion. :) This isn't "adding one more
thing"... it's naming the group to focus on _the_ thing.
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
5:06 p.m.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 08:57:52PM +0530, Kushal Das wrote:
* If we rename how to make sure that the users know that we are not
abandoning the cloud?
I've got a three-part answer to this part.
First, this absolutely *is* a refocus on container tech for scale-out
computing. That pretty much generally means "cloud taken for granted".
Second, Fedora Cloud Base never really caught on. I know that there are
some dedicated and serious users, but most people I'm aware of are
using it as an easy way to spin up a minimal Fedora VM (and it's the
_only_ way we provide an official vagrant image). That's very useful,
but it wasn't the goal. There *are* people I'm aware of using it for
actual cloud computing, but it's not taking the world by storm.
Third, we're already in a kind of concerning state, with F25 cloud
images not working since June and then here's the alpha deadline
looming. We need to figure out something else about that *anyway*.
* If we create a new group, then who else are still interested about
helping out the Cloud WG?
Generally, we have WGs for the editions and SIGs for spins and so on.
Those things aren't unimportant, just less formal. And we,
theoretically at least, hold the WGs to higher standards (like the
requirement to produce PRD updates).
* We will require new user stories related to Atomic. This also
brings
in the question about old user stories in current PRD. They are still
mostly valid. PRD updation is surely one major point towards Atomic WG.
Yes — nothing to add here.
* Who will maintain Atomic workstation? If it is workstation wg,
then
how to reduce duplication of efforts?
I'm unclear if Atomic Workstation will actually be actually based on
Project Atomic, be ostree and some similar technologies, but not really
connected. In the latter case, I think that would be "one more thing
named Atomic" in a confusing way, and it'd be better for that to have
another name.
But, if it is based on Atomic, I think we still have a clear
separation, because as we discussed at the FAD and after, the plan here
is to focus on what Josh and Adam dubbed "Project FAO" — a cluster
solution and possibly full-on OpenShift. In that case, Fedora Atomic Host
is a building block that could be shared and worked on by both the
Atomic WG (or FAO WG, or whatever) and the Workstation WG.
* What will happen to the Cloud Base image?
In my conception, there would still be a Cloud SIG, responsible for
cloud image technologies. They'd help both the Atomic WG and Server WG
produce and upload images to various cloud providers (where currently
"various" is Amazon EC2 and Digital Ocean (which is awesome) because
others are stalled on legal).
Given what I've said above about my impression of common use of the
current Fedora Cloud Base image, I think that artificat might well be
replaced with a Fedora Server Minimal Install Cloud Image (or whatever
terminology)
* Who will maintain the Vagrant images?
If the answer to the above plays out like I expect, it seems to be
well-aligned with Fedora Server. But Cloud WG could still help with
testing and etc.
* What will happen to our effort to push Fedora to different public
cloud services? We have AMI(s) right now, we also push to Digital
Ocean.
This effort is stalled and I don't have much hope. I think we might
have better luck coming at it from a different direction anyway.
I hope all of that makes sense!
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
7:07 p.m.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016, at 06:06 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 08:57:52PM +0530, Kushal Das wrote:
> * If we rename how to make sure that the users know that we are not
> abandoning the cloud?
I've got a three-part answer to this part.
First, this absolutely *is* a refocus on container tech for scale-out
computing. That pretty much generally means "cloud taken for granted".
Second, Fedora Cloud Base never really caught on. I know that there are
some dedicated and serious users, but most people I'm aware of are
using it as an easy way to spin up a minimal Fedora VM (and it's the
_only_ way we provide an official vagrant image). That's very useful,
but it wasn't the goal. There *are* people I'm aware of using it for
actual cloud computing, but it's not taking the world by storm.
I think the Server group was talking about adopting this. I wouldn't
drop it for sure.
I'm unclear if Atomic Workstation will actually be actually based
on
Project Atomic, be ostree and some similar technologies, but not really
connected. In the latter case, I think that would be "one more thing
named Atomic" in a confusing way, and it'd be better for that to have
another name.
This is going to be an interesting topic...one thing I will say is that
at least for *workstation* style things (as opposed to a Chromebook-like
system), is that I find using "pet Docker containers" to be really
critical; I try to avoid installing things on the host still. So that makes it
more like Atomic Host, particularly without Kubernetes (which is very
much a server cluster thing and not related to desktops, and not much
for embedded servers either).
One thing that has certainly been on my
mind is whether "Project Atomic" should dissolve more directly
into the distributions, a bit like how the "Modularity" effort is more
directly part of Fedora. I'm not sure though, because we still need
to maintain CentOS builds too. Anyways this is a huge topic =)
8:56 a.m.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 08:07:08PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
One thing that has certainly been on my
mind is whether "Project Atomic" should dissolve more directly
into the distributions, a bit like how the "Modularity" effort is more
directly part of Fedora. I'm not sure though, because we still need
to maintain CentOS builds too. Anyways this is a huge topic =)
I think that would probably help reduce the "too many things"
confusion, and it might make it easier to get resources attached more
directly to the Fedora work for areas that are currently bottlenecks
here.
And I think we can work directly with CentOS — we don't need to go
through a third party to play nicely together. :)
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
1:04 p.m.
On 08/24/2016 08:07 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
One thing that has certainly been on my
mind is whether "Project Atomic" should dissolve more directly
into the distributions, a bit like how the "Modularity" effort is more
directly part of Fedora. I'm not sure though, because we still need
to maintain CentOS builds too. Anyways this is a huge topic =)
Don't forget that Project Atomic is also currently a home for most of
our container tools, docker patches, etc. And some things, like
rpm-ostree, need a place independant of, but connected to, the
distributions.
Plus, let's not drop an open source project name which is just starting
to get some name recognition. If we were to "dissolve into the
distros", it would be seen by many potential users as abandoning the
project, not moving it around.
Mind you, the same goes for Cloud. If we fold Cloud Base into Server --
which we should -- we'll need to do a bunch of community outreach
beforehand to make sure that people don't think we're abandoning our users.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Project Atomic
Red Hat OSAS
1:43 p.m.
On 08/24/2016 11:27 AM, Kushal Das wrote:
Hi all,
During Flock PRD discussion, a proposal was put up about changing the
name of the WG to Atomic. We have few open questions from last week's meeting. I
will try to put those down here, if anyone wants to add to that list, or
explain things better, please go ahead and reply to the thread :)
* If we rename how to make sure that the users know that we are not
abandoning the cloud?
* If we create a new group, then who else are still interested about
helping out the Cloud WG?
* We will require new user stories related to Atomic. This also brings
in the question about old user stories in current PRD. They are still
mostly valid. PRD updation is surely one major point towards Atomic WG.
* Who will maintain Atomic workstation? If it is workstation wg, then
how to reduce duplication of efforts?
* What will happen to the Cloud Base image?
* Who will maintain the Vagrant images?
* What will happen to our effort to push Fedora to different public
cloud services? We have AMI(s) right now, we also push to Digital
Ocean.
Others have made some good comments in this thread. I'm really not as
concerned with these specific questions.
I think the deeper problem is that there needs to be (I think) a person
who is clearly identified to lead this effort (and ultimately this group).
I think a lot of times it is hard for contributors to make meaningful
contributions because the group is scattered and there is not really any
one person to ask for a definitive answer on things. Sometimes a user will
get a response back to a question/request/contribution, and sometimes not.
I'm not saying we need one person to do all of the work, or to even be
the expert in every area, but one person to at least know who is responsible
for each part and to track down when things don't get done.
As a group we haven't been very thorough and that has led to some
serious issues with some of our shipped bits at times. To be honest I
think we just need some dedicated leadership. Someone who crosses the
Ts and dots the Is and greases the skids so that it is easy to on-board
and make contributions. Hopefully this would lead to increased contribution
activity and a more vibrant community.
This is just my $.02.
Dusty
1:51 p.m.
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Dusty Mabe <dusty(a)dustymabe.com> wrote:
On 08/24/2016 11:27 AM, Kushal Das wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> During Flock PRD discussion, a proposal was put up about changing the
> name of the WG to Atomic. We have few open questions from last week's meeting. I
> will try to put those down here, if anyone wants to add to that list, or
> explain things better, please go ahead and reply to the thread :)
>
> * If we rename how to make sure that the users know that we are not
> abandoning the cloud?
>
> * If we create a new group, then who else are still interested about
> helping out the Cloud WG?
>
> * We will require new user stories related to Atomic. This also brings
> in the question about old user stories in current PRD. They are still
> mostly valid. PRD updation is surely one major point towards Atomic WG.
>
> * Who will maintain Atomic workstation? If it is workstation wg, then
> how to reduce duplication of efforts?
>
> * What will happen to the Cloud Base image?
>
> * Who will maintain the Vagrant images?
>
> * What will happen to our effort to push Fedora to different public
> cloud services? We have AMI(s) right now, we also push to Digital
> Ocean.
Others have made some good comments in this thread. I'm really not as
concerned with these specific questions.
I think the deeper problem is that there needs to be (I think) a person
who is clearly identified to lead this effort (and ultimately this group).
I think a lot of times it is hard for contributors to make meaningful
contributions because the group is scattered and there is not really any
one person to ask for a definitive answer on things. Sometimes a user will
get a response back to a question/request/contribution, and sometimes not.
I'm not saying we need one person to do all of the work, or to even be
the expert in every area, but one person to at least know who is responsible
for each part and to track down when things don't get done.
As a group we haven't been very thorough and that has led to some
serious issues with some of our shipped bits at times. To be honest I
think we just need some dedicated leadership. Someone who crosses the
Ts and dots the Is and greases the skids so that it is easy to on-board
and make contributions. Hopefully this would lead to increased contribution
activity and a more vibrant community.
This is sort of what I've been doing w/ CentOS Atomic, and I can do
the same w/ Fedora Atomic -- there's a lot of overlap.
Jason
>
> This is just my $.02.
>
> Dusty
> _______________________________________________
> cloud mailing list
> cloud(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
2:05 p.m.
On 08/25/2016 02:51 PM, Jason Brooks wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Dusty Mabe
<dusty(a)dustymabe.com> wrote:
>
> Others have made some good comments in this thread. I'm really not as
> concerned with these specific questions.
>
> I think the deeper problem is that there needs to be (I think) a person
> who is clearly identified to lead this effort (and ultimately this group).
> I think a lot of times it is hard for contributors to make meaningful
> contributions because the group is scattered and there is not really any
> one person to ask for a definitive answer on things. Sometimes a user will
> get a response back to a question/request/contribution, and sometimes not.
> I'm not saying we need one person to do all of the work, or to even be
> the expert in every area, but one person to at least know who is responsible
> for each part and to track down when things don't get done.
>
> As a group we haven't been very thorough and that has led to some
> serious issues with some of our shipped bits at times. To be honest I
> think we just need some dedicated leadership. Someone who crosses the
> Ts and dots the Is and greases the skids so that it is easy to on-board
> and make contributions. Hopefully this would lead to increased contribution
> activity and a more vibrant community.
This is sort of what I've been doing w/ CentOS Atomic, and I can do
the same w/ Fedora Atomic -- there's a lot of overlap.
You've done an amazing job with CentOS Atomic. I think the best approach
would actually be to have an additional "leader" person that worked hand in
hand with you as the CentOS lead. If we can't get an additional person
then I would certainly support you in that role for Fedora, but I
would hope to not overload you too much.
Dusty
11:18 a.m.
On 25/08/16, Dusty Mabe wrote:
On 08/25/2016 02:51 PM, Jason Brooks wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Dusty Mabe <dusty(a)dustymabe.com> wrote:
>>
>> Others have made some good comments in this thread. I'm really not as
>> concerned with these specific questions.
>>
>> I think the deeper problem is that there needs to be (I think) a person
>> who is clearly identified to lead this effort (and ultimately this group).
>> I think a lot of times it is hard for contributors to make meaningful
>> contributions because the group is scattered and there is not really any
>> one person to ask for a definitive answer on things. Sometimes a user will
>> get a response back to a question/request/contribution, and sometimes not.
>> I'm not saying we need one person to do all of the work, or to even be
>> the expert in every area, but one person to at least know who is responsible
>> for each part and to track down when things don't get done.
>>
>> As a group we haven't been very thorough and that has led to some
>> serious issues with some of our shipped bits at times. To be honest I
>> think we just need some dedicated leadership. Someone who crosses the
>> Ts and dots the Is and greases the skids so that it is easy to on-board
>> and make contributions. Hopefully this would lead to increased contribution
>> activity and a more vibrant community.
>
> This is sort of what I've been doing w/ CentOS Atomic, and I can do
> the same w/ Fedora Atomic -- there's a lot of overlap.
>
You've done an amazing job with CentOS Atomic. I think the best approach
would actually be to have an additional "leader" person that worked hand in
hand with you as the CentOS lead. If we can't get an additional person
then I would certainly support you in that role for Fedora, but I
would hope to not overload you too much.
I am also willing to volunteer for this.
As the base image is moving to
server wg, and my work related to rel-eng testing side is stable, I can
refocus myself to the Fedora Atomic host in the same way I was doing
base image. Last few months were about jumping into too many things. I
hope that I will be helpful in this case.
Kushal
--
Fedora Cloud Engineer
CPython Core Developer
https://kushaldas.in
https://dgplug.org
11:22 a.m.
I am also willing to volunteer for this. As the base image is moving
to
server wg, and my work related to rel-eng testing side is stable, I can
refocus myself to the Fedora Atomic host in the same way I was doing
base image. Last few months were about jumping into too many things. I
hope that I will be helpful in this case.
Awesome!
>
> Kushal
> --
> Fedora Cloud Engineer
> CPython Core Developer
> https://kushaldas.in
> https://dgplug.org
> _______________________________________________
> cloud mailing list
> cloud(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
2800
days inactive
2802
days old
11 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Colin Walters -
Dusty Mabe -
Jason Brooks -
Josh Berkus -
Kushal Das -
Matthew Miller -
Michael Scherer