Attention Cloud WG nominees

[Sandro "red" Mathys]

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> This is a message for people who have self-nominated for the Fedora
> Cloud Product Working Group (FCPWG?). As the FESCo coordinator for the
> group, it's my job to narrow down the list to the initial 9 voting
> members. I was going to send this individually, but then I thought, eh,
> let's do it in public. If you want to send me other thoughts off-line
> too, go for it. And if you're not in the list of nominees I'd still
> value your input into some of the concepts.
>
> I've been the defacto maintainer of the Fedora cloud image kickstart
> for the past year or so (I have commit access, and I use it!), and I
> think that's gotten into fairly decent shape. This WG will be about
> going beyond decent and into something that's actually both very useful
> and well-used. I have some ideas for what that'd look like, but I'd
> like to hear yours too. And, I'm interested in hearing where you'd like
> to contribute in specific. I didn't see anyone mention QA on the
> nomination list, for example, and we'll need to find someone to take
> ownership of that.

Actually, I did mention QA on the nomination wiki page. I used to be
part of the Fedora QA team (you can ask Adam or Tim if you want) back
when I was heavily using Fedora as a Desktop OS (until about 1 year
ago). My focus then changed to OpenStack and I'm interested in doing
QA for the cloud image. Whenever I get the chance, I already give the
Fedora Cloud Image (candidates) a quick spin. I usually get that done
at least for the final Alpha / Beta / Gold and for most release
candidates.

So, I'm experiences with Fedora QA and interested in Cloud QA. I can
take ownership of QA in the FCPWG if desired.

> Our actual deliverables are listed here:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora.next/boardproposal#Product_Working_Groups
> and they start with:
>
>   * Governance plan and documents
>   * A product definition -- target audience and so on
>   * A list of changes from existing procedures
>   * Actually doing things
>
> You may notice that "actually doing things" is kind of far down the
> list, and there's some degree of.... procedural overhead. If you really
> hate that kind of thing, speak up now, because maybe this isn't the
> best use of your time. Although the voting membership is going to be
> limited, and focused on these things, we actually also need a broader,
> involved community, so not being on the WG doesn't mean you can't be
> involved in a meaningful way.

Since I also was a (appointed) founding member of the Community
Working Group (CWG) which also started with a lot of
not-actually-doing-things (mostly working out the code of conduct). I
enjoyed the work there just as much as I enjoy actually getting things
done. As long as it's constructive.

> I posted a few weeks ago about possible directions for the cloud
> product. I am, by the way, pretty sure that we are talking about a
> cloud _guest_, and that being a base for cloud infrastructure systems
> like OpenStack or Eucalyptus is in the realm of the Server product (or
> possibly new, secondary products focused specifically on those
> use-cases).

Fair enough.

> I've also heard a few comments suggesting that the cloud guest should
> basically just be the server product in image form, with cloud-init.
> This is a model where cloud computing is basically seen as providing
> "servers in the sky"; I think there's a place for that, but again, I
> don't think it's what we should be aiming at. The point of having this
> product as something different is so we can actually better address the
> different needs.

IMHO, there's a lot of similarities but yes, there are differences
that should be treated as such. Still, there should probably be some
exchange to keep the similarities as equal as possible so the
experience keeps the same wherever it makes sense (sometimes, the
cloud image should rather behave like all the other cloud images
instead of like Fedora Server).

> What that actually looks like is to be determined. The current target
> is basically "as minimal as possible, but not so minimal that we break
> stuff or make people's life harder". In the absence of better idea
> about what we're doing or what we're providing this image _for_, that's
> a fine, generic base. We have the opportunity now to write the better
> story, though... so, what are your ideas?

I follow up with comments to the ongoing discussion in this regard.

-- Sandro