Jump to: navigation, search


January 24, 20171:04 pm PST

The following are the minutes of a telephonic meeting of the Board of Directors (the Board) of OpenStack Foundation, a Delaware corporation (the Foundation) at the above time pursuant to notice duly given to all directors. The following directors were present by phone for all or part of the meeting:

Alan Clark
Allison RandalAnni Lai
Boris Renski
Brad Topol
Brian Stein
ChangBo Guo
Chris Price
Egle Sigler
Junwei Liu
Kavit MunshiKenji Kaneshige
Joseph Wang
Lew Tucker
Mark Baker
Mark McLoughlin
Rob Esker
Russell Bryant
Shane Wang
Steven Dake
Tim Bell

Also present for some or all of the meeting was Mark Collier, Jonathan Bryce and Lauren Sell of the OpenStack Foundation, Mark Radcliffe of DLA Piper and certain members of the community. Mr. Clark called the meeting to order and provided an overview of the agenda. He also served as Chairman. Mr. Radcliffe served as Secretary of the meeting and recorded the minutes.

Welcome from the Chairman.

Mr. Clark welcomed the new Board members and thanked the departing Board members for their service. Mr. Clark reminded the Board members that certain Company policies applied to them, including, in particular, the Code of Conduct, Community Code of Conduct and Antitrust Compliance Policy. He urged the Board members to review these policies. </u>

Approval of Board Minutes.

Mr. Clark presented the minutes from the December 6, 2016. After a discussion, upon a motion duly made and seconded the following resolution was unanimously approved by the Board (the following members abstained because they were not present at the meeting: Steven Dake, Brian Stein, Chris Parker and Russell Bryant):
RESOLVED, that minutes of the Board meeting on December 6, 2016 attached as Exhibit A is approved.

2017 Strategy Implementation.

Messrs. Bryce and Collier and Ms. Sells provided a more detailed discussion of the implementation of the Foundation’s 2017 strategy. A Board discussion followed.

Compensation Timeline

Mr. Clark discussed the timeline for discussing compensation issues.

Report of Interop Working Group and Approval of Updated Guidelines.

Ms. Sigler provided a report on the activities of the Interop Working Group. Ms. Sigler discussed the 2017.1 Guidelines attached as Exhibit B. Ms. Sigler discussed the 2017A Process Document attached as Exhibit C. A Board discussion followed. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board unanimously adopted the following resolution:

RESOLVED, that the Board approves the revised guidelines designated 2017.01 Guidelines for the OpenStack releases set forth in the 2017.01 Guidelines.

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board approves the revised 2017A Process Document.

Strategy Discussion

Ms. Randall provided an update on the discussion of the strategy of the Foundation being considered by the Board. A Board discussion followed.

There being no further business before the Board and upon motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was then adjourned at 3:00 pm PST.

Respectfully submitted,

Mark Radcliffe

Secretary of the Meeting


Alan Clark

Chairman of the Meeting

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit C
2017A Process Document

OpenStack Interop Working Group Process 2017A

Status: Draft
Replaces: 2016A
This document describes the Interop Working Group's working process required by the OpenStack bylaws and approved by the OpenStack Technical Committee and Board.

Expected Time Line:

Time Frame Milestone Activities Lead By
-3 months S-3 Draft status Interop WG
-2 months S-2 ID new Capabilities Community
-1 month S-1 Score Capabilities Interop WG
Summit S Review status Community
Advisory/Deprecated items selected Interop WG
+1 month S+1 Self-testing Vendors
+2 months S+2 Test Flagging Interop WG
+3 months S+3 Approve Guidance Board
Note: The Interop Working Group may accelerate the process to correct errors and omissions.

Process Definition

The Guideline process has two primary phases: Draft and Review. During the Draft phase (A), the Interop Working Group is working with community leaders to update and score the components of the Guideline. During the Review phase (B), the general community and vendors have an opportunity to provide input and check the Guidelines (C) against actual implementations. The Review phase ends with Board approval of the draft Guideline (D).
This section provides specific rules and structure for each phase.
NOTE: To ensure continuity of discussion, process components defined below must _not_ reuse numbers in future revisions. The numbering pattern follows draft, section and sub-item numbering, e.g.: 2015A.B2.2. This requirement may create numbering gaps in future iterations that will help indicate changes.

Guidelines Draft Phase (A)

Starting: S-3
A1. New Guidelines Start From Previous Guidelines
New Guidelines start from the previous Board approved document.
  1. New Guidelines are given the preliminary name of "next.json".

A2. Community Groups Tests into Capabilities
The Interop Working Group coordinates community activities with the Technical Leadership to revise the capabilities based on current technical needs and functionality.
  1. Capabilities must correspond to projects which are part of the "TC-approved release" as designated by the TC (see bylaws of the Foundation, section 4.1(b)(iii)).
  2. Groupings may change between iterations.
  3. Tests must have unique identifiers that are durable across releases and changes in grouping.
  4. Tests must be under OpenStack Technical Committee governance.
  5. The Interop Working Group will provide the test groupings in JSON format for scoring.
  6. The Interop Working Group will provide a human-readable summary of the Guideline generated from the JSON version.

A3. Interop Working Group Collects Recommendations for
Designated Sections
Designated Sections will not be removed without being deprecated in the previous Guideline.
  1. Designated Sections will not be added without being advisory in the previous Guideline.
  2. Designated Sections will not be added or be made advisory unless the corresponding code base is designated as part of the "TC-approved release" by the Technical Committee (see bylaws of the Foundation, section 4.1(b)(iii)).
  3. Technical leadership may, but is not required to, assist the Interop Working Group with defining advisory Designated Sections for projects that have advisory or required Capabilities.
  4. Designated Sections may be sufficiently defined for Guidelines using general descriptions.
  5. The Interop Working Group will present A3.4 descriptions to the Board for approval.
  6. Technical leadership may, but is not required to, provide more specific details describing the Designated Sections for a project.
  7. Designated Sections will be included in the JSON Guideline.

A4. Interop Working Group identifies required capabilities
The Interop Working Group uses Board approved scoring criteria to evaluate Capabilities.
  1. The Interop Working Group needs Board approval to change scoring criteria.
  2. Scoring criteria factors or weights cannot change after Draft is published.
  3. The Interop Working Group identifies a cut-off score for determining that a Capability is required.
  4. Capabilities will not be removed without being deprecated in the previous Guideline.
  5. Capabilities will not be added without being advisory in the previous Guideline.
  6. For the "widely deployed" adoption criteria, the size of the pool being considered will match the scope of the community being considered. Capabilities will be evaluated based on their use in their Component. Components will be evaluated based on their use in the Platform.

A5. Foundation Staff recommends OpenStack Components and OpenStack Platform
Foundation Staff recommends Capabilities to include in each OpenStack Component.
  1. Foundation Staff recommends which Components are required for the OpenStack Powered Platform.
  2. To support the Foundation recommendation, the Interop Working Group will apply the approved scoring criteria to evaluate if a component should be included in the Platform (see A4).

A6. Additional Capabilities and Tests
The Interop Working Group will work with the community to define new Capabilities.
  1. Test grouping for new Capabilities will be included in the Interop Working Group documents.
  2. The Interop Working Group will publish a list of missing Capabilities and Capabilities with inadequate test coverage.

A7. The Interop Working Group creates recommendation for Draft.
The Interoper Working Group coordinates activities to create the Guideline draft.
  1. The Interop Working Group may choose to ignore recommendations with documented justification.

Guidelines Review Phase (B)

Starting: Summit
B1. All Reference Artifacts are reviewed via Gerrit
Draft Guideline
  1. Designated sections
  2. Test-Capability groupings
  3. Flagged Test List
  4. Capability Scoring criteria and weights
  5. May not be in Gerrit: Working materials (spreadsheets, etc)

B2. Presentation of Draft Guidelines for Review
The Interop Working Group will present Draft Guidelines to the Board for review.
  1. The Interop Working Group will distribute Draft Guidelines to the community for review.
  2. Foundation Staff will provide Draft Guidelines to vendors for review.
  3. A link to the Gerrit document must be provided with the review materials.

B3. Changes to Guideline made by Gerrit Review Process
Community discussion including vendors must go through Gerrit.
  1. All changes to draft must go through Gerrit process.
  2. The Interop Working Group will proxy for users who do not participate in the Gerrit process with attribution.

B4. For Gerrit reviews, Interop Working Group Co-Chairs act as
Joint PTLs
Interop Working Group Co-Chairs serve as "core" reviewers (+2).
  1. Requests for changes must be submitted as patches by the requesting party.
  2. Interop Working Group members may proxy change requests as long as the requesting party is explicitly acknowledged.
  3. One Interop Working Group Co-Chair must be Board member.
  4. One Interop Working Group Co-Chair will be elected by the Interop Working Group. Election quorum is composed of attendees present during the election meeting.
  5. Additional core reviewers (+2) can be appointed by Co-Chairs.
  6. Election meetings must be posted at least one meeting prior.

Community Review & Vendor Self-Test (C)

Starting: S and continues past S+3
C1. Vendor Self-Tests
Vendors are responsible for executing tests identified by the Interop Working Group.
  1. The Foundation may, but is not required to, provide tooling for running tests.
  2. The Foundation may, but is not required to, define a required reporting format.
  3. Self-test results may be published by Vendors in advance of Foundation review, but must be clearly labeled as "Unofficial Results - Not Yet Accepted By The OpenStack Foundation".
  4. Vendors who publish self-tests MUST provide them in the same format that would be submitted to the OpenStack Foundation but MAY provide additional formats if they choose to do so.
  5. Self-test results cannot be used as proof of compliance.

C2. Vendor submits results to Foundation for review
The Foundation determines the acceptable format for submissions.
  1. The Foundation has final authority to determine if Vendor meets criteria.
  2. The Foundation will provide a review of the results within 30 days.

C3. Vendor Grievance Process
Vendors may raise concerns with specific tests to the Interop Working Group.
  1. The Interop Working Group may choose to remove tests from a Guideline (known as flagging).
  2. The Interop Working Group will acknowledge vendor requests to flag tests within 30 days.

C4. Results of Vendor Self-Tests will be open
The Foundation will make the final results of approved vendors available to the community.
  1. The Foundation will not publish incomplete or unapproved results.
  2. Only "pass" results will be reported. Skipped and failed results will be omitted from the reports.
  3. Reports will include individual test results, not just Capability scoring.
  4. Vendors are required to submit a description of the system and configuration used to achieve the results.
  5. The Foundation may require vendors to submit specific details of the configuration and may also require use of a specific format for reporting.

C5. API Usage Data Report
The Foundation will provide Interop Working Group with an open report about API usage based on self-tests.
  1. To the extent the data is available, Capabilities beyond the Interoperability Guideline list will be included in the report.

C6. Only Two Approved Guidelines at a time:
Vendors seeking Foundation validation are limited to using the two latest approved Guidelines.
  1. Since past validations are respected, older Guidelines will be maintained as superseded for historical reference.
  2. Guideline status progresses as follows:

draft: initial work, pre-summit (S-3) discussion material
review: as presented at summit (S) for community review
approved: board approved, one of the two official guidelines
superseded: board approved, now superseded by two latest guidelines

Guideline Approval (D)

Starting: S+3
D1. Board will review and approve Interoperability Guidelines from draft
Guidelines are set at the Platform, Component and Capability level only.
  1. The Interop Working Group will submit the human-readable summary of Capabilities (see section A2[6]) to the Board for approval.
  2. By voting to approve the summary, the Board delegates responsibility for maintaining test groupings to the Interop Working Group subject to the limitations described in section D2.
  3. Guidelines only apply to the identified releases (a.k.a. release tags).

D2. Interop Working Group has authority on test categorization
The Interop Working Group can add flagged tests before and after Guideline approval.
  1. The Interop Working Group cannot add additional Tests to Capability mappings after approval.
  2. The Interop Working Group maintains the test to Capability mappings in the JSON representation.

D3. Designated Sections only enforced for projects with required Capabilities
Designated Sections may be defined for any project.
  1. Designated Sections apply to the releases (a.k.a. release tags) identified in the Guideline.
  2. Designated Sections will be included in the JSON Capabilities file to ensure a single source of identification.

D4. Guidelines are named based on the date of Board approval
Naming pattern will be: 4-digit year, dot (period), and 2-digit month.

Functional Information

Format: RestructuredText
Layout: 1.0