openinfra/interop
Code Issues Proposed changes
e34d8fa7b3
interop/doc/source/process/2017A.rst
Mark T. Voelker d8fb682a2b Change doc references to DefCore 
At the Board of Directors meeting on April 24, 2016 the Board of
Directors indicated that as DefCore has evolved it's focus on
interoperability and it's working structure, it's name may be a source
of some confusion to those outside of the community or who are new to
the community.  The Board made an informal request that the DefCore
Committee consider changing it's name to more clearly reflect it's focus
and structure.

This patch is the first step in that process.  It updates references
in various documents to change the name "DefCore Committee" to
"Interop Working Group" as agreed at the summer 2016 DefCore Committee
Sprint [1].

It should be noted that this patch should be considered a work in
progress to generate discussion until the new name is approved by
the DefCore Committee and the Board of Directors.  Should we elect
to go forward with the new name, some other actions will also need
to be taken, including but not limited to:

1. We will need to consider updating references on the OpenStack wiki.
2. We will need to consider updating the name of our IRC channel,
   mailing list, Launchpad project, and git repository.  Most of these
   changes will need to be carefully coordinated with the OpenStack
   Infrastructure team.
3. We will need to take into account external resources that point to
   DefCore artifacts, such as Foundation-maintained websites (such as:
   http://www.openstack.org/interop ).
4. We will need to coordinate with RefStack to minimize impact.
5. We will need to clearly communicate the name change to the rest of the
   community.

Note also that I've intentionally left many historical documents that
have been superceded (such as the 2015A process docs, Guidelines that
are no longer used, etc) in tact.  There seemed little value in
spending time on them and cluttering the patch with them since they're
now obsolete.

[1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/DefCoreSummer2016Sprint

Change-Id: I79d337c193e75c54d49f1d847468f6347e2ef2b3
2017-01-23 21:25:05 -05:00

13 KiB
Raw Blame History

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

  1. New Guidelines start from the previous Board approved document.
  2. New Guidelines are given the preliminary name of "next.json".

A2. Community Groups Tests into Capabilities

  1. The Interop Working Group coordinates community activities with the Technical Leadership to revise the capabilities based on current technical needs and functionality.
  2. 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)).
  3. Groupings may change between iterations.
  4. Tests must have unique identifiers that are durable across releases and changes in grouping.
  5. Tests must be under OpenStack Technical Committee governance.
  6. The Interop Working Group will provide the test groupings in JSON format for scoring.
  7. 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

1. Designated Sections will not be removed without being deprecated in the

previous Guideline.

2. Designated Sections will not be added without being advisory in the

previous Guideline.

3. 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)).

4. 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.

5. Designated Sections may be sufficiently defined for Guidelines using

general descriptions.

6. The Interop Working Group will present A3.4 descriptions to

the Board for approval.

7. Technical leadership may, but is not required to, provide more specific

details describing the Designated Sections for a project.

  1. Designated Sections will be included in the JSON Guideline.

A4. Interop Working Group identifies required capabilities

  1. The Interop Working Group uses Board approved scoring criteria to evaluate Capabilities.
  2. The Interop Working Group needs Board approval to change scoring criteria.
  3. Scoring criteria factors or weights cannot change after Draft is published.
  4. The Interop Working Group identifies a cut-off score for determining that a Capability is required.
  5. Capabilities will not be removed without being deprecated in the previous Guideline.
  6. Capabilities will not be added without being advisory in the previous Guideline.
  7. 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

Scope

1. Foundation Staff recommends Capabilities to include in each OpenStack

Component.

2. Foundation Staff recommends which Components are required for

the OpenStack Powered Platform.

3. 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

  1. The Interop Working Group will work with the community to define new Capabilities.
  2. Test grouping for new Capabilities will be included in the Interop Working Group documents.
  3. 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.

  1. The Interoper Working Group coordinates activities to create the Guideline draft.
  2. 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

  1. Draft Guideline
  2. Designated sections
  3. Test-Capability groupings
  4. Flagged Test List
  5. Capability Scoring criteria and weights
  6. May not be in Gerrit: Working materials (spreadsheets, etc)

B2. Presentation of Draft Guidelines for Review

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

B3. Changes to Guideline made by Gerrit Review Process

  1. Community discussion including vendors must go through Gerrit.
  2. All changes to draft must go through Gerrit process.
  3. 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

  1. Interop Working Group Co-Chairs serve as "core" reviewers (+2).
2. Requests for changes must be submitted as patches by the requesting

party.

3. Interop Working Group members may proxy change requests as

long as the requesting party is explicitly acknowledged.

  1. One Interop Working Group Co-Chair must be Board member.
5. 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.

  1. Additional core reviewers (+2) can be appointed by Co-Chairs.
  2. 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

  1. Vendors are responsible for executing tests identified by the Interop Working Group.
  2. The Foundation may, but is not required to, provide tooling for running tests.
  3. The Foundation may, but is not required to, define a required reporting format.
  4. 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".
  5. 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.
  6. Self-test results cannot be used as proof of compliance.

C2. Vendor submits results to Foundation for review

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

C3. Vendor Grievance Process

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

C4. Results of Vendor Self-Tests will be open

  1. The Foundation will make the final results of approved vendors available to the community.
  2. The Foundation will not publish incomplete or unapproved results.
  3. Only "pass" results will be reported. Skipped and failed results will be omitted from the reports.
  4. Reports will include individual test results, not just Capability scoring.
  5. Vendors are required to submit a description of the system and configuration used to achieve the results.
  6. 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

  1. The Foundation will provide Interop Working Group with an open report about API usage based on self-tests.
  2. 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:

  1. Vendors seeking Foundation validation are limited to using the two latest approved Guidelines.
  2. Since past validations are respected, older Guidelines will be maintained as superseded for historical reference.
  3. 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

  1. Guidelines are set at the Platform, Component and Capability level only.
  2. The Interop Working Group will submit the human-readable summary of Capabilities (see section A2[6]) to the Board for approval.
  3. 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.
  4. Guidelines only apply to the identified releases (a.k.a. release tags).

D2. Interop Working Group has authority on test categorization

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

D3. Designated Sections only enforced for projects with required Capabilities

  1. Designated Sections may be defined for any project.
  2. Designated Sections apply to the releases (a.k.a. release tags) identified in the Guideline.
  3. 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

  1. Naming pattern will be: 4-digit year, dot (period), and 2-digit month.

Functional Information

Format

RestructuredText

Layout

1.0