|
[04/29/2013] As you may know, there have been several proposals floated to deal with the problems created by the fact that we have two controller code bases. These include but not limited to:
(i). Work on portability between code bases and maintain two controllers going forward. This would obviously create enormous challenges and inefficiencies over time. In
addition, it will continue the lack of clarity over the ODP controller code base. (ii). Create a new controller project that would incorporate the desirable components of both controllers (the
so-called "merged controller"). Note that the creation of such a third controller project would require extensive resources for design and integration, versus expanding on
what we already have. Again, such an approach will also continue the lack of clarity over the ODP controller code base and push our deliverables out an for an undefined
period of time. (iii). Have the TSC vote for either the Cisco or BSN code base as the ODP controller code base. The TSC could also vote to keep the other code base available in case it ever
wanted to pull parts of the other code base in. (iv). Others that I might have missed? Clearly neither option (i). nor option (ii). reach the objective
of providing a clear understanding for the community of which code base ODP is building on (nor would they do so in a timely fashion). On the other hand, jumping directly to option (iii). is
not optimal as we might miss out on compromises that could be beneficial to our community (as well as being more "top-down" than we would like). Since our clear goal (and responsibility) is to make ODP into the
standard open source infrastructure for SDN, it is incumbent upon us as the ODP TSC to take affirmative action to clear this problem and get ODP moving. To that end and in consultation with
the Linux Foundation and others, I am formally putting the following resolution process in place: (a). I will ask Cisco and BSN to create a proposal for one controller code base that comprise the ODP controller
code base. This "one code base" could be either code bases or a mashup of the two that Cisco and BSN feel, from a technical point of view, will best serve the ODP
community. In addition, the proposal may include proposals to start other ODP projects or sub-projects to address any gaps or future work. And of course, community members are encouraged to participate in
this process. (b). The proposal should be available for TSC review no later than Monday, 13 May 2013. Of course, we should provide for flexibility in the event substantive progress is
being made. That said, 13 May 2013 should be our target date. (c). If no proposal can be created by Cisco and BSN (possibly working with other community members), the TSC will take
an up or down vote on which controller code base ODP will be using going forward. The vote should be taken on Tuesday, 14 May 2013 by email in a private ballot to
preclude the appearance of a "deciding vote" being cast by any TSC member. I propose that the Linux Foundation receive, tally, and make public all the votes and the
result at the same time. Note that it is not uncommon for an open source project such as ODP to have competing code bases, nor is it uncommon for a
resolution such as described above to be used in these cases. In particular, this process is designed to both be as true as possible to the open source community and its governance model while at the same time providing a forcing function to drive
resolution of our controller code base problem. Finally, I have asked Collin Dixon and David Erickson to start a discussion of architectural and technical aspects of the two code
Please join in on that discussion to the extent you have time/inclination. This discussion is a crucial part of building
our community, and we will need such an analysis in the event that vote. In particular, this work will give us a technical basis on which to base our votes. Thnx,
--dmm
|
|
|
Chris Wright <chrisw@...>
* David Meyer (dmm@...) wrote: As you may know, there have been several proposals floated to
deal with the problems created by the fact that we have two
controller code bases. These include but not limited to:
(i). Work on portability between code bases and maintain two
controllers going forward. This would obviously create
enormous challenges and inefficiencies over time. In
addition, it will continue the lack of clarity over
the ODP controller code base. Agreed, non-starter. (ii). Create a new controller project that would incorporate
the desirable components of both controllers (the
so-called "merged controller"). Note that the creation of
such a third controller project would require extensive
resources for design and integration, versus expanding on
what we already have. Again, such an approach will also
continue the lack of clarity over the ODP controller code
base and push our deliverables out an for an undefined
period of time. I actually think this is quite similar to or at least a variant of what you've outlined in your proposal below. (iii). Have the TSC vote for either the Cisco or BSN code base
as the ODP controller code base. The TSC could also vote
to keep the other code base available in case it ever
wanted to pull parts of the other code base in. BTW, let's keep this to the projects and their developers. So, that is the "controller" project and the "net-virt-platform" project. (iv). Others that I might have missed?
Clearly neither option (i). nor option (ii). reach the objective
of providing a clear understanding for the community of which
code base ODP is building on (nor would they do so in a timely
fashion). On the other hand, jumping directly to option (iii). is
not optimal as we might miss out on compromises that could be
beneficial to our community (as well as being more "top-down"
than we would like).
Since our clear goal (and responsibility) is to make ODP into the
standard open source infrastructure for SDN, it is incumbent upon
us as the ODP TSC to take affirmative action to clear this
problem and get ODP moving. To that end and in consultation with
the Linux Foundation and others, I am formally putting the
following resolution process in place:
(a). I will ask Cisco and BSN to create a proposal for one
controller code base that comprise the ODP controller
code base. This "one code base" could be either code
bases or a mashup of the two that Cisco and BSN feel,
from a technical point of view, will best serve the ODP
community. In addition, the proposal may include
proposals to start other ODP projects or sub-projects to
address any gaps or future work. And of course,
community members are encouraged to participate in
this process. I agree. Pushing back on the developers that own each proposal and making the path forward "their problem" is a tried and true way to try to positively engage each of the teams. A critical component of the success of OpenDaylight is building community and collaboration. (b). The proposal should be available for TSC review no later
than Monday, 13 May 2013. Of course, we should provide
for flexibility in the event substantive progress is
being made. That said, 13 May 2013 should be our target
date.
(c). If no proposal can be created by Cisco and BSN (possibly
working with other community members), the TSC will take
an up or down vote on which controller code base ODP will
be using going forward. The vote should be taken on
Tuesday, 14 May 2013 by email in a private ballot to
preclude the appearance of a "deciding vote" being cast
by any TSC member. I propose that the Linux Foundation
receive, tally, and make public all the votes and the
result at the same time. I believe we'd need to have some metrics that we (the TSC) would be using to evaluate the code bases and make a vote that's not completely arbitrary or a popularity contest. Some examples are (just throwing things out to be concrete): 1) controller extensibility and modularity 2) model driven API abstraction 3) ability to support eventual consistency model 4) ability to support multiple southbound plugins 5) ability to support virtual networking requirements And I see this as an absolute last resort. Basically, if we get here it's because the controller and net-virt-platform teams have reached some fundamental impasse. Note that it is not uncommon for an open source project such as
ODP to have competing code bases, nor is it uncommon for a
resolution such as described above to be used in these cases. In
particular, this process is designed to both be as true as
possible to the open source community and its governance model
while at the same time providing a forcing function to drive
resolution of our controller code base problem.
Finally, I have asked Collin Dixon and David Erickson to start a
discussion of architectural and technical aspects of the two code
bases on discuss@.... Thanks Colin and David!
Please join in on that discussion to the extent you have
time/inclination. This discussion is a crucial part of building
our community, and we will need such an analysis in the event
that vote. In particular, this work will give us a technical
basis on which to base our votes. Yes, OK. Let's use that to build the list I mentioned above. thanks, -chris
|
|
|
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Chris Wright <chrisw@...> wrote:
* David Meyer ( dmm@...) wrote:
> As you may know, there have been several proposals floated to
> deal with the problems created by the fact that we have two
> controller code bases. These include but not limited to:
>
> (i). Work on portability between code bases and maintain two
> controllers going forward. This would obviously create
> enormous challenges and inefficiencies over time. In
> addition, it will continue the lack of clarity over
> the ODP controller code base.
> (ii). Create a new controller project that would incorporate
> the desirable components of both controllers (the
> so-called "merged controller"). Note that the creation of
> such a third controller project would require extensive
> resources for design and integration, versus expanding on
> what we already have. Again, such an approach will also
> continue the lack of clarity over the ODP controller code
> base and push our deliverables out an for an undefined
> period of time.
I actually think this is quite similar to or at least a variant of what
you've outlined in your proposal below.
Yes, again an issue of degrees.
> (iii). Have the TSC vote for either the Cisco or BSN code base
> as the ODP controller code base. The TSC could also vote
> to keep the other code base available in case it ever
> wanted to pull parts of the other code base in.
BTW, let's keep this to the projects and their developers.
So, that is the "controller" project and the "net-virt-platform"
project.
Makes sense.
> (iv). Others that I might have missed?
>
> Clearly neither option (i). nor option (ii). reach the objective
> of providing a clear understanding for the community of which
> code base ODP is building on (nor would they do so in a timely
> fashion). On the other hand, jumping directly to option (iii). is
> not optimal as we might miss out on compromises that could be
> beneficial to our community (as well as being more "top-down"
> than we would like).
>
> Since our clear goal (and responsibility) is to make ODP into the
> standard open source infrastructure for SDN, it is incumbent upon
> us as the ODP TSC to take affirmative action to clear this
> problem and get ODP moving. To that end and in consultation with
> the Linux Foundation and others, I am formally putting the
> following resolution process in place:
>
> (a). I will ask Cisco and BSN to create a proposal for one
> controller code base that comprise the ODP controller
> code base. This "one code base" could be either code
> bases or a mashup of the two that Cisco and BSN feel,
> from a technical point of view, will best serve the ODP
> community. In addition, the proposal may include
> proposals to start other ODP projects or sub-projects to
> address any gaps or future work. And of course,
> community members are encouraged to participate in
> this process.
I agree. Pushing back on the developers that own each proposal and making
the path forward "their problem" is a tried and true way to try to positively
engage each of the teams. A critical component of the success of
OpenDaylight is building community and collaboration.
> (b). The proposal should be available for TSC review no later
> than Monday, 13 May 2013. Of course, we should provide
> for flexibility in the event substantive progress is
> being made. That said, 13 May 2013 should be our target
> date.
BTW, it might not have come across in (b). but of course making progress is more important than any exact dates. That said I would like to resolve this in the most timely fashion possible.
>
> (c). If no proposal can be created by Cisco and BSN (possibly
> working with other community members), the TSC will take
> an up or down vote on which controller code base ODP will
> be using going forward. The vote should be taken on
> Tuesday, 14 May 2013 by email in a private ballot to
> preclude the appearance of a "deciding vote" being cast
> by any TSC member. I propose that the Linux Foundation
> receive, tally, and make public all the votes and the
> result at the same time.
I believe we'd need to have some metrics that we (the TSC) would be
using to evaluate the code bases and make a vote that's not completely
arbitrary or a popularity contest. Some examples are (just throwing
things out to be concrete):
1) controller extensibility and modularity
2) model driven API abstraction
3) ability to support eventual consistency model
4) ability to support multiple southbound plugins
5) ability to support virtual networking requirements
And I see this as an absolute last resort. Basically, if we get here
it's because the controller and net-virt-platform teams have reached
some fundamental impasse.
Agreed. Hopefully some of this will fall out of the discussion that I'm hoping will take place at discuss@...
> Note that it is not uncommon for an open source project such as
> ODP to have competing code bases, nor is it uncommon for a
> resolution such as described above to be used in these cases. In
> particular, this process is designed to both be as true as
> possible to the open source community and its governance model
> while at the same time providing a forcing function to drive
> resolution of our controller code base problem.
>
> Finally, I have asked Collin Dixon and David Erickson to start a
> discussion of architectural and technical aspects of the two code
> bases on discuss@.... Thanks Colin and David!
> Please join in on that discussion to the extent you have
> time/inclination. This discussion is a crucial part of building
> our community, and we will need such an analysis in the event
> that vote. In particular, this work will give us a technical
> basis on which to base our votes.
Yep. And s/Collin/Colin/ (sorry about that Colin).
--dmm
thanks,
-chris
|
|
|
The list of desirable features which you're asking for are at least partially documented here:
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/OpenDaylight_Controller:Architectural_Principles
Presumably we should move that out to a project-neutral space on the wiki and attach it to any discussions as we go forward.
--Colin
tsc-bounces@... wrote on 04/29/2013 02:49:19 PM:
> From: Chris Wright <chrisw@...>
> To: David Meyer <dmm@...>
> Cc: tsc@...
> Date: 04/29/2013 02:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Resolving the multiple controller
> code bases issue
> Sent by: tsc-bounces@...
>
> * David Meyer (dmm@...) wrote:
> > As you may know, there have been several proposals floated to
> > deal with the problems created by the fact that we have two
> > controller code bases. These include but not limited to:
> >
> > (i). Work on portability between code bases and maintain two
> > controllers going forward. This would obviously create
> > enormous challenges and inefficiencies over time. In
> > addition, it will continue the lack of clarity over
> > the ODP controller code base.
>
> Agreed, non-starter.
>
> > (ii). Create a new controller project that would incorporate
> > the desirable components of both controllers (the
> > so-called "merged controller"). Note that the creation of
> > such a third controller project would require extensive
> > resources for design and integration, versus expanding on
> > what we already have. Again, such an approach will also
> > continue the lack of clarity over the ODP controller code
> > base and push our deliverables out an for an undefined
> > period of time.
>
> I actually think this is quite similar to or at least a variant of what
> you've outlined in your proposal below.
>
> > (iii). Have the TSC vote for either the Cisco or BSN code base
> > as the ODP controller code base. The TSC could also vote
> > to keep the other code base available in case it ever
> > wanted to pull parts of the other code base in.
>
> BTW, let's keep this to the projects and their developers.
> So, that is the "controller" project and the "net-virt-platform"
> project.
>
> > (iv). Others that I might have missed?
> >
> > Clearly neither option (i). nor option (ii). reach the objective
> > of providing a clear understanding for the community of which
> > code base ODP is building on (nor would they do so in a timely
> > fashion). On the other hand, jumping directly to option (iii). is
> > not optimal as we might miss out on compromises that could be
> > beneficial to our community (as well as being more "top-down"
> > than we would like).
> >
> > Since our clear goal (and responsibility) is to make ODP into the
> > standard open source infrastructure for SDN, it is incumbent upon
> > us as the ODP TSC to take affirmative action to clear this
> > problem and get ODP moving. To that end and in consultation with
> > the Linux Foundation and others, I am formally putting the
> > following resolution process in place:
> >
> > (a). I will ask Cisco and BSN to create a proposal for one
> > controller code base that comprise the ODP controller
> > code base. This "one code base" could be either code
> > bases or a mashup of the two that Cisco and BSN feel,
> > from a technical point of view, will best serve the ODP
> > community. In addition, the proposal may include
> > proposals to start other ODP projects or sub-projects to
> > address any gaps or future work. And of course,
> > community members are encouraged to participate in
> > this process.
>
> I agree. Pushing back on the developers that own each proposal and making
> the path forward "their problem" is a tried and true way to try to positively
> engage each of the teams. A critical component of the success of
> OpenDaylight is building community and collaboration.
>
> > (b). The proposal should be available for TSC review no later
> > than Monday, 13 May 2013. Of course, we should provide
> > for flexibility in the event substantive progress is
> > being made. That said, 13 May 2013 should be our target
> > date.
> >
> > (c). If no proposal can be created by Cisco and BSN (possibly
> > working with other community members), the TSC will take
> > an up or down vote on which controller code base ODP will
> > be using going forward. The vote should be taken on
> > Tuesday, 14 May 2013 by email in a private ballot to
> > preclude the appearance of a "deciding vote" being cast
> > by any TSC member. I propose that the Linux Foundation
> > receive, tally, and make public all the votes and the
> > result at the same time.
>
> I believe we'd need to have some metrics that we (the TSC) would be
> using to evaluate the code bases and make a vote that's not completely
> arbitrary or a popularity contest. Some examples are (just throwing
> things out to be concrete):
>
> 1) controller extensibility and modularity
> 2) model driven API abstraction
> 3) ability to support eventual consistency model
> 4) ability to support multiple southbound plugins
> 5) ability to support virtual networking requirements
>
> And I see this as an absolute last resort. Basically, if we get here
> it's because the controller and net-virt-platform teams have reached
> some fundamental impasse.
>
> > Note that it is not uncommon for an open source project such as
> > ODP to have competing code bases, nor is it uncommon for a
> > resolution such as described above to be used in these cases. In
> > particular, this process is designed to both be as true as
> > possible to the open source community and its governance model
> > while at the same time providing a forcing function to drive
> > resolution of our controller code base problem.
> >
> > Finally, I have asked Collin Dixon and David Erickson to start a
> > discussion of architectural and technical aspects of the two code
> > bases on discuss@.... Thanks Colin and David!
> > Please join in on that discussion to the extent you have
> > time/inclination. This discussion is a crucial part of building
> > our community, and we will need such an analysis in the event
> > that vote. In particular, this work will give us a technical
> > basis on which to base our votes.
>
> Yes, OK. Let's use that to build the list I mentioned above.
>
> thanks,
> -chris
> _______________________________________________
> TSC mailing list
> TSC@...
> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
>
|
|
|
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Colin Dixon <ckd@...> wrote:
Thanks for pointing this out. For those who haven't taken a look at this page, it has some reasonable principles. Also agree with Colin that these are general principles, not project specific.
--dmm
--Colin
tsc-bounces@... wrote on 04/29/2013 02:49:19 PM:
> From: Chris Wright <chrisw@...>
> To: David Meyer <dmm@...>
> Cc: tsc@...
> Date: 04/29/2013 02:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Resolving the multiple controller
> code bases issue
> Sent by: tsc-bounces@...
>
> * David Meyer (dmm@...) wrote:
> > As you may know, there have been several proposals floated to
> > deal with the problems created by the fact that we have two
> > controller code bases. These include but not limited to:
> >
> > (i). Work on portability between code bases and maintain two
> > controllers going forward. This would obviously create
> > enormous challenges and inefficiencies over time. In
> > addition, it will continue the lack of clarity over
> > the ODP controller code base.
>
> Agreed, non-starter.
>
> > (ii). Create a new controller project that would incorporate
> > the desirable components of both controllers (the
> > so-called "merged controller"). Note that the creation of
> > such a third controller project would require extensive
> > resources for design and integration, versus expanding on
> > what we already have. Again, such an approach will also
> > continue the lack of clarity over the ODP controller code
> > base and push our deliverables out an for an undefined
> > period of time.
>
> I actually think this is quite similar to or at least a variant of what
> you've outlined in your proposal below.
>
> > (iii). Have the TSC vote for either the Cisco or BSN code base
> > as the ODP controller code base. The TSC could also vote
> > to keep the other code base available in case it ever
> > wanted to pull parts of the other code base in.
>
> BTW, let's keep this to the projects and their developers.
> So, that is the "controller" project and the "net-virt-platform"
> project.
>
> > (iv). Others that I might have missed?
> >
> > Clearly neither option (i). nor option (ii). reach the objective
> > of providing a clear understanding for the community of which
> > code base ODP is building on (nor would they do so in a timely
> > fashion). On the other hand, jumping directly to option (iii). is
> > not optimal as we might miss out on compromises that could be
> > beneficial to our community (as well as being more "top-down"
> > than we would like).
> >
> > Since our clear goal (and responsibility) is to make ODP into the
> > standard open source infrastructure for SDN, it is incumbent upon
> > us as the ODP TSC to take affirmative action to clear this
> > problem and get ODP moving. To that end and in consultation with
> > the Linux Foundation and others, I am formally putting the
> > following resolution process in place:
> >
> > (a). I will ask Cisco and BSN to create a proposal for one
> > controller code base that comprise the ODP controller
> > code base. This "one code base" could be either code
> > bases or a mashup of the two that Cisco and BSN feel,
> > from a technical point of view, will best serve the ODP
> > community. In addition, the proposal may include
> > proposals to start other ODP projects or sub-projects to
> > address any gaps or future work. And of course,
> > community members are encouraged to participate in
> > this process.
>
> I agree. Pushing back on the developers that own each proposal and making
> the path forward "their problem" is a tried and true way to try to positively
> engage each of the teams. A critical component of the success of
> OpenDaylight is building community and collaboration.
>
> > (b). The proposal should be available for TSC review no later
> > than Monday, 13 May 2013. Of course, we should provide
> > for flexibility in the event substantive progress is
> > being made. That said, 13 May 2013 should be our target
> > date.
> >
> > (c). If no proposal can be created by Cisco and BSN (possibly
> > working with other community members), the TSC will take
> > an up or down vote on which controller code base ODP will
> > be using going forward. The vote should be taken on
> > Tuesday, 14 May 2013 by email in a private ballot to
> > preclude the appearance of a "deciding vote" being cast
> > by any TSC member. I propose that the Linux Foundation
> > receive, tally, and make public all the votes and the
> > result at the same time.
>
> I believe we'd need to have some metrics that we (the TSC) would be
> using to evaluate the code bases and make a vote that's not completely
> arbitrary or a popularity contest. Some examples are (just throwing
> things out to be concrete):
>
> 1) controller extensibility and modularity
> 2) model driven API abstraction
> 3) ability to support eventual consistency model
> 4) ability to support multiple southbound plugins
> 5) ability to support virtual networking requirements
>
> And I see this as an absolute last resort. Basically, if we get here
> it's because the controller and net-virt-platform teams have reached
> some fundamental impasse.
>
> > Note that it is not uncommon for an open source project such as
> > ODP to have competing code bases, nor is it uncommon for a
> > resolution such as described above to be used in these cases. In
> > particular, this process is designed to both be as true as
> > possible to the open source community and its governance model
> > while at the same time providing a forcing function to drive
> > resolution of our controller code base problem.
> >
> > Finally, I have asked Collin Dixon and David Erickson to start a
> > discussion of architectural and technical aspects of the two code
> > bases on discuss@.... Thanks Colin and David!
> > Please join in on that discussion to the extent you have
> > time/inclination. This discussion is a crucial part of building
> > our community, and we will need such an analysis in the event
> > that vote. In particular, this work will give us a technical
> > basis on which to base our votes.
>
> Yes, OK. Let's use that to build the list I mentioned above.
>
> thanks,
> -chris
|
|
|
Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...>
Happy to move to a more reasonable place… suggestions? Would it make sense to hang them off of:
before the 'OpenDaylight Project Documentation' section? Elsewhere?
Ed
On Apr 29, 2013, at 3:05 PM, David Meyer < dmm@...> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Colin Dixon
<ckd@...> wrote:
Thanks for pointing this out. For those who haven't taken a look at this page, it has some reasonable principles. Also agree with Colin that these are general principles, not project specific.
--dmm
--Colin
tsc-bounces@... wrote on 04/29/2013 02:49:19 PM:
> From: Chris Wright <chrisw@...>
> To: David Meyer <dmm@...>
> Cc: tsc@...
> Date: 04/29/2013 02:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Resolving the multiple controller
> code bases issue
> Sent by:
tsc-bounces@...
>
> * David Meyer (dmm@...) wrote:
> > As you may know, there have been several proposals floated to
> > deal with the problems created by the fact that we have two
> > controller code bases. These include but not limited to:
> >
> > (i). Work on portability between code bases and maintain two
> > controllers going forward. This would obviously create
> > enormous challenges and inefficiencies over time. In
> > addition, it will continue the lack of clarity over
> > the ODP controller code base.
>
> Agreed, non-starter.
>
> > (ii). Create a new controller project that would incorporate
> > the desirable components of both controllers (the
> > so-called "merged controller"). Note that the creation of
> > such a third controller project would require extensive
> > resources for design and integration, versus expanding on
> > what we already have. Again, such an approach will also
> > continue the lack of clarity over the ODP controller code
> > base and push our deliverables out an for an undefined
> > period of time.
>
> I actually think this is quite similar to or at least a variant of what
> you've outlined in your proposal below.
>
> > (iii). Have the TSC vote for either the Cisco or BSN code base
> > as the ODP controller code base. The TSC could also vote
> > to keep the other code base available in case it ever
> > wanted to pull parts of the other code base in.
>
> BTW, let's keep this to the projects and their developers.
> So, that is the "controller" project and the "net-virt-platform"
> project.
>
> > (iv). Others that I might have missed?
> >
> > Clearly neither option (i). nor option (ii). reach the objective
> > of providing a clear understanding for the community of which
> > code base ODP is building on (nor would they do so in a timely
> > fashion). On the other hand, jumping directly to option (iii). is
> > not optimal as we might miss out on compromises that could be
> > beneficial to our community (as well as being more "top-down"
> > than we would like).
> >
> > Since our clear goal (and responsibility) is to make ODP into the
> > standard open source infrastructure for SDN, it is incumbent upon
> > us as the ODP TSC to take affirmative action to clear this
> > problem and get ODP moving. To that end and in consultation with
> > the Linux Foundation and others, I am formally putting the
> > following resolution process in place:
> >
> > (a). I will ask Cisco and BSN to create a proposal for one
> > controller code base that comprise the ODP controller
> > code base. This "one code base" could be either code
> > bases or a mashup of the two that Cisco and BSN feel,
> > from a technical point of view, will best serve the ODP
> > community. In addition, the proposal may include
> > proposals to start other ODP projects or sub-projects to
> > address any gaps or future work. And of course,
> > community members are encouraged to participate in
> > this process.
>
> I agree. Pushing back on the developers that own each proposal and making
> the path forward "their problem" is a tried and true way to try to positively
> engage each of the teams. A critical component of the success of
> OpenDaylight is building community and collaboration.
>
> > (b). The proposal should be available for TSC review no later
> > than Monday, 13 May 2013. Of course, we should provide
> > for flexibility in the event substantive progress is
> > being made. That said, 13 May 2013 should be our target
> > date.
> >
> > (c). If no proposal can be created by Cisco and BSN (possibly
> > working with other community members), the TSC will take
> > an up or down vote on which controller code base ODP will
> > be using going forward. The vote should be taken on
> > Tuesday, 14 May 2013 by email in a private ballot to
> > preclude the appearance of a "deciding vote" being cast
> > by any TSC member. I propose that the Linux Foundation
> > receive, tally, and make public all the votes and the
> > result at the same time.
>
> I believe we'd need to have some metrics that we (the TSC) would be
> using to evaluate the code bases and make a vote that's not completely
> arbitrary or a popularity contest. Some examples are (just throwing
> things out to be concrete):
>
> 1) controller extensibility and modularity
> 2) model driven API abstraction
> 3) ability to support eventual consistency model
> 4) ability to support multiple southbound plugins
> 5) ability to support virtual networking requirements
>
> And I see this as an absolute last resort. Basically, if we get here
> it's because the controller and net-virt-platform teams have reached
> some fundamental impasse.
>
> > Note that it is not uncommon for an open source project such as
> > ODP to have competing code bases, nor is it uncommon for a
> > resolution such as described above to be used in these cases. In
> > particular, this process is designed to both be as true as
> > possible to the open source community and its governance model
> > while at the same time providing a forcing function to drive
> > resolution of our controller code base problem.
> >
> > Finally, I have asked Collin Dixon and David Erickson to start a
> > discussion of architectural and technical aspects of the two code
> > bases on discuss@.... Thanks Colin and David!
> > Please join in on that discussion to the extent you have
> > time/inclination. This discussion is a crucial part of building
> > our community, and we will need such an analysis in the event
> > that vote. In particular, this work will give us a technical
> > basis on which to base our votes.
>
> Yes, OK. Let's use that to build the list I mentioned above.
>
> thanks,
> -chris
_______________________________________________
TSC mailing list
TSC@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
|
|
|
Hi Dave,
I definitely recognize that there is a lot of pressure (from press, developers, even from ourselves) to show that the daylight community can make progress and produce useful code, but I'm not sure that artificially pushing for a final decision on the controllers (one way or another)---especially in this two weeks time frame---is the right way to do it.
It's my read that the vast majority of people (users, developers, even a number of TSC members) are trying to come up to speed with _what a controller is_ and what is it supposed to do, before even starting on the harder question of "which code base is a better controller". More so, while I agree with the rough characterization of your three options ( (i) let two controllers exist indefinitely, (ii) merge the controllers, (iii) vote to pick one), we don't yet even know enough to answer the technical feasibility of these options or which one will net result in the best code.
For example, Colin Dixon and I have been talking about potentially merging controllers at the SAL level. This would mean in net-virt's perspective that the SAL would look like an application, and from the 'controller' project prospective the net-virt controller would look like a SAL plugin. I think this approach potentially has legs and would solve a lot of problems (and potentially not even be that much work) but we're going to need some time to investigate it.
Last, if we're concerned about being to produce useful code, I would like to submit that working towards some specific user-facing use-case for Q3 (e.g., a full quantum stack with network virtualization support) is a better goal, both from an impact perspective but also because it's less divisive.
What do other people think about this approach to focus on an user-facing deliverable and run the "which controller" question in parallel?
- Rob
.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:57 AM, David Meyer <dmm@...> wrote:
[04/29/2013] As you may know, there have been several proposals floated to
deal with the problems created by the fact that we have two controller code bases. These include but not limited to:
(i). Work on portability between code bases and maintain two controllers going forward. This would obviously create enormous challenges and inefficiencies over time. In
addition, it will continue the lack of clarity over the ODP controller code base. (ii). Create a new controller project that would incorporate the desirable components of both controllers (the
so-called "merged controller"). Note that the creation of such a third controller project would require extensive resources for design and integration, versus expanding on
what we already have. Again, such an approach will also continue the lack of clarity over the ODP controller code base and push our deliverables out an for an undefined
period of time. (iii). Have the TSC vote for either the Cisco or BSN code base as the ODP controller code base. The TSC could also vote to keep the other code base available in case it ever
wanted to pull parts of the other code base in. (iv). Others that I might have missed? Clearly neither option (i). nor option (ii). reach the objective
of providing a clear understanding for the community of which code base ODP is building on (nor would they do so in a timely fashion). On the other hand, jumping directly to option (iii). is
not optimal as we might miss out on compromises that could be beneficial to our community (as well as being more "top-down" than we would like). Since our clear goal (and responsibility) is to make ODP into the
standard open source infrastructure for SDN, it is incumbent upon us as the ODP TSC to take affirmative action to clear this problem and get ODP moving. To that end and in consultation with
the Linux Foundation and others, I am formally putting the following resolution process in place: (a). I will ask Cisco and BSN to create a proposal for one controller code base that comprise the ODP controller
code base. This "one code base" could be either code bases or a mashup of the two that Cisco and BSN feel, from a technical point of view, will best serve the ODP
community. In addition, the proposal may include proposals to start other ODP projects or sub-projects to address any gaps or future work. And of course, community members are encouraged to participate in
this process. (b). The proposal should be available for TSC review no later than Monday, 13 May 2013. Of course, we should provide for flexibility in the event substantive progress is
being made. That said, 13 May 2013 should be our target date. (c). If no proposal can be created by Cisco and BSN (possibly working with other community members), the TSC will take
an up or down vote on which controller code base ODP will be using going forward. The vote should be taken on Tuesday, 14 May 2013 by email in a private ballot to
preclude the appearance of a "deciding vote" being cast by any TSC member. I propose that the Linux Foundation receive, tally, and make public all the votes and the
result at the same time. Note that it is not uncommon for an open source project such as ODP to have competing code bases, nor is it uncommon for a
resolution such as described above to be used in these cases. In particular, this process is designed to both be as true as possible to the open source community and its governance model
while at the same time providing a forcing function to drive
resolution of our controller code base problem. Finally, I have asked Collin Dixon and David Erickson to start a discussion of architectural and technical aspects of the two code
Please join in on that discussion to the extent you have time/inclination. This discussion is a crucial part of building
our community, and we will need such an analysis in the event that vote. In particular, this work will give us a technical basis on which to base our votes. Thnx,
--dmm
_______________________________________________
TSC mailing list
TSC@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
|
|
|
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Rob Sherwood <rob.sherwood@...> wrote:
Hi Dave,
I definitely recognize that there is a lot of pressure (from press, developers, even from ourselves) to show that the daylight community can make progress and produce useful code, but I'm not sure that artificially pushing for a final decision on the controllers (one way or another)---especially in this two weeks time frame---is the right way to do it.
It time frames are the problem, those can be adjusted. As I mentioned it is more important that we make progress in a timely fashion than the actual date of this or that (at least until we get to delivery schedules).
It's my read that the vast majority of people (users, developers, even a number of TSC members) are trying to come up to speed with _what a controller is_ and what is it supposed to do, before even starting on the harder question of "which code base is a better controller". More so, while I agree with the rough characterization of your three options ( (i) let two controllers exist indefinitely, (ii) merge the controllers, (iii) vote to pick one), we don't yet even know enough to answer the technical feasibility of these options or which one will net result in the best code.
What I'm asking people (such as Colin and David (E)) to do to look at just this. As Chris pointed out, during the process we'll want to generate metrics (loosely defined) that will allow us to more objectively evaluate our options (we need this as a community in any event).
For example, Colin Dixon and I have been talking about potentially merging controllers at the SAL level. This would mean in net-virt's perspective that the SAL would look like an application, and from the 'controller' project prospective the net-virt controller would look like a SAL plugin. I think this approach potentially has legs and would solve a lot of problems (and potentially not even be that much work) but we're going to need some time to investigate it.
Last, if we're concerned about being to produce useful code, I would like to submit that working towards some specific user-facing use-case for Q3 (e.g., a full quantum stack with network virtualization support) is a better goal, both from an impact perspective but also because it's less divisive.
What do other people think about this approach to focus on an user-facing deliverable and run the "which controller" question in parallel?
While having other (user-facing) deliverables is goodness (and IMO ultimately where a lot of value will be created) , the problem that I want to solve is to have a stable controller base for such applications to be built on. So it is critical that we sort that out for all the reasons you mention above (and others), and is the problem I intend to address with the process I outlined. In fact, having a stable controller base (including how ever the NB is done, model driven/BigDB/...) would seem to be an obvious prerequisite for the example you cite.
All of that said, if the time frame isn't reasonable (understanding that I was being intentionally aggressive with the two week time frame), let's settle on a reasonable time frame. As I mentioned, making progress is most important but it is also important that we do so in a timely fashion.
--dmm
|
|
|
Chris Wright <chrisw@...>
* Rob Sherwood (rob.sherwood@...) wrote: I definitely recognize that there is a lot of pressure (from press,
developers, even from ourselves) to show that the daylight community can
make progress and produce useful code, but I'm not sure that artificially
pushing for a final decision on the controllers (one way or
another)---especially in this two weeks time frame---is the right way to do
it.
It's my read that the vast majority of people (users, developers, even a
number of TSC members) are trying to come up to speed with _what a
controller is_ and what is it supposed to do, before even starting on the
harder question of "which code base is a better controller". More so,
while I agree with the rough characterization of your three options ( (i)
let two controllers exist indefinitely, (ii) merge the controllers, (iii)
vote to pick one), we don't yet even know enough to answer the technical
feasibility of these options or which one will net result in the best code. The problem we have right now is no clear path forward to a single core code base. As a consequence, we can't really even point would-be users or developers to a place to go to help us push down that path. For example, Colin Dixon and I have been talking about potentially merging
controllers at the SAL level. This would mean in net-virt's perspective
that the SAL would look like an application, and from the 'controller'
project prospective the net-virt controller would look like a SAL plugin.
I think this approach potentially has legs and would solve a lot of
problems (and potentially not even be that much work) but we're going to
need some time to investigate it. Sounds like an excellent thing to get to discuss@ asap. We should be operating in post early, post often mode. I'd particularly like to understand (not here, but on the proper list), how this actually concentrates our effort. Last, if we're concerned about being to produce useful code, I would like
to submit that working towards some specific user-facing use-case for Q3
(e.g., a full quantum stack with network virtualization support) is a
better goal, both from an impact perspective but also because it's less
divisive. How is it less divisive? And how does doing it in parallel help focus our effort? thanks, -chris
|
|
|
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...> wrote:
Happy to move to a more reasonable place… suggestions? Would it make sense to hang them off of:
before the 'OpenDaylight Project Documentation' section? Elsewhere?
Maybe make a "Core Architectural Principles" or similar after Hackfests (so it would be # 5). Then link your's off that? That way we have a place we can perhaps have discussions around this or other pages.
Comments?
--dmm
Ed
On Apr 29, 2013, at 3:05 PM, David Meyer < dmm@...> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Colin Dixon
<ckd@...> wrote:
Thanks for pointing this out. For those who haven't taken a look at this page, it has some reasonable principles. Also agree with Colin that these are general principles, not project specific.
--dmm
--Colin
tsc-bounces@... wrote on 04/29/2013 02:49:19 PM:
> From: Chris Wright <chrisw@...>
> To: David Meyer <dmm@...>
> Cc: tsc@...
> Date: 04/29/2013 02:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Resolving the multiple controller
> code bases issue
> Sent by:
tsc-bounces@...
>
> * David Meyer (dmm@...) wrote:
> > As you may know, there have been several proposals floated to
> > deal with the problems created by the fact that we have two
> > controller code bases. These include but not limited to:
> >
> > (i). Work on portability between code bases and maintain two
> > controllers going forward. This would obviously create
> > enormous challenges and inefficiencies over time. In
> > addition, it will continue the lack of clarity over
> > the ODP controller code base.
>
> Agreed, non-starter.
>
> > (ii). Create a new controller project that would incorporate
> > the desirable components of both controllers (the
> > so-called "merged controller"). Note that the creation of
> > such a third controller project would require extensive
> > resources for design and integration, versus expanding on
> > what we already have. Again, such an approach will also
> > continue the lack of clarity over the ODP controller code
> > base and push our deliverables out an for an undefined
> > period of time.
>
> I actually think this is quite similar to or at least a variant of what
> you've outlined in your proposal below.
>
> > (iii). Have the TSC vote for either the Cisco or BSN code base
> > as the ODP controller code base. The TSC could also vote
> > to keep the other code base available in case it ever
> > wanted to pull parts of the other code base in.
>
> BTW, let's keep this to the projects and their developers.
> So, that is the "controller" project and the "net-virt-platform"
> project.
>
> > (iv). Others that I might have missed?
> >
> > Clearly neither option (i). nor option (ii). reach the objective
> > of providing a clear understanding for the community of which
> > code base ODP is building on (nor would they do so in a timely
> > fashion). On the other hand, jumping directly to option (iii). is
> > not optimal as we might miss out on compromises that could be
> > beneficial to our community (as well as being more "top-down"
> > than we would like).
> >
> > Since our clear goal (and responsibility) is to make ODP into the
> > standard open source infrastructure for SDN, it is incumbent upon
> > us as the ODP TSC to take affirmative action to clear this
> > problem and get ODP moving. To that end and in consultation with
> > the Linux Foundation and others, I am formally putting the
> > following resolution process in place:
> >
> > (a). I will ask Cisco and BSN to create a proposal for one
> > controller code base that comprise the ODP controller
> > code base. This "one code base" could be either code
> > bases or a mashup of the two that Cisco and BSN feel,
> > from a technical point of view, will best serve the ODP
> > community. In addition, the proposal may include
> > proposals to start other ODP projects or sub-projects to
> > address any gaps or future work. And of course,
> > community members are encouraged to participate in
> > this process.
>
> I agree. Pushing back on the developers that own each proposal and making
> the path forward "their problem" is a tried and true way to try to positively
> engage each of the teams. A critical component of the success of
> OpenDaylight is building community and collaboration.
>
> > (b). The proposal should be available for TSC review no later
> > than Monday, 13 May 2013. Of course, we should provide
> > for flexibility in the event substantive progress is
> > being made. That said, 13 May 2013 should be our target
> > date.
> >
> > (c). If no proposal can be created by Cisco and BSN (possibly
> > working with other community members), the TSC will take
> > an up or down vote on which controller code base ODP will
> > be using going forward. The vote should be taken on
> > Tuesday, 14 May 2013 by email in a private ballot to
> > preclude the appearance of a "deciding vote" being cast
> > by any TSC member. I propose that the Linux Foundation
> > receive, tally, and make public all the votes and the
> > result at the same time.
>
> I believe we'd need to have some metrics that we (the TSC) would be
> using to evaluate the code bases and make a vote that's not completely
> arbitrary or a popularity contest. Some examples are (just throwing
> things out to be concrete):
>
> 1) controller extensibility and modularity
> 2) model driven API abstraction
> 3) ability to support eventual consistency model
> 4) ability to support multiple southbound plugins
> 5) ability to support virtual networking requirements
>
> And I see this as an absolute last resort. Basically, if we get here
> it's because the controller and net-virt-platform teams have reached
> some fundamental impasse.
>
> > Note that it is not uncommon for an open source project such as
> > ODP to have competing code bases, nor is it uncommon for a
> > resolution such as described above to be used in these cases. In
> > particular, this process is designed to both be as true as
> > possible to the open source community and its governance model
> > while at the same time providing a forcing function to drive
> > resolution of our controller code base problem.
> >
> > Finally, I have asked Collin Dixon and David Erickson to start a
> > discussion of architectural and technical aspects of the two code
> > bases on discuss@.... Thanks Colin and David!
> > Please join in on that discussion to the extent you have
> > time/inclination. This discussion is a crucial part of building
> > our community, and we will need such an analysis in the event
> > that vote. In particular, this work will give us a technical
> > basis on which to base our votes.
>
> Yes, OK. Let's use that to build the list I mentioned above.
>
> thanks,
> -chris
_______________________________________________
TSC mailing list
TSC@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
|
|
|
