[Twg] Ideas for consideration

[David Dillow]

TWG members:
	Please review Pam's memo and comment to the list. We'd like to discuss
the ideas on the Jan 13th call. That is expected to be a busy call with
other matters, so the more discussion we can shift to the mailing list,
the better.

Thanks,
Dave Dillow

On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 17:55 -0500, Hamilton, Pam wrote:
> Dear OpenSFS Execs,
> 
>  
> 
> The Support Working Group has had discussions regarding the board’s
> request to show rapid progress by getting a support RFP and
> development RFP out ASAP. We have two other ideas which can show
> progress immediately that we’d like the board to consider.
> 
>  
> 
> First, we could start with a community-developed OpenSFS Lustre
> release as a bootstrapping step. We’d propose that we target a release
> based on Oracle's 2.1 release (which is currently in development), for
> roughly half way through 2011. Our collaborative effort to test and
> stabilize 2.1 would add legitimacy to that release, and encourage the
> community to begin migrating to the Lustre 2 branch.  Note that a
> final OpenSFS release/development/support model can and likely will be
> quite different from this “birthing” step, but will hopefully be able
> to fully leverage any infrastructure deployed to support it.
> 
>  
> 
> We could proceed almost immediately by performing the following steps:
> 
>  
> 
> 1)  Create a branch named "2.0.59.0-opensfs" on github, which is based
> at Oracle's 2.0.59.0 tag.  This is a "pre-release" version on the
> branch that will be tagged 2.1 by Oracle in the next few months.
> 
>  
> 
> We can easily create a new branch with all of our patches applied to
> it each time Oracle adds a new tag, or when convenient for us.  I.E.,
> when Oracle tags 2.0.60.0, we create 2.0.60.0-opensfs, which contains
> all of our patches from the 2.0.59.0-opensfs, rebased onto the
> 2.0.60.0 tag. 
> 
> Eventually, 2.1.0 will be tagged, and we perform a rebase onto it
> named 2.1.0-opensfs.
> 
>  
> 
> 2)  We create a "opensfs-devel" mailing list, where Lustre developers
> and testers can communicate and coordinate their efforts.
> 
>  
> 
> 3)  When we discover bugs, we can initially use github's built-in
> issue tracking, or just use bugzilla.lustre.org, and agree to make all
> OpenSFS bugs dependants of a master OpenSFS tracking bug.  The
> developers can work out the details amongst themselves on
> opensfs-devel.
> 
>  
> 
> We have a volunteer who is willing to be the initial gatekeeper for
> the OpenSFS 2.1 release if there are no objections, or unless better
> candidates volunteer. Whoever the gatekeeper is needs to maintain the
> fairly rigorous processes developed at Oracle to maintain quality and
> reliability in both development and production branches.
> 
>  
> 
> Another idea which could be launched quickly is to put out an RFP to
> do an investigation into Btrfs and its use as a possible backend file
> system for Lustre. This wouldn’t involve any code development. The
> primary deliverable for this contract would be a report.
> 
>  
> 
> Both of the above ideas could be executed is the VERY short term and
> buy ourselves more time to work out the details of an RFP for release
> development and support. It’s the details and the questions they raise
> which make drafting a support RFP difficult and the reason we were
> going to have a face-to-face meeting. Questions like the following:
> 
> ·         What is the dollar amount OpenSFS expects to spend for such
> a contract?
> 
> ·         What timeframe does the contract cover, one year, two years,
> or ???
> 
> ·         Where will the money come from to pay for the contract?
> Dues? Or additional funds from members?
> 
>  
> 
> We can still get started on a draft, if the board is willing to answer
> the above questions and any others we have as we proceed. We are also
> willing to make up our own answers to such questions knowing that the
> board has the final say. Guidance would be appreciated but we’d also
> like our ideas given consideration.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Pam
> 
>  
> 
> ___________________________________
> Pam Hamilton
> Lawrence Livermore National Lab 
> P.O. Box 808, L-556
> Livermore, CA  94551-9900
> E-Mail:  pgh at llnl.gov
> Phone:  925-423-1332          Fax:  925-423-8719
> ___________________________________
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________

-- 
Dave Dillow
National Center for Computational Science
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(865) 241-6602 office