14:00:17 <ChrisPriceAB> #startmeeting OPNFV TSC
14:00:17 <collabot> Meeting started Tue Aug 11 14:00:17 2015 UTC.  The chair is ChrisPriceAB. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:00:17 <collabot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
14:00:17 <collabot> The meeting name has been set to 'opnfv_tsc'
14:00:23 <ChrisPriceAB> #topic roll call
14:00:27 <ChrisPriceAB> #info Chris Price
14:00:51 <ashyoung> #info Ashlee Young
14:01:05 <frankbrockners> #info Frank Brockners
14:01:08 <ashyoung> proxy for Uli
14:02:06 <tapio__> #info Tapio Tallgren
14:02:21 <ildikov> #info Ildiko Vancsa
14:03:00 <Wenjing> #info Wenjing
14:03:15 <bryan_att> #info Bryan Sullivan
14:03:45 <dneary> #info Dave Neary, proxy for Chris Wright
14:03:53 <ChrisPriceAB> #topic Approval of previous minutes of meeting
14:04:27 <ChrisPriceAB> #agree the TSC approves the previous minutes of meeting.
14:04:52 <ChrisPriceAB> #topic Agenda Bashing
14:04:58 <ChrisPriceAB> #link https://wiki.opnfv.org/wiki/tsc TSC Agenda
14:06:42 <ChrisPriceAB> #topic OPNFV Project classification discussion
14:07:04 <ildikov> #link https://wiki.opnfv.org/requirements_projects?&#project_lifecycle
14:07:07 <ChrisPriceAB> #link https://wiki.opnfv.org/requirements_projects Link to the proposal
14:10:08 <ChrisPriceAB> #chair rpaik
14:10:08 <collabot> Current chairs: ChrisPriceAB rpaik
14:10:49 <ChrisPriceAB> #info Ildiko outlines a proposal to combine the project types in the project lifecycle document into a single project type.
14:11:23 <ChrisPriceAB> #info the projects would include needed combinations of documentation, upstream development, needed integration and documentation.
14:12:18 <ChrisPriceAB> #info this is reflective of the way the projects are working, adopting an agile fashion of development that is inclusive of all aspects of working on technology development.
14:14:49 <ChrisPriceAB> #info ildikov describes the next step includes the need to update the project lifecycle document to reflect the listed proposal.
14:15:45 <ChrisPriceAB> #info The question is raised that if a project does not result in the development of code should it exist in OPNFV at all?
14:16:54 <bryan_att> What does "result in code" mean? For example, based upon the Copper project goals we will include OpenStack Congress in the OPNFV build (as "code" in the platform) but have not yet determined any need to enhance Congress or any other upstream code.
14:17:04 <ChrisPriceAB> #info ildikov describes that projects intending to provide requirements are already doing that.
14:17:29 <dneary> Who is the person who asked the question? Don't recognise the voice
14:17:38 <bjskerry> brian skerry
14:17:45 <dneary> Thanks bjskerry
14:18:11 <Wenjing> #info: I need to leave early today. Vikram Dham would be alternate for me.
14:19:03 <ashyoung> Who's job is it to modify multiple upstream projects to be "tightly" integrated-- assuming this requires coding to unify interfaces?
14:19:22 <ashyoung> Sorry... whose*
14:19:54 <dneary> ashyoung, We have had "integration" projects which have taken multiple projects and deployed them together - is that what you mean?
14:20:03 <dneary> In that case, the upstream projects are not modified
14:20:20 <trevor_intel> #info trevor_intel
14:21:19 <dneary> If someone wants a component included in a stack, and that inclusion does require code changes - say the addition of an ML2 mechanism or new Neutron plug-in - then that would be the responsibility of the person proposing the project for inclusion (or the people who care that it happens)
14:21:32 <ashyoung> dneary, Just clarifying on the inclusion of this in a requirements project life cycle
14:21:56 <dneary> ashyoung, We're reviewing the ovno project proposal later which is an excellent example of how this should happen
14:26:19 <aricg> http://projects.bitergia.com/opnfv/browser/scm-companies.html
14:26:46 <bryan_att> Further on the earlier point; we may assess upstream component functionality and develop scripts for CI/testing/etc as part of the OPNFV projects. These represent tangible project output though perhaps not pushed upstream (except where those scripts/tests are of value directly to the upstream). At some point upstream code may result but that's TBD when/how,
14:26:46 <bryan_att> and there doesn't need to be a firm plan for that when a project is created.
14:27:33 <ashyoung> Understood
14:30:07 <HKirksey> Totally agreed, Bryan_att
14:31:42 <dneary> I think I am not looking at the right wiki page
14:31:50 <ChrisPriceAB> #info the proposal includes the re-classification of project types to; Continuous Build and Integration, Continuous Deployment and Testing & New Requirements and Features
14:31:52 <dneary> What question are you talking about, Parviz?
14:32:28 <ChrisPriceAB> #info the proposal also removes the need for the "top level project" and aligns the project lifecycle reviews across the category types.
14:33:47 <ashyoung> ChrisPriceAB, that makes sense to me.
14:34:12 * ChrisPriceAB breathes a sign of release he scribed that in a sane manner. ;)
14:39:29 <dneary> No concerns here.
14:39:53 <ashyoung> No issue here
14:40:04 <fdegir> could we change "Continuous Deployment and Testing" to "Deployment and Testing"?
14:41:59 <ChrisPriceAB> #agree the TSC agrees to pursue further development of the above described changes.  A community activity will be established to create a firm proposal.
14:42:10 <ildikov> fdegir: I'm not against, prolly it would worth a mail on the list, will figure it out
14:43:04 <ChrisPriceAB> #action Ildikov: to lead a community activity to revise the Project Lifecycle document and any needed changes to the bylaws for TSC review at a future date.
14:43:36 <rpaik> #info question was raised what happens when you remove the “Top-Level” project?
14:45:14 <dlenrow> #info Pls include me in team to propose changes
14:45:49 <ChrisPriceAB> #topic OPNFV Support review and next steps
14:45:54 <RayNugent> #info please dont forget to include RayNugent as co-lead
14:46:01 <ChrisPriceAB> #info postponed this topic to next week.
14:46:12 <ChrisPriceAB> #topic OPNFV Brahmaputra Release discussion
14:46:18 <ildikov> dlenrow: sure, I will post a mail to the list too as soon as I have a material to start with
14:46:19 <ashyoung> #info please also include me in the team
14:46:58 <ChrisPriceAB> #info Debra reflects that there is limited dependency on OpenStack Liberty which makes a December releaese a viable release date.
14:47:45 <ChrisPriceAB> #info This raises the question of providing a Brahmaputra release in December based on Kilo, which would be after the Liberty release of OpenStack.
14:48:03 <ChrisPriceAB> #info there may be dependencies on a future Linux Kernel release planned to be available in December.
14:49:06 <ashyoung> What if the underlying distros aren't supporting the particular kernel? Will we patch the kernels via our installers or install an alternate kernel?
14:49:33 <ChrisPriceAB> #info There is a lot of information emerging on cross project dependencies, this requires further analysis from dependant projects.
14:50:07 <ashyoung> Affects kernel, boot loader, KLMs and a bit more
14:50:12 <dneary> debrascott, Did you hear back from Doctor?
14:50:53 <dneary> debrascott, I also think a number of the "NFV Hypervisor: KVM" and "OVS for NFV" features get exposed in OpenStack in Liberty
14:53:10 <bjskerry> agreed, the OVS for NFV did have a dependency, I will double check with project lead
14:56:33 <ashyoung> Are we thinking 2 months is insufficient to support Liberty?
14:58:07 <debrascott> dneary, from Don Duggar re: NFV Hypervisor: KVM “For `NFV Hypervisors-KVM’ we don’t have any strong dependencies (the reality is that this project is more an optimization effort than new development).  We will be basing our work on the Linux 4.1.3-rt3 kernel source tree, that is really our only dependency and that source tree is available today.”
14:58:56 <dneary> debrascott, Interesting - the RT KVM patches and SR-IOV passthrough require Nova support
14:59:26 <dneary> debrascott, Perhaps Don is focussed on the kernel work, rather than thinking "when can a user use this"?
14:59:33 <frankbrockners> KVM/kernel/distro are directly related...
15:00:01 <frankbrockners> e.g. for Ubuntu 14.04 / Kernel 3.13 / KVM 2.0
15:00:11 <frankbrockners> a 4.x might be a stretch...
15:00:27 <frankbrockners> a 4.x kernel might be a stretch...
15:00:50 <dneary> frankbrockners, IMHO we should not even care about distribution release dates - focus on when it's available end-to-end in a stable upstream source code release
15:01:09 <frankbrockners> dneary - agreed
15:01:48 <frankbrockners> but "pick what is available" also translates to use a specific KVM and kernel version
15:03:01 <ashyoung> It seems we're dropping features in favor of the installers, which seems backwards. Installers should support features.
15:04:13 <dneary> frankbrockners, Well, I don't think we should start back-porting patches to old kernels to support old distributions
15:04:21 <rpaik> #info Discussion if the community is comfortable with being “behind” on OpenStack release if we stay with June/December cadence.
15:05:43 <frankbrockners> dneary - we're saying the same thing. you'll need to wait for upstream to support it. only in very specific situations you might want to do things OPNFV specific (which eventually translates to "you fork"=
15:06:27 <rpaik> #info feedback that installer support & testing will likely require ~2 months post OpenStack release
15:06:31 <dneary> frankbrockners, I agree with the first sentence, not with the 2nd. :-)
15:07:41 <frankbrockners> dneary - I said "might"... the TSC might decide to completely close the door on sentence 2 (which would make things far easier)
15:08:24 <debrascott> https://wiki.opnfv.org/releases/brahmaputra/release_plan?&#brahmaputra_release_participating_projects
15:08:52 <ChrisPriceAB> #link https://wiki.opnfv.org/releases/brahmaputra/release_plan?&#brahmaputra_release_participating_projects Brahmaputra release planning, including definition of "lab ready"
15:15:50 <bryan_att> debrascott: would it help if I edit the wiki directly, or send a note to the list with addtional clarification on the objectives for "lab ready"?
15:15:56 <TomNadeau> i agree with dneary - set our milestones, draw a line and use what is stable upstream at that point.
15:18:14 <TomNadeau> chrispriceAB: didn't we agree to have these meetings last an hour?  we're approaching 90 minutes...
15:18:28 <ChrisPriceAB> tnadeau starting next week yes.
15:27:51 <rpaik> #info suggestion made to agree on dates for Miestones A/B/C next week
15:28:01 <frankbrockners> #link https://wiki.opnfv.org/releases/brahmaputra/upstream_projects_schedules
15:29:52 <ashyoung> frankbrockners, can we change the graphic to remove "Feb 2" as the Release B date since that's not yet approved?
15:30:15 <ChrisPriceAB> #topic Creation review for the Genesis project.
15:30:18 <debrascott> ashyoung: yes I have an updated slide to add there
15:30:23 <ChrisPriceAB> #link https://wiki.opnfv.org/genesis/genesis_project_proposal genesis project proposal
15:30:42 <ashyoung> debrascott, super! Thanks!
15:32:19 <ChrisPriceAB> #info the genesis project intends to work across the installer projects to create a common set of requirements for the installers to comply to during the release project.
15:32:53 <ChrisPriceAB> #info the genesis project will additionally work with component teams to facilitate the integration of new components into the installers.
15:34:00 <frankbrockners> #link https://wiki.opnfv.org/genesis
15:35:00 <ashyoung> If a project "fails" to meet the genesis requirements for a particular release, do they have to "re-apply" to be added back to genesis at a later date?
15:35:21 <ashyoung> The governance says that they'll be "removed" from genesis
15:36:09 <TomNadeau> i need to split. thought we were doing 1 hr calls now.
15:38:11 <ChrisPriceAB> ok thanks Tom, do you have a delegate for the votes?
15:46:05 <dneary> Have I lost audio?
15:46:05 <rpaik> #info governance details are still in draft and will evolve
15:46:12 <dneary> Back
15:54:51 <mlynch> # info Mike L.
15:55:55 * ChrisPriceAB welcomes Mike L to the call.
15:56:38 <ChrisPriceAB> #info there are quetsions around some the text in the governance described on the genesis page.  To be clarified further within the project.
15:57:15 <ChrisPriceAB> #startvote TSC to vote to create the Genesis project? (+1, 0, -1)
15:57:15 <collabot> Begin voting on: TSC to vote to create the Genesis project? Valid vote options are , +1, 0, -1, .
15:57:15 <collabot> Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts.
15:57:16 <ashyoung> #info ashyoung will help clean up genesis governance
15:57:17 <tapio__> #vote +1
15:57:19 <bryan_att> #vote +1
15:57:23 <frankbrockners> #vote +1
15:57:23 <dlenrow> #vote 1
15:57:23 <collabot> dlenrow: 1 is not a valid option. Valid options are , +1, 0, -1, .
15:57:24 <bjskerry> #vote +1
15:57:26 <ChrisPriceAB> #vote +1
15:57:28 <VikramDham> #vote +1 (for Wenjing)
15:57:28 <collabot> VikramDham: +1 (for Wenjing) is not a valid option. Valid options are , +1, 0, -1, .
15:57:29 <dneary> #vote +1
15:57:30 <Parviz> #vote +1
15:57:35 <ashyoung> #vote +1
15:57:52 <ChrisPriceAB> #endvote
15:57:52 <collabot> Voted on "TSC to vote to create the Genesis project?" Results are
15:57:52 <collabot> +1 (8): dneary, frankbrockners, ashyoung, bryan_att, ChrisPriceAB, tapio__, bjskerry, Parviz
15:58:02 <VikramDham> #vote +1
15:58:44 <ChrisPriceAB> #agree The TSC agrees to create the Genesis project in OPNFV.
15:58:53 <ChrisPriceAB> #endmeeting