#opnfv-meeting: OPNFV TSC

Meeting started by ChrisPriceAB at 14:58:48 UTC (full logs).

Meeting summary

    1. Uli Kleber (uli-k, 14:58:58)

  2. roll call (ChrisPriceAB, 14:59:01)
    1. Uli Kleber (uli-k, 14:59:05)
    2. Gerald Kunzmann (DOCOMO) (GeraldK, 14:59:07)
    3. Chris Price (ChrisPriceAB, 14:59:13)
    4. Frank Brockners (frankbrockners, 14:59:15)
    5. mlynch (Mike_Lynch, 14:59:42)
    6. Edgar StPierre (edgarstp, 15:00:52)

  3. approval of previous minutes of meeting (ChrisPriceAB, 15:01:15)
    1. the minutes of two past have been approved due to no feedback. (ChrisPriceAB, 15:01:49)
    2. Bryan Sullivan (bryan_att, 15:01:50)
    3. Brian Skerry (bjskerry, 15:02:05)
    4. previous minutes are also approved. (ChrisPriceAB, 15:02:19)
    5. Morgan Richomme (morgan_orange, 15:02:22)
    6. Dirk Kutscher (dku, 15:02:32)

  4. Agenda Bashing (ChrisPriceAB, 15:02:33)
    1. https://wiki.opnfv.org/wiki/tsc current agendsa (ChrisPriceAB, 15:02:48)
    2. Vikram Dham (VikramDham, 15:03:06)
    3. Tapio Tallgren (ttallgren, 15:03:21)
    4. no further topics proposed (ChrisPriceAB, 15:04:06)

  5. Milestone D update (ChrisPriceAB, 15:04:21)
    1. Debra outlines the plan for projects passing milestone D of Brahmaputra (ChrisPriceAB, 15:04:44)
    2. Debra will prepare list of questions to every project (GeraldK, 15:04:52)
    3. Debra will create a page per project on the Brahmaputra Wiki area (GeraldK, 15:05:52)
    4. Frank requests to have this list of questions in advance, preferrably by today (GeraldK, 15:06:26)

  6. Project lifecycle discussions (ChrisPriceAB, 15:06:51)
    1. The project proposal wiki is being updated to reflect the recent changes in bylaws (ChrisPriceAB, 15:07:30)
    2. Ildiko asks rpaik when the www.opnfv.org pages will be updated (ChrisPriceAB, 15:07:47)
    3. rpaik responds that the creative services team are working to update the web page (ChrisPriceAB, 15:08:06)
    4. Parviz Yegani (Parviz, 15:08:15)
    5. Ildikov has asked for community input into the activity on the mailing lists. (ChrisPriceAB, 15:08:43)
    6. Discussion on Word vs rst (GeraldK, 15:09:08)
    7. dlenrow (dlenrow, 15:09:11)
    8. https://wiki.opnfv.org/project_proposals/template (frankbrockners, 15:09:52)
    9. https://wiki.opnfv.org/project_proposals (ildikov, 15:10:12)
    10. frankbrockers promotes simplicity and thinks the wiki is suitable given our current best parctices (ChrisPriceAB, 15:10:53)
    11. Chris prefers rst and using our repositories, Frank proposes Wiki (with link from project page to project proposal page) (GeraldK, 15:10:54)
    12. a motion is put to remove the word document sitting on the wiki (ChrisPriceAB, 15:11:20)
    13. no (Julien-zte, 15:11:39)
    14. AGREED: the TSC agrees to remove the word document and stick to the wiki proposal template (ChrisPriceAB, 15:12:18)

  7. Project scope adjustments after the amended bylaws (ChrisPriceAB, 15:12:58)
    1. question is on procedures around scope adjustment, e.g. reduce/increase project scope (GeraldK, 15:14:21)
    2. Ray questions what is the project maturity gate when projects can change the scope frequently (GeraldK, 15:15:21)
    3. dlenrow asks how active the TSC should be when project scope changes (rpaik, 15:16:32)
    4. problem might occur when a project scope might affect another project or even the overall OPNFV scope. (GeraldK, 15:17:14)
    5. Uli-K: there are several where the TSC would need to decide on updated project scope. we should encourage projects to seek guidance on the new scope. (GeraldK, 15:19:46)
    6. Chris: if the project wants to change scope, they could just come to TSC to ask for approval. (GeraldK, 15:20:36)
    7. Is there an example of a scope problem in OPNFV currently that we could use to test proposed solutions to this (possible non) problem? (dlenrow, 15:20:44)
    8. Debra raises the question about the size of scope changes; would scope changes really affect the project that much? (GeraldK, 15:21:27)
    9. Frank: what is the purpose of this discussion: does TSC simply wants to know about the change? (GeraldK, 15:22:34)
    10. Ray: project scope should stay inside OPNFV scope and project should not overlap with other projects (GeraldK, 15:23:06)
    11. frankbrockners proposes that we handle project scope change via a notification to the TSC, the TSC reserves the right to question or discuss the scope adjustment. (ChrisPriceAB, 15:25:01)
    12. uli-k adds that the change should be well documented on the project page (ChrisPriceAB, 15:25:17)
    13. AGREED: the TSC agrees to implement the above procedures as a way of managing scope change. (ChrisPriceAB, 15:29:02)

  8. Process for archiving projects (ChrisPriceAB, 15:29:16)
    1. https://www.opnfv.org/developers/technical-project-governance/project-lifecycle current lifecycle document (ChrisPriceAB, 15:29:56)
    2. dneary asks how the community might terminate a project that has no active members (ChrisPriceAB, 15:31:42)
    3. ttallgren outlines the confusion caused by having idle projects listed on the OPNFV wiki and creating misconceptions of our activity (ChrisPriceAB, 15:33:02)
    4. if project steps out of SR,it should be clear it is inactive and carrying cost should be near zero (dlenrow, 15:34:36)
    5. rpaik found a few projects that were dormant. He has discussed archiving with these projects. (ChrisPriceAB, 15:34:59)
    6. we naturally split into participating in SR and not. This should be solved by rules for remaining active/eligible in SR (dlenrow, 15:35:27)
    7. Ray basically used bitergia dashboard and Debra's project sheets to identify potentially stale projects (GeraldK, 15:36:14)
    8. Frank proposes after 1 year of no activity, TSC should try to contact the project and trigger a decision (GeraldK, 15:37:30)
    9. rprakash (rprakash, 15:40:07)
    10. can we look at Grading projects like OpenStack for people to know what are in good standing (rprakash, 15:40:47)

  9. OPNFV Plugfest, needs and support (ChrisPriceAB, 15:40:57)
    1. Uli-K proposed to discuss technical-related topic from Board meetings within TSC (GeraldK, 15:43:16)
    2. Chris raised concern that Board discussions are closed (GeraldK, 15:43:27)
    3. if BOD is considering major change in technical content of project, it would be nice for them to invite TSC to a (closed) meeting to discuss... (dlenrow, 15:44:51)
    4. Uli-K proposes that Chris should request to have such technical topics be declared open by the board when possible (GeraldK, 15:44:56)
    5. +1 to TSC deciding technical scope of the OPNFV (bryan_att, 15:46:57)
    6. https://www.sdxcentral.com/artiles/news/opnfv-opens-a-vote-on-nfv-mano/2015/11 ? (ttallgren, 15:47:15)
    7. The board has a significant voice and the TSC should consider it's guidance carefully, but the life of the community is based upon the interest of the members at a technical level, and that includes new areas of scope. (bryan_att, 15:47:50)
    8. for example, I will soon propose that the C release include projects addressing VNFM/NFVO functionality explicitly based upon upstream projects; I don't believe that we need the board to bless the scope of such projects in advance. (bryan_att, 15:49:13)
    9. that scope was clearly on the table for OPNFV at organizational creation; it's up to the TSC to determine when and how to address functionality in the overall scope of NFV/SDN. (bryan_att, 15:50:12)
    10. this is just an example - others may be more problematic. but the TSC needs to drive the technical content, especially if it's the only "open" forum for scope discussion. (bryan_att, 15:51:02)
    11. could we (Chris) ask for a joint BOD/TSC meeting to discuss technical aspects of changes w/ BOD? (dlenrow, 15:51:26)
    12. info uli-k requests that TSC chair can request for more time to the board to collect TSC input (rpaik, 15:53:07)

  10. Wiki migration plans (ChrisPriceAB, 15:54:15)
    1. rpaik outlines the plans for the confluence migration. (ChrisPriceAB, 15:54:37)
    2. aricg is setting up the wiki hosting for confluence, it is expected that a 2 week lead time will be required before we start the migration process. (ChrisPriceAB, 15:55:23)
    3. both sites wil be kept up for 2 weeks prior to final cut-over for review and formatting. (ChrisPriceAB, 15:56:03)
    4. aricg asks if we can update Jira to Jira 7 (ChrisPriceAB, 15:57:16)
    5. no reason to reject (Julien-zte, 15:57:49)
    6. ChrisPriceAB requests Confluence migration to start after Dec. 1 (Brahmaputra Milestone-D) (rpaik, 15:59:00)


Meeting ended at 16:00:40 UTC (full logs).

Action items

  1. (none)


People present (lines said)

  1. ChrisPriceAB (44)
  2. GeraldK (21)
  3. bryan_att (9)
  4. dlenrow (7)
  5. collabot (6)
  6. ttallgren (4)
  7. rpaik (4)
  8. uli-k (3)
  9. frankbrockners (2)
  10. rprakash (2)
  11. Julien-zte (2)
  12. ildikov (2)
  13. dku (1)
  14. VikramDham (1)
  15. morgan_orange (1)
  16. Mike_Lynch (1)
  17. Parviz (1)
  18. dneary (1)
  19. bjskerry (1)
  20. edgarstp (1)


Generated by MeetBot 0.1.4.