14:01:20 <tallgren> #startmeeting Weekly TSC meeting
14:01:20 <collabot> Meeting started Tue Apr 18 14:01:20 2017 UTC.  The chair is tallgren. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:01:20 <collabot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
14:01:20 <collabot> The meeting name has been set to 'weekly_tsc_meeting'
14:01:29 <dneary> #info Dave Neary
14:01:32 <rossella_s> #info Rossella Sblendido
14:01:33 <bh526r> #info Bin Hu
14:01:35 <bryan_att> #info Bryan Sullivan
14:01:36 <hongbo8080> #info hongbo
14:01:37 <fdegir> #info Fatih Degirmenci
14:01:41 <timirnich> #info Tim Irnich
14:01:48 <frankbrockners> #info Frank Brockners
14:01:50 <cgoncalves> #info Carlos Goncalves (proxy for Xavier Costa)
14:02:05 <edgarstp> #info Edgar StPierre
14:02:06 <tallgren> #info Tapio Tallgre
14:02:08 <rpaik> looks like we have a quorum
14:02:36 <rpaik> #link https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/TSC#TSC-April18,2017 today's agenda
14:02:47 <rpaik> #topic approval of previous minutes
14:03:01 <jmorgan1> #info Jack Morgan
14:03:07 <rpaik> #info no feedback, so previous minutes approved
14:04:04 <rpaik> #topic agenda bashing
14:04:18 <rpaik> #info no other topics
14:05:44 <rpaik> #info multi-access edge proposal will be reviewed at next TSC call
14:05:56 <rpaik> #topic April Board meeting recap
14:06:17 <rpaik> #link https://lists.opnfv.org/pipermail/opnfv-tech-discuss/2017-April/015967.html Board meeting summary
14:06:22 <trevor_intel> #info Trevor Cooper (for Brian Skerry)
14:07:44 <rpaik> #info ChrisPriceAB led the discussion on LF networking projects harmonization, marketing committee update, goals & value proposition, and budget updates were covered during the Board only part of the meeting
14:08:09 <rpaik> #topic Danube/Euphrates planning and activities
14:09:40 <rpaik> #info dmcbride gave a reminder on Danube 2.0 that's coming in a few weeks and pushing out the intent to participate date for Euphrates to accommodate next week's Plugfest
14:10:18 <rpaik> #info Danube retrospectives will continue during the release call today
14:10:44 <rpaik> #info there could also be follow-up retrospectives sessions during the Plugfest
14:11:24 <rpaik> #topic graduation review
14:11:37 <rpaik> #link https://lists.opnfv.org/pipermail/opnfv-tech-discuss/2017-April/015998.html summary of graduation review discussions
14:11:42 <tallgren> #chair rpaik
14:11:42 <collabot> Current chairs: rpaik tallgren
14:12:52 <tallgren> #info The graduation review topic has been discussed a few times, in the Hackfest and also in the TSC meeting
14:14:16 <Julien-zte> #link https://www.opnfv.org/software/technical-project-governance/project-lifecycle
14:14:19 <rpaik> #link https://www.opnfv.org/software/technical-project-governance/project-lifecycle
14:15:52 <tallgren> #info There seems to be a consensus on the topic: should keep the graduation review and remove the integration review
14:17:06 <tallgren> #info frankbrockners points out that since no project has graduated, it is too early to think about removing the integration review
14:19:36 <tallgren> #info Discussion about the the metrics in the graduation review
14:20:39 <rpaik> #info numerical metrics are somewhat arbitrary and could be gamed
14:22:57 <rpaik> #info having some projects go through the graduation process would be helpful for the community
14:23:28 <tallgren> #info having a graduated project will give some baseline to other projects to compare to
14:24:50 <cgoncalves> #link https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/incubation-integration-requirements.html Minimal Requirements for Incubation and Integrated Status in OpenStack
14:24:56 <cgoncalves> ^^ food for thought
14:26:51 <bryan_att> +1 to getting experience in the process
14:27:35 <rpaik> #info community can also help with coming up with a template for graduation reviews
14:28:23 <rpaik> #info encourage community members from "mature" projects to step forward for graduation reviews
14:28:23 <Julien-zte> #info rpaik any project who wants to start the the procedure, can refer to creation review
14:28:28 <tallgren> #topic Monthly support payment for Read the Docs
14:29:58 <timirnich> +1 good idea
14:30:05 <trevor_intel> +1 to support Read the Docs
14:30:17 <Julien-zte> +1 for support
14:30:27 <tallgren> #info Proposal to support Read the Docs with $50 a month
14:31:31 <rpaik> #info gives us opportunity for branding and priority support
14:31:47 <tallgren> #info The money would come from the TSC budget
14:32:28 <tallgren> #info RTD could be the common documentation format for all the Linux Foundation networking projects
14:34:46 <rpaik> #startvote does TSC approve spending $50/month for readthedocs support? (+1, 0, -1)
14:34:46 <collabot> Begin voting on: does TSC approve spending $50/month for readthedocs support? Valid vote options are , +1, 0, -1, .
14:34:46 <collabot> Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts.
14:34:47 <trevor_intel> #info Trevor Cooper voting for Brian Skerry
14:34:51 <frankbrockners> #vote +1
14:34:52 <Julien-zte> #vote +1
14:34:52 <cgoncalves> #vote +1
14:34:53 <dneary> #vote +1
14:34:54 <edgarstp> #vote +1
14:34:54 <Anand> #info Anand Gorti
14:34:55 <fdegir> #vote +1
14:34:55 <trevor_intel> +1
14:34:55 <bh526r> #vote +1
14:34:56 <bryan_att> +1
14:34:57 <tallgren> #vote +1
14:34:58 <hongbo8080> #vote +1
14:35:00 <jmorgan1> #vote +1
14:35:01 <trevor_intel> #vot +1
14:35:09 <trevor_intel> #vote +1
14:35:09 <Anand> #vote +1
14:35:19 <timirnich> #vote +1
14:35:23 <bryan_att> #vote +1
14:35:29 <rpaik> #endvote
14:35:29 <collabot> Voted on "does TSC approve spending $50/month for readthedocs support?" Results are
14:35:29 <collabot> +1 (14): frankbrockners, Anand, trevor_intel, cgoncalves, dneary, timirnich, fdegir, Julien-zte, tallgren, hongbo8080, bryan_att, jmorgan1, edgarstp, bh526r
14:35:48 <rpaik> #info support $'s for readthedocs approved
14:36:14 <rpaik> #topics new installer project creation discussion
14:37:27 <rpaik> #info there has been concerns about installer project's impact on community resources
14:38:22 <rpaik> #info bryan_att suggests starting a wiki/etherpad page to collect discussions on this topic
14:39:00 <bryan_att> #info we need to have the resource concerns clarified, and responded to on the wiki.
14:39:30 <bryan_att> #info there is no obligation of feature projects to support specific installers, or for installers to inherently support feature projects
14:39:42 <rpaik> #info on the one hand, concerns from testing/feature projects that additional installers create more requirement for their projects
14:40:24 <rpaik> #info on the other, should there be different project creation criteria for installer projects?
14:42:42 <rpaik> #info bryan_att notes that there are resource requirements for every project (not just installers)
14:44:14 <bryan_att> #info rpaik - we need those testing/feature project members to be specific about what they believe are the additional overheads
14:46:21 <bryan_att> #info currently we have no concrete requirements (mandate) for testing or feature use/applicability on an installer basis - testing is developed per the interests/familiarity of testers with the installer as core of scenarios
14:47:15 <rpaik> #info jose_lausuch noted that smote tests were run for each installers in Danube, but there's probably a need to have better test coverage going forward
14:48:02 <bryan_att> #info FuncTest impact is only some minor patches to the Functest config as needed
14:48:06 <dmcbride> frankbrockners: isn't integration with CI a requirement for all OPNFV projects?
14:48:53 <frankbrockners> dmcbride: do we state this anywhere - I'm not sure... we have several projects which collect requirements - they naturally don't integrate with CI.
14:49:19 <bryan_att> #info frankbrockners:no, there is no requirement that projects integrate with CI. Only if the project intends to participate in releases, and at that point there needs to be some testing.
14:50:52 <rpaik> #info ChrisPriceAB asks if more emphasis from OPNFV should be on features/capabilities development
14:53:49 <bryan_att> #info IMO the unique value of OPNFV is to integrate and release reference platforms, so evolving the processes and tools that make that integration and deployment possible, is in OPNFV's interest
14:55:36 <bryan_att> #info in particular the evolution to cloud-native control planes will involve various technical approaches, similar to the various technical approaches used by the current vendor/upstream-community-centered installer projects
14:58:24 <rpaik> #info timirnich notes that for feature projects there's a desire to support larger user base (and this translates to more installers typically)
14:59:20 <bryan_att> #info Releng/Infra impacts is to the Jenkins master config for adding new CI pods to the jobs etc, and some minor impact to the resources for the dashboards. Similar to the Functest impact, this is a one-time patch to the Releng config.
15:00:02 <bryan_att> #info fdegir: please clarify the hidden costs you mentioned - unless they are clarified we cannot address them
15:01:09 <fdegir> bryan_att: all the people spending time on supporting installers are hidden costs
15:01:15 <fdegir> not just about fixing scripts
15:01:30 <fdegir> some people troubleshoot the failures and so on to understand why certain things don't work
15:01:38 <fdegir> for certain installer and so on
15:01:50 <tallgren> #endmeeting