#opnfv-meeting: OPNFV TSC

Meeting started by ChrisPriceAB at 14:57:56 UTC (full logs).

Meeting summary

  1. roll call (ChrisPriceAB, 14:58:06)
    1. palani (palani, 14:58:19)
    2. Chris Price (ChrisPriceAB, 14:58:21)
    3. Bryan Sullivan (bryan_att, 15:03:06)
    4. Frank Brockners (frankbrockners, 15:03:33)
    5. Aric Gardner (aricg, 15:03:44)
    6. Pranav Mehta (Pranav, 15:03:51)
    7. Ulrich Kleber (uli_, 15:04:22)

  2. Agenda Bashing (ChrisPriceAB, 15:07:28)
    1. No issues with minutes - unanimously approved (dneary, 15:07:45)
    2. Project status - testing group (dneary, 15:08:04)
    3. margaret joined (margaret, 15:08:52)
    4. Tapio Tallgren (TapioT, 15:09:35)
    5. Discussion on project review (no projects officially up for review, but we want to know how to get started) (dneary, 15:10:34)
    6. distribution selection https://wiki.opnfv.org/wiki/opnfv_distribution (palani, 15:10:42)
    7. Liaising with SDOs, co-hosting events (dneary, 15:10:47)
    8. Maintaining a clean wiki (dneary, 15:11:02)
    9. Action item review (dneary, 15:11:09)
    10. Adding item to review the distro WiKi page and discuss. (ChrisPriceAB, 15:11:46)
    11. Ashiq (Ashiq, 15:12:31)
    12. Chris Wright (cdub, 15:13:11)
    13. https://wiki.opnfv.org/wiki/opnfv_distribution (rpaik, 15:14:52)

  3. Discussion of base distribution as starting point for OPNFV (dneary, 15:18:05)
    1. palani sees PackStack and CentOS as the favoured platform now, and proposes that we get started with that (dneary, 15:19:16)
    2. Feedback that the table in https://wiki.opnfv.org/wiki/opnfv_distribution needs more fields filled out (dneary, 15:21:02)
    3. there is some confusion as to the relevance of some informational elements on the selection of the platform. Clarification and discussion was held around each topic. (ChrisPriceAB, 15:25:53)
    4. Decision to move on with no conclusion - installer and base platform decision deferred (dneary, 15:36:09)

  4. Getting Started project proposal and discussion (dneary, 15:36:27)
    1. https://wiki.opnfv.org/get_started (frankbrockners, 15:36:39)

  5. get started (ChrisPriceAB, 15:36:41)
    1. https://wiki.opnfv.org/get_started (dneary, 15:36:46)
    2. get started is an activity to establish a 3 node OPNFV baseline deployment (ChrisPriceAB, 15:41:49)
    3. many known issues are not intended to be solved in this activity, they will be postponed until after the foundation work has been done (ChrisPriceAB, 15:42:29)
    4. the deployment would be based around 2 control nodes and one compute node (ChrisPriceAB, 15:43:03)
    5. Aric asked if the 2 control nodes are for redundancy or another purpose, the 2 control nodes are intended to be for redundancy (ChrisPriceAB, 15:44:01)
    6. for community discussion please address the mailing list using [getstarted] in the subject line. (ChrisPriceAB, 15:47:37)
    7. TSC voted to create the sandbox using Linux Foundation facilities - sounds like Frank's proposal could proceed without waiting for TSC approval (dneary, 15:50:03)
    8. the project is something we have to do anyway, so will support it (bryan_att, 15:53:35)
    9. Bootstrap/get started to get started. (dneary, 16:14:34)

  6. Performance and testing (dneary, 16:15:24)
    1. morgan_orange gives background on testing & performance effort - dependent on a CI project (Octopus, bootstrap) producing a testable platform. (dneary, 16:17:19)
    2. Project proposal will be ready to be submitted next week (dneary, 16:17:32)
    3. Project also depends on VNFs to be deployed for test purposes (dneary, 16:18:47)

  7. Project proposals pending review. (ChrisPriceAB, 16:21:31)
    1. For requirements projects, it may help to have outcomes clearly listed (rpaik, 16:31:19)
    2. Chris Price asked the TSC how best to approach project creation approval (ChrisPriceAB, 16:32:07)
    3. Chris W describes that some practical experience (like the get started / bootstrap initiative ) would provide valuable intput to the TSC around the scope of each project proposal (ChrisPriceAB, 16:34:18)
    4. Ashiq mentioned for requirement and documentation projects this would not be required. (ChrisPriceAB, 16:34:41)
    5. Frank B explains that being concise of the deliverables of the project would help establish the foundation for project approval. (ChrisPriceAB, 16:35:15)
    6. ChrisPriceAB proposes that for documentation and requirements project, we should start reviewing and approving them next week. (dneary, 16:36:32)
    7. ChrisPriceAB proposes that for infrastructure, integration, testing projects, we need more clarity on what will be produced by the projects; practical experience bootstrapping the CI will be useful (dneary, 16:37:17)
    8. uli_ asks how project members can avail of the sandbox environment (dneary, 16:40:45)
    9. https://wiki.opnfv.org/get_started (ChrisPriceAB, 16:42:06)
    10. https://wiki.opnfv.org/get_started (rpaik, 16:42:06)
    11. aricg is the Linux Foundation contact for the sandbox - no process exists yet (dneary, 16:42:15)
    12. We should use the get started / bootstrap wiki as a means to engage in the collaborative (sandbox) based activities. (ChrisPriceAB, 16:44:54)
    13. Proposals can be submitted any time, but a 2 week review period is required before the TSC can approve it (dneary, 16:45:56)
    14. Can I have 30 seconds on an update on the Copper (Deployment Policy) project? (bryan_att, 16:53:16)

  8. Improving the wiki (dneary, 16:53:27)
    1. Feedback that information is hard to find on the wiki (project proposals, meeting times, Google indexing) (dneary, 16:55:55)
    2. ChrisPriceAB suggests we keep it tidy - naming conventions, page organization (dneary, 16:56:22)
    3. https://wiki.opnfv.org/wiki/tsc <- This says the meeting is 1h - should be updated (or we shorten the meeting ;-) (dneary, 16:58:35)
    4. Proposal that Marie-Odile Pauli speaks with ETSI about co-hosting an OPNFV hack-fest the week of ETSI NFV ISG #9 in Prague (dneary, 17:01:58)
    5. bryan_att says that OPNFV work in AT&T is not overlapping with ETSI, he prefers focus on developer events, not SDO events (dneary, 17:02:44)
    6. conclusion is that critical mass exists for Prague hackfest, but opportunities for other events exist (dneary, 17:03:45)
    7. Simultaneous Release call tomorrow (dneary, 17:04:15)


Meeting ended at 17:04:24 UTC (full logs).

Action items

  1. (none)


People present (lines said)

  1. dneary (43)
  2. ChrisPriceAB (28)
  3. Wenjing (10)
  4. cdub (9)
  5. collabot (7)
  6. TapioT (4)
  7. bryan_att (4)
  8. rpaik (3)
  9. julienjut (3)
  10. palani (2)
  11. frankbrockners (2)
  12. Pranav (1)
  13. aricg (1)
  14. uli_ (1)
  15. margaret (1)
  16. RK-Sandvine (1)
  17. Ashiq (1)
  18. wenjing (0)


Generated by MeetBot 0.1.4.