#opnfv-meeting: OPNFV TSC
Meeting started by ChrisPriceAB at 14:58:16 UTC
(full logs).
Meeting summary
- roll call (ChrisPriceAB, 14:58:23)
- Chris Price (ChrisPriceAB,
14:58:29)
- Julien (julien_ZTE,
14:59:43)
- Uli Kleber (ulik,
14:59:54)
- Dirk Kutscher (dku_,
15:00:34)
- Wenjing Chu (Wenjing,
15:00:37)
- Chris Wright (cdub,
15:01:24)
- Frank Brockners (frankbrockners,
15:01:48)
- Pranav Mehta (Pranav,
15:02:51)
- Gerald Kunzmann (DOCOMO) (GeraldK,
15:03:46)
- Approval of previous minutes (ChrisPriceAB, 15:03:51)
- dlenrow (dlenrow,
15:03:54)
- AGREED: previous
minutes approved (ChrisPriceAB,
15:03:59)
- Agenda Bashing (ChrisPriceAB, 15:04:05)
- Tapio Tallgren (tapio_,
15:04:52)
- Dave Neary (dneary,
15:05:29)
- Committer Promotions (ChrisPriceAB, 15:06:43)
- Bryan Sullivan (bryan_att,
15:07:12)
- https://wiki.opnfv.org/developer/committer_promotions
(ChrisPriceAB,
15:07:29)
- Requirements: History of activity, demonstrated
knowledge and judgement to project lead, willingness to lead in the
project (dneary,
15:10:02)
- Project lead nominates to the TSC, committer
promotion must be approved by the TSC (dneary,
15:10:39)
- No goal to get in the way, but TSC promotion
review is important to introduce new committers to community
(dneary,
15:11:11)
- Question raised as to whether the TSC is the
right place to approve committers, discussion whether decision on
committer promotions should be handled by project leads
directly (dneary,
15:16:51)
- TSC should be able to stop promotions in the
situation where something happens not in accordance with the
charter (dneary,
15:17:23)
- Still important to inform TSC of new
promotions, to ensure that people are introduced to the
community (dneary,
15:17:52)
- any resolutions of the TSC should be first
input in the IRC as "proposed resolution" - this makes it easier for
meeting attendees to know exactly what is being proposed as a
resolution, prior to agreement (bryan_att,
15:18:50)
- TSC role should be limited to mitigating
issues, or intervening when there is a problematic
contributor (dneary,
15:19:07)
- AGREED: The TSC
agrees that committer promotions should be handled by the project
committers, the TSC should only be involved when there are
highlighted issues to be addressed in the promotion. (ChrisPriceAB,
15:19:16)
- Parviz Yegani (Parviz,
15:19:24)
- ACTION: Dave Lenrow
to update the wiki to reflect the above statement.
https://wiki.opnfv.org/developer/committer_promotions (ChrisPriceAB,
15:21:39)
- OPNFV Release 1 (ChrisPriceAB, 15:24:20)
- BGS project update - Frank (ChrisPriceAB,
15:24:38)
- the main topic for BGS is to automate the
foundation installation. A number of experiments are ongoing in
this area. (ChrisPriceAB,
15:25:12)
- The focus right now is to get the OpenStack
OpenDaylight integration done, some issues have been found with this
activity. (ChrisPriceAB,
15:25:46)
- the project is driving to create a draft
schedule for release 1 (ChrisPriceAB,
15:26:31)
- octopus project updates (ChrisPriceAB,
15:26:49)
- The project is focused on bottom up work,
looking at the infrastructure and working with the LinuxFoundation
on the tools (ChrisPriceAB,
15:27:20)
- Release Intent discussion (ChrisPriceAB,
15:27:40)
- in addition to "in an HA configuration" we need
to ensure that release 1 includes an easily deployable OPNFV
deployment in non-HA configurations, e.g. on minimal hardware
requirements for development purposes (bryan_att,
15:31:34)
- availability of release, proper documentation
, functionality in Release 1, Delivery by early teams/projects,
Infrastrure to continuously build, develop and install ... more
clarity required = by Frank (rprakash___,
15:35:24)
- VNF application should work on VIM say
specific ones like say vLB and say another (rprakash___,
15:38:31)
- what HA means (rprakash___,
15:39:33)
- more details installing HA for what Control
Plane or Data Plane or both (rprakash___,
15:40:20)
- Pharos and Function Test Proje ct has done lot
of the above and so setting expections for these project is key to
defining content of Relase 1 - Chris (rprakash___,
15:41:48)
- ACTION: Access to
environment on Jenkins on OPNFV to do some CI work is key within the
domain pointing to their own setup or infrastructure if
necesssary (rprakash___,
15:43:42)
- Bryan proposes that minimal configuration be
part of release 1 (maybe optional) (ulik,
15:48:33)
- I set a development environment as a key goal,
perhaps not gating, but the fact that something is not gating should
not decrease it's importance. I believe that functional gap closure
is the key thing that OPNFV will drive - performance gap closure is
essential also but development of solutions for both will often be
developed in non-HA laboratory (bryan_att,
15:54:01)
- http://lists.opnfv.org/pipermail/opnfv-tsc/2015-February/000480.html
list of release details (cdub,
15:55:09)
- define "project" expections for release 1 , and
deliverables in reality" and this includes Pharos , Functional test
etc. (rprakash___,
15:58:16)
- besides BGS and Octopus, also Pharos and
functest should be in the group (ulik,
16:01:42)
- Progress for Project based on the Chris's 6
points with cpaibility and time lines (rprakash___,
16:04:45)
- Parveezs point endorsed by Frank as
above (rprakash___,
16:05:36)
- getting right matrix for Project & CI
tec. (rprakash___,
16:06:23)
- Quick update on Meet-up (Santa Rosa) & Hackfest (Prague) (ChrisPriceAB, 16:06:31)
- Ray gives an update on questions and
communication traffic for coming the meet-up and hackfest
(ChrisPriceAB,
16:07:23)
- https://etherpad.opnfv.org/p/MeetUpFeb19
(ChrisPriceAB,
16:07:56)
- https://etherpad.opnfv.org/p/HackfestFeb23
(ChrisPriceAB,
16:08:06)
- topic of interest between hackfest and OPNFV
to be probed including secuirity and other allignments (rprakash___,
16:13:00)
- https://etherpad.opnfv.org/p/HackfestFeb23
(ChrisPriceAB,
16:13:08)
- should we use Tech review committe to evaluate
the proposlas / projects fromally ? (rprakash___,
16:15:10)
- document the process between Tech review
committee to TSC (rprakash___,
16:16:34)
- Good socilizing mechnism and editing, proof
reading , plus technical details and clarifications , thus very
usefull as many particpants chime (rprakash___,
16:19:14)
- not all TSC members do attent Thursday Tech
Review Meeting helps whet the proposal for the team that brings
helps get recommendation from Tech review committee (rprakash___,
16:20:45)
- Project aprrovals (ChrisPriceAB, 16:23:32)
- ACTION: Recommend
that a new project goes through Thursday Tech Review Meeting to get
clarity for TSC to approve (rprakash___,
16:23:42)
- Creation review of the Re-visit Data Plane Acceleration project (ChrisPriceAB, 16:24:15)
- https://wiki.opnfv.org/requirements_projects/data_plane_acceleration
(ChrisPriceAB,
16:24:50)
- this is a re-review of the dpacc project. Some
clarifications were required after the previous review (ChrisPriceAB,
16:25:17)
- clarifications on the project include:
accommodation of both hardware and software aceleration,
compatibility to existing API's should be leveraged, a layer
approach to the solution should be adopted. (ChrisPriceAB,
16:26:55)
- OpenStack has been added as a relevant upstream
project due to management interactions (ChrisPriceAB,
16:27:13)
- Parviz (Parviz,
16:29:00)
- Data Plane Acceeeleration seeks approval after
Group agreeing to include both SWA and HWA in the two options
propsed in the requirments (rprakash___,
16:30:03)
- Committers to have specific rights and hence
seperating Commiters from Contributors for voting on decisions
within the project (rprakash___,
16:31:01)
- ACTION: Conditional
approval subject to specifying the Commiters within some time
period (rprakash___,
16:32:24)
- VOTE: Voted on "On
conditional approval of the dpacc project, pending clarification of
the committer list for the project?" Results are, +1: 14
(ChrisPriceAB,
16:35:07)
- Creation review of the OpenStack Based VNF Forwarding Graph (ChrisPriceAB, 16:37:11)
- https://wiki.opnfv.org/requirements_projects/openstack_based_vnf_forwarding_graph
(ChrisPriceAB,
16:37:44)
- Cathy presents the project proposal as
described on the linked WiKi page. (ChrisPriceAB,
16:38:11)
- discussion on how the scope diagram in the
project proposal maps to the OPNFV arch. diagram (rpaik,
16:52:09)
- suggestion to continue this discussion on a
Thursday call (Technical Discussion mtg) (rpaik,
17:03:09)
- I hope there is a some detail difference and
releationship between forwarding graph with service chain
(julien_ZTE,
17:03:44)
- ACTION: Can we get
Thursday meeting to re-review the projrct to clarify on scope &
delivery path , plus plugins of Venodrs how they tie in (rprakash___,
17:03:52)
- ACTION: ask questions
through email for the project (rprakash___,
17:04:42)
- further questions related to the SFC project
should be addressed on the coming technical meeting, to be reviewed
for creation again next week. (ChrisPriceAB,
17:05:47)
Meeting ended at 17:05:52 UTC
(full logs).
Action items
- Dave Lenrow to update the wiki to reflect the above statement. https://wiki.opnfv.org/developer/committer_promotions
- Access to environment on Jenkins on OPNFV to do some CI work is key within the domain pointing to their own setup or infrastructure if necesssary
- Recommend that a new project goes through Thursday Tech Review Meeting to get clarity for TSC to approve
- Conditional approval subject to specifying the Commiters within some time period
- Can we get Thursday meeting to re-review the projrct to clarify on scope & delivery path , plus plugins of Venodrs how they tie in
- ask questions through email for the project
People present (lines said)
- ChrisPriceAB (47)
- rprakash___ (25)
- collabot (20)
- dneary (17)
- cdub (9)
- ulik (8)
- Guest71339 (7)
- dlenrow (6)
- bryan_att (6)
- julien_ZTE (5)
- Parviz (4)
- GeraldK (3)
- Pranav (2)
- frankbrockners (2)
- tapio_ (2)
- hui (2)
- dku_ (2)
- rpaik (2)
- Wenjing (2)
- Yuriy (1)
- rprakash__ (0)
Generated by MeetBot 0.1.4.