13:59:29 #startmeeting OPNFV TSC 13:59:29 Meeting started Tue Sep 13 13:59:29 2016 UTC. The chair is ChrisPriceAB. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 13:59:29 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 13:59:29 The meeting name has been set to 'opnfv_tsc' 13:59:38 #topic Roll Call 13:59:45 #info Julien 13:59:46 #info Chris Price 13:59:48 #info ceciliacorbi 13:59:49 #info Jack Morgan (Pharos) 13:59:50 #info hongbo 13:59:51 m 13:59:53 #info Uli Kleber 14:00:53 #info Fatih Degirmenci 14:01:17 #info Frank Brockners 14:01:24 #info JonasArndt 14:01:30 #topic Approval of previous minutes of meeting 14:01:35 #link https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/TSC#TSC-September6,2016 previous minutes 14:01:38 we now have a quorum 14:01:44 #info Stuart Mackie 14:01:48 #info No comments or feedback received, minutes approved 14:01:51 #info Trevor Cooper representing Brian Skerry 14:01:52 #topic Agenda Bashing 14:01:52 #info Morgan Richomme 14:01:53 #info Dave Neary 14:02:03 #info Edgar StPierre 14:02:06 #link https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/TSC#TSC-September13,2016 todays agenda 14:02:08 welcome back trevorc! 14:02:10 #info Tapio Tallgren 14:02:17 #info Rossella Sblendido 14:02:20 thanks Ray 14:02:24 #info Bin Hu 14:02:43 #info rprakash 14:03:02 #info no further agenda items 14:03:43 #info frankbrockners asks about federation of Jira, may be good to couple to the "external repo's" discussion 14:03:50 #info Dirk Kutscher 14:04:09 #topic Update from the September OPNFV Board meeting 14:04:23 #link http://lists.opnfv.org/pipermail/opnfv-tech-discuss/2016-September/012584.html Board meeting summary 14:07:09 #info the next TSC Chair will have a chance to review/work on the 2017 Technical Community budget in Q4'16 14:08:49 #action rpaik to provide update on the Q4 budget 14:08:51 #topic Technical community elections 14:10:39 #topic Meetup at OpenDaylight Summit 14:10:50 #link https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/EVNT/Meetup+at+OpenDaylight+Developer+Design+Forum ODL meet-up planning page 14:11:47 #info rpaik outlines that there will be a metup at the ODL design summit on the Thursday of that week. 14:12:00 #info the first set of topics will be around OpenDaylight carbon 14:12:23 #info the second set of topics include compliance testing and VNF onboarding 14:12:48 #info rpaik urges community members to add their names to the wiki as participants of the meetup 14:13:33 #info rpaik asks if during the first hour when we meet with the ODL team whom we should invite specifically for that discussion please inform him 14:14:44 #info bryan_att adds that having Yang design experts at the conference they would be very helpful to have onboard 14:16:30 #topic Colorado planning and activities 14:17:07 #info dmcbride states that he has updated the D-release schedule 14:17:38 #kink https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/SWREL/D-Release' 14:17:50 #link #link https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/SWREL/D-Release?preview=/6827418/7767196/OPNFV%20Release%20%2522D%2522%20r2.pdf d release schedule 14:18:54 #info dmcbride adds that there is some consensus on maintaining the stable branch cutting window that was applied in the Colorado release. 14:19:30 #info dmcbride adds that we will use Jira gating for the D release. 14:21:03 #info frankbrockners adds that there is discussion around the processes ongoing on the mailing lists 14:21:06 You're welcome! I live to serve 14:21:48 #action -> d-release is from now to be referred to as Danube! 14:22:08 #info 14 scenario's are now release ready. 14:22:25 #info a further 10 scenario's are approahcing the stability milestone 14:22:41 #info we are approaching around 70% readiness across scenario's. 14:23:49 #info Jira status still has some work remaining to be in a resonlved state, around 20% of the items are unresolved. 14:24:55 #info rpaik asks if there are going to be different artifacts for different architectures ARM/x86 for instance 14:25:26 #info jmorgan1 describes that the Pharos spec for instance will accomodate multiple architectures in the same document 14:25:41 armband builds fuel iso and they need to be named accordingly 14:26:02 since we release installer based artifacts as well 14:26:25 https://www.opnfv.org/software/download 14:26:41 under install tools so if arm artifacts will go under fuel link 14:26:49 they need to be named explicitly 14:27:09 #info bin_ confirms that ARM does build it's own ISO and this should accomdated in the release artifacts 14:27:37 #action rpaik to work with brandon and aric to identify how to manage the artifacts for the release. 14:27:55 #topic Project Health Metrics Discussion 14:28:21 #link https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/PROJ/Project+Health+Metrics+Discussion wiki with metrics prposal 14:31:22 #link https://www.opnfv.org/developers/technical-project-governance/project-lifecycle 14:32:02 #info ChrisPriceAB notes that the metrics could be a tool to evaluate project's activity 14:32:37 #into tallgren notes that one of the goal is to identifier "outliers" 14:32:56 #link http://lists.opnfv.org/pipermail/opnfv-tech-discuss/2016-September/012532.html mail thread on project metrics 14:34:22 #info frankbrockners asks what problem we are trying to solve 14:35:06 #info dneary states that we can use these metrics to help identify projects that may need community guidance and assistance to be successful 14:36:03 #info franks adds that he would like to see the project lifecycle be used for project evaluation 14:36:24 #info ttalgren adds that we need to start working on the project lifecycle in some way and this would be one input to that 14:36:55 #info dneary adds that these metrics may be useful for more than just the TSC and project lifecycle 14:39:27 #topic OPNFV External repo's 14:43:28 #info Scott Nicholas will be coming to Technical Community call early/mid October for an extended discussion on licensing 14:43:45 my comments were put on onto the email list. Basically we should allow "non-governed" repos as short-term holding places for what we are working on, e.g. upstream project forks, as needed. e.g. we should not restrict the use of github for this purpose - it's an essential path to getting changes upstreamed. 14:44:37 Every repo should have a license, and the contribution to it is governed by that license. As long as that license is compatible with OPNFV there should be no problem. 14:45:03 # info chrispriceab outlines that the community should discuss and agree on how we would like to include external repositories in part of our development processes. 14:45:29 We should encourage code to be maintained in the OPNFV repos, but not mandate that esp where need to engage with upstream more directly, and reference that work in OPNFV projects. 14:46:09 There was a case in B-release where a release candidate for B-release pulled in the latest branch rom Github 14:46:33 #info bryan_att adds: my comments were put on onto the email list. Basically we should allow "non-governed" repos as short-term holding places for what we are working on, e.g. upstream project forks, as needed. e.g. we should not restrict the use of github for this purpose - it's an essential path to getting changes upstreamed. 14:46:45 #info brya_att adds: Every repo should have a license, and the contribution to it is governed by that license. As long as that license is compatible with OPNFV there should be no problem. 14:46:46 #info external repo discussion should qualify (may be scott can do this) what categories of external repos are there, i.e. some repos are closely reviewed and make sure that license info is always there, others (e.g. personal githubs) handle license info potentially more loosely 14:48:06 #info ashlee adds that incorporating upstream repositories should ensure that any upstream code repo's should accommodate OPNFV processes and governance. 14:50:28 #info dneary asks if OPNFV should maintain a clone of upstream repositories that we could branch off locally. 14:51:00 #info rpaik outlines that such processes are being looked into for some projects 14:52:56 #info rprakash 14:52:57 #action rpaik to plan for further discussions on the tech calls and to incorporate the questions and items raised on this call. 14:53:16 #topic Mailing list discussions 14:53:23 #link http://lists.opnfv.org/pipermail/opnfv-tech-discuss/2016-August/012279.html mailing list discussion 14:53:45 #info rpaik outlines that there has been some discussion around the potential creation of new mailing lists 14:54:05 #info the tech-discuss list has become very congested and can be difficult to follow. 14:55:05 #info rpaik outlines that the proposal includes mailing lists per working groups and some discussion on mailing lists for upstream discussion on request. 14:55:38 #info bryan_att asks about the "upstream" component of the proposal 14:56:14 #info rpaik outlines that these would be for active upstream communities to be able to subscribe to focused lists in our communities 14:57:55 #info ashlee adds that having open and shareable discussion forums are verty useful and he will send an informational e-mail about this shortly. 15:00:35 #info rpaik proposes that we get started with the working group mailing lists. 15:00:35 we need to be careful of adding additional overhead; threaded discussions are great but mail tools should be all you need for that. any more specific web service (Jira, Slack, etc) turn out to be another place that you have to watch, in addition to email and IRC. 15:01:17 bryan_att: I agree with you 15:01:33 #agree the TSC agrees to set up the new mailing lists as described. 15:01:48 #action to report back to the TSC on the list after 3 months 15:01:52 #undo 15:01:52 Removing item from minutes: 15:02:03 #info Could we bring up the "Jira federation with other upstream projects" as a topic in the next TSC - given that we missed it this time? 15:02:08 #action rpaik to report back to the TSC on the list after 3 months 15:02:22 #action chrispriceab to add the Jira discussion to next weeks agenda 15:02:36 #endmeeting