User Tools

Site Tools


Minutes of Technical Community Discussion on October 01, 2015

  • Date and Time: 6:00am PDT / UTC 13:00, Thursday October 01, 2015
  • Convener: Bin Hu (AT&T)
  • Participants:
    • Al Morton (AT&T)
    • Ana Cunha (Ericsson)
    • Brian Smith (Bell Canada)
    • Bryan Sullivan (AT&T)
    • Christopher Price (Ericsson)
    • Dave Neary (Red Hat)
    • Frank Brockners (Cisco)
    • Ildiko Vancsa (Ericsson)
    • Malla Reddy Sama (DoCoMo)
    • Manuel Rebellon (Sandvine)
    • Maria Toeroe (Ericsson)
    • Mark Beierl (EMC)
    • Mark Szczesniak (Casa)
    • Narinder Gupta (Canonical)
    • Pasi Vaananen (Artesyn)(Stratus)
    • Prakash Ramchandran (Huawei)
    • Rajeev Seth (Sonus Networks)
    • Raymond Nugent (Huawei)
    • Stuart Mackie (Juniper)
    • Ulrich Kleber (Huawei)

Frank (Cisco) started by summarizing what has been discussed at TSC meeting on Tuesday. Frank also summarized those options in the proposal. Fundamentally, it is "integration" v.s. "packaging", and we need community guidance for B release.

Bryan (AT&T) asked to confirm those options from single ISO multiple installer to just script per installer. And we need to clarify if the options include the installation doc only. Frank (Cisco) confirmed that it is on the table.

Bryan (AT&T) further asked if the script per installer is the fallback of doc only option. Dave N (RedHat) clarified that e made this fallback proposal.

Bryan (AT&T) explained that from user experience perspective, doc only approach won't add much value. Bryan further asked what is the easiest way from user experience perspective? Frank (Cisco) agreed that A.2b, i.e. Install script per installer, should be the foundation.

Bryan (AT&T) asked Dave (Redat)'s opinion why doc only is adequate? Dave (RedHat) explained that it is hard for OPNFV to succeed if we continuously provide end user with technical support, especially installation issue. Deployment activity is always secondary. The important is to integrate and test upstream projects. If we can deploy it in Pharos lab, we can document it for users to replicate it in Pharos-compliant labs.

Ray (Huawei) asked if he wanted to run it in his lab, how can he download it. It means he needs to download OpenStack, Open Daylight etc. He is not sure if it is a good user experience.

Bryan (AT&T) added that our main effort here is integrating main platform. Ray (Huawei) agreed that integration is our value, because not everyone has the ability to integrate it. Dave (RedHat) also agreed with Fuel example, i.e. to use Fuel installer to choose ODL.

Ray (Huawei) pointed out that we are still early to get industry adoption. We need to make it as easy as possible.

Chris (Ericsson) pointed out that if we looked at the stats, Arno is a success. We have over 2,500 downloads so far, and now the downloads are about 500 per month.

Uli (Huawei) said that we should look at our requirement that people needs to install, for example requirement like "install without Internet". Ray (Huawei) said that such requirement should be from Board's Strategic Planning Committee.

Chris (Ericsson) said that we are discussing deployment tool issue, not a strategy issue. Bryan (AT&T) said there is still an option of doc only. Dave (RedHat) clarified that the tools are with Octopus. Ray (Huawei) said that there is still no input from community, and no input from Board's Strategic Planning Committee about what we need.

Chris (Ericsson) said that the voting is ongoing. Bryan and Uli said that they didn't see voting is initiated.

We need to further discuss it.

Dave (RedHat) introduced is proposal in the above link.

Ray (Huawei) said that active technical contributors should be identified by PTL, and PTL makes the call.

Dave (RedHat) explained that the goal is to define a bar objectively, such as # of wiki edits, gerrit reviews etc.

Ray (Huawei) said that there are different ways of contribution, and not necessarily measurable by those metrics. Dave (RedHat) agreed that it is nice to recognize contribution. Code contribution is not the only way.

Bryan (AT&T) indicated that active contribution doesn't need bylaw change.

Uli (Huawei) said that the main problem is that we have wrong committers in projects, not the process of election. Ray (Huawei) indicated that it is not feasible to ask every project to clean up committers' list.

Chris (Ericsson) indicated that it is type of culture and behavior. We cannot legislate culture and behavior.

Dave (RedHat) indicated that the election process is uncontroversial, and ready for TSC vote. The definition of ATC is unclear, and needs further discussion.

Community agreed that:
- Election process is ready for vote. Dave will send a notice for this, and if any further feedback or comment.
- ATC needs more discussion, and Dave will initiate the discussion.

  • Upstream Feature Development and Cross-Project Collaboration - TBD
    • Status update on active items
    • Status update on areas of interest
    • Draft Blueprints Discussion
    • Other cross-project topics


  • Project Proposal Discussion
    • Active project proposals
      • TBD


Meeting adjourned.

wiki/tc_minutes_20151001.txt · Last modified: 2015/10/01 22:33 by Bin Hu