Hi Margaret, I think you just touched on the issue. I will try to summarize:
1) Goals for Polestar were set by SPC 2) SPC has been dissolved 3) Are Polestar goals still valid? This is what we have been trying to validate from the BoD, for past several weeks, since it was originally raised. As far as I can tell, we've never had a conclusion to this matter, and we kept deferring our previous meetings, pending some resolution. Going into tomorrow's meeting, we really need to have some BoD feedback. My interpretation of Chris' note is that he's suggesting a more general function and title for Polestar, since it would have to get new instructions from the BoD vs from a council. I could be mistaken, though. And I'm not planning to attend this meeting next week during the plugfest. Best, Ash Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 29, 2016, at 07:24, Margaret Chiosi <[email protected]> > wrote: > > We didn't change the charter but decided (at least no one objected..) to have > polestar focus in two areas - mapping the releases to the 5 Goals set by SPC > and work with EUG on mapping their user stories/epics to OPNFV projects which > will operationalize the user requirements. > > We are suggesting to go back to next thurs 12/8 at 11AM EST. We need to get a > feel for who will still be able to attend the call. Steven Wright and I will > be in China timezone - so we hopefully can do this. > If we lose a lot of folks due to the OPNFV plugfest - then we will skip next > week and have it 12/15. Again some of us will still be in China due to ETSI > ISG NFV meeting > > Let me know. thanks. > >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 6:12 AM, Christopher Price <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> Hi Folks, >> >> >> >> I will unfortunately not be able to make this meeting due to a conflict. >> >> I have uploaded the previously published materials around the SPC and >> Polestar to the wiki, https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/polestar/Meetings, for >> review and discussion this week. >> >> >> >> I provide two input items to the discuss and then say that I am more or less >> OK with anything else that we agree to. J >> >> - I would name our initiative the “Polestar group” rather than >> “Polestar working group”. >> >> o This is to align with how we name the “Security group” etc, and not to >> confuse what we are doing here with a project area “working group”. >> >> o The difference is subtle but any clarification we can provide than >> helps the community understand how these activities differ from each other >> is helpful imho. >> >> - I would also try to keep the description of the Polestar group >> relatively simple and open. >> >> o Let’s be clear where it fits in, point to our process, but not be too >> proscriptive to a scope or set of constraints. >> >> o We should be helpful in trying to coordinate alignment around useful >> things within the community rather than trying to “own” a scope or area. >> >> >> >> / Chris >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Margaret Chiosi <[email protected]> >> Date: Monday, 28 November 2016 at 15:26 >> To: Ash <[email protected]>, Christopher Price >> <[email protected]> >> Cc: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [polestar]:next call 11/29. 9am US east >> coast. Meeting notes have bridge info >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 13:40 Christopher Price <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> I agree Ash, that should be the priority for the next call. >> >> Once we have a time right I’ll set the agenda and publish the materials I >> was going to present last week for Margaret to use for the call. >> >> / Chris >> >> >> >> From: <[email protected]> on behalf of Ash >> <[email protected]> >> Date: Tuesday, 22 November 2016 at 19:30 >> To: Margaret Chiosi <[email protected]> >> Cc: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [polestar]:next call >> >> >> >> Hi Margaret, >> >> >> >> One of the main things we've been waiting to address is the charter for >> Polestar now that SPC has been disbanded, since it's what sanctioned >> Polestar. In our last two meetings, we've hit this subject and then postpone >> further talks until it gets addressed. While I don't have a problem shifting >> times, I think we need to address this. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Ash >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Margaret Chiosi >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Folks: sorry about missing so many meetings. And now I will be traveling >> 12/1-17 >> >> Can we move the meeting for next week to Mon 10 or 11 est or Tue 9 am est or >> Wed 10'or 11 est? >> We need to synch up. Thanks >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing >> list [email protected] >> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss >> > > > > -- > Margaret Chiosi
_______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
