Hello, I don't know if the current issues are related to a missing strategy but I think we are moving away from the project scope.
Why not emphazing here XCI which only supports virtual machine deployment and the compliance program which mainly includes sparsed functional tests. But our endusers are waiting for platforms able to host VNFs and verified to do so (benchmarks, vnfs, etc..). I second the referent platforms as long as they are fully verified by the underlying OPNFV test frameworks. And I vote yes to reduce the dev cycles by removing the dependencies between our projects. I hope it won't result in a lack of testing as we're seeing in one place. It's great to accelerate new disruptive scenarios or ideas but it shouldn't have led to the lowest levels (see OpenStack gates) even if it fits few developpers. OPNFV differs from the upstream communities thanks to its Lab and its DB fulfilled by test frameworks which is a fair public comparison between installers, networking implementations and enhancements, etc... Cédric Le mardi 27 novembre 2018 à 19:18 +0000, HU, BIN a écrit : > Georg, > > Thank you for your questions and concerns. > > One key role of TSC is to provide direction to the community, which > is the other pillar that strengthens the community-driven approach. > The direction from TSC will inspire the community and represent our > community externally, and the "personal motivation" will ultimately > decide where the resource will go. > > One of the questions in the TSC discussion today is whether or not we > have had strategy from TSC in the past. As far as I know, there > wasn't. Correct me if I am wrong and show me where it is documented. > So community needs a direction from TSC, which is more urgent for now > than ever, because: > - We don't have a strategy. Everything is driven by "personal > motivation", which is good and bad. Sorry that I am quite frank and > straightforward. If everything is driven by "personal motivation" > without a direction, it eventually hurts the entire community. And it > won't achieve your goal of strengthening platform and compliance > program at all. > - We are losing developers and other resources, and primarily reason > is ROI. If we keep on doing today's way without a direction, no one > will magically come back. We will lose more exponentially. A new > vision and direction will bring a fresh look of OPNFV, and we will > have the opportunity to bring new developers and investments that are > interested in working on this direction. > - The WG mechanism is a good way of how to organize the work in a > tactic level. However, without the blessing of a strategy, vision and > direction that can be articulated and marketed, it won't bring new > developers. So tactics (slide #16) is the way of how to achieve the > strategy (slide #13). However, under no circumstance can a tactic > replace a strategy. > - You brought a great example of XCI. It was bottom up, and has > achieved great result. However, because there was no strategy, there > were hiccups in terms of scenarios v.s. installers etc. Now we face > the difficulties - evolve CI/CD in a more installer-centric way, or > in a more CI/CD-compliant way. I don't intend to discuss those > details of choice here. Those are tactical discussion, and many times > we chose a shortcut for the sake of release instead of a right way > for long term benefit. However, a strategy and direction will guide > those choices when we face those difficulties. > > So there is a reality urgency and need of having a direction for our > community, not only for new things to bring in new developers, but > also help solve the issues for many projects when they are facing the > choices of where to go, what to do next, and whether a shortcut or > for long term. > > At last, no one disagrees with strengthening platform and compliance > program, which has been captured on slide #13. Adding new direction > will not only help bring in new developers but also help many > existing projects to make the right choice. Eventually, "personal > motivation" decides where resources will go, because no one can force > anyone else to work on a specific project. So I don't see the concern > of new direction will be competing with existing developers. For > example, "personal motivation" may bring all developers to platform > capabilities and compliance program, which is great. > > Again, thank you for your question, but I do see the urgency of > having a strategy asap, because of the reality needs as I stated > above. > > Best regards > Bin > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf > Of Georg Kunz > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 9:46 AM > To: HU, BIN <[email protected]>; Tim Irnich <[email protected]>; > Trevor Bramwell <[email protected]> > Cc: AshYoung <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Manuel Buil <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan > > Hi Bin, > Hi all, > > Due to the lively discussions during today's TSC call, the IRC > minutes are a little light [1]. However, I have to voice my concern > that I cannot agree with the following items: > > [.] > 14:41:31 <bh526r> #info Vote for strategy on Tuesday Dec 4 > 14:42:01 <bh526r> #info Hopefully everyone will agree > 14:43:12 <bh526r> #info We need a decision on Dec 4 in order to > trigger following actions > 14:43:35 <dmcbride> #topic budget discussion > 14:43:45 <bh526r> #info Stalemate is not an option [.] > > I don't understand why "we need a decision by Dec 4 in order to > trigger actions". I seriously appreciate your ambition to move this > forward quickly as the main intention is to strengthen OPNFV's > position. However, I also don't see why concrete actions are being > blocked if there is no decision on Dec 4. > > A core value of open source communities is that those who are > interested in a particular topic, naturally tend to form a group > which jointly works towards a common goal. In our concrete scenario, > we could i) form a devops working group which works on fleshing out > the details of the proposal, and/or ii) find a group of interested > people prototyping some of the "cloud-based devops methodologies. > None of such activities would be considered a stalemate. The results > of such _community-driven_ activities would help to convince the > entire community. A very successful example in this regard is XCI, > which was driven by a small group of people. > > Certainly, it is the job of all TSC members to actively participate > in the strategy definition and discussion and I urge everybody to do > so. An open source community works best if it is driven by personal > motivation. For sure it does not work well if deadlines for decisions > about unclear directions are put on a community without a clear > understanding why. > > > That said, my current view on the proposal is the following: it > broadens the scope of the community (by a currently undefined > amount), i.e., it adds on top of what we are currently doing. I do > not think that this is the right approach given shrinking amounts of > resources in the community - both in terms of developers and funding. > I believe we need to instead discuss, as an alternative, if we should > and can focus on a very specific, well-defined and sought-after > contribution to the ecosystem. I mentioned this in a previous email > already: based on input from stakeholders, I would argue for > strengthening the reference platform (as defined through > comprehensive tests) and the corresponding compliance program. This > is my perspective for sure - others might disagree and I'd love to > discuss better proposals. > > [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ircbot.wl.lin > uxfoundation.org_meetings_opnfv-2Dmeeting_2018_opnfv-2Dmeeting.2018- > 2D11-2D27-2D13.54.log.txt&d=DwIFAw&c=LFYZ- > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw&m=r9hen4pWj29O0xCWW_XdI- > Cyb5ZQJ1eBww0QIv_RyCM&s=myFYapb13OCO_9JxKW28OhoywMw8B5SXe1c_nPUWSK0&e > = > > Best regards > Georg > > -----Original Message----- > From: HU, BIN <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 2:22 PM > To: Tim Irnich <[email protected]>; Trevor Bramwell <tbramwell@linu > xfoundation.org> > Cc: AshYoung <[email protected]>; Georg Kunz <[email protected]> > ; [email protected]; [email protected]; > Manuel Buil <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan > > Thank you for pointing out one possibility based on the assumption > that the same resources will do both work. The assumption itself may > not be true because there will be different resources to do different > work in different projects (which is the reality today). > > So the resource availability is a key factor to consider when we > approve the new projects subsequently after we plan the product > portfolio. When we have dedicated resources to do each job, such > possibility will be unlikely to happen. > > Thanks > Bin > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf > Of Tim Irnich > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 11:59 PM > To: HU, BIN <[email protected]>; Trevor Bramwell <tbramwell@linuxfoundat > ion.org> > Cc: AshYoung <[email protected]>; Georg Kunz <[email protected]> > ; [email protected]; [email protected]; > Manuel Buil <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan > > The way I understand Trevor's concern is that if we start spending > more time on packaging tools and supporting their usage downstream, > there will be less time for doing integration work and driving > upstream production readiness. Which is something I'm concerned about > too. > > Pretending that this problem doesn't exist isn't helpful IMHO. > > Tim > > On 11/27/18 2:11 AM, HU, BIN wrote: > > Trevor, > > > > Thank you for you clarifying it. > > > > The integration work is explicitly mentioned to be continued in 3rd > > bullet on slide #13 of v0.8. I am attaching it again just in case > > you missed it. That work will continue as usual. All related bug > > fixes and new features in upstream will continue as usual too. So I > > am not sure why it is a concern here. > > > > Regarding the concern of spending our time to help people use our > > tools, isn't it the usual business we are supposed to do today? For > > example, after we release Gambia, we are supposed to help people > > use it, right? There is a "opnfv-user" mailing list for this > > purpose. There isn't much traffic though. It means either everyone > > is an expert or no one is interested in using our release. I wish > > it was because everyone is an expert, though the reality might be > > opposite. > > > > Recently, someone asked me how to run Yardstick on Dovetail. Thanks > > Georg for sharing the docs. I was really excited because finally > > someone is interested in using our tool. So getting user to use our > > tools is exactly what we want, right? Without users, I don't know > > how to show others our value, frankly. > > > > So IMHO, spending our time to help user isn't a concern at all. It > > is what we need. And there is no difference of supporting users, > > e.g. use OpenStack by OpenStack community, use ODL by ODL > > community. Etc. > > > > If there is no user to support, we are in trouble because our > > deliverables has no value. > > > > Let me know what you think, and if you still have concerns. > > > > Thank you > > Bin > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On > > Behalf > > Of Trevor Bramwell > > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 4:54 PM > > To: HU, BIN <[email protected]> > > Cc: Tim Irnich <[email protected]>; AshYoung <[email protected]>; > > Georg Kunz <[email protected]>; Manuel Buil <[email protected]>; > > > > [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan > > > > Hi Bin, > > > > Perhaps 'integrated' is a better word here than 'supported'. A lot > > of the work in OPNFV involves integrating many of these upstream > > components which in turn exposes bugs, or creates features that > > enable an NFV use case. > > > > I'm quite terrible with examples, but I'm sure others from the > > community have time. > > > > Regards, > > Trevor Bramwell > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:26:33AM +0000, HU, BIN wrote: > > > Trevor, > > > > > > Thank you for your question. > > > > > > Can you give more details and examples of "doing what we're best > > > at, which is getting NFV supported by upstream projects."? > > > > > > Thank you > > > Bin > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Trevor Bramwell <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 4:17 PM > > > To: HU, BIN <[email protected]> > > > Cc: Tim Irnich <[email protected]>; AshYoung <[email protected]> > > > ; > > > Georg Kunz <[email protected]>; Manuel Buil <[email protected] > > > >; > > > [email protected]; [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan > > > > > > Hi Bin, > > > > > > I'm still unclear on the first point: "Enabling and automating > > > stakeholders' business transformation into DevOps organization" > > > > > > From what I've read it seems like the suggestion is to package up > > > everything that makes up OPNFV (Platform, CI/CD piplines, testing > > > / verification / certification tools, etc.) and turn that into > > > something that can be deployed by a company internally. > > > > > > Is that what is being suggested here, or something else? And if > > > so I'd be concerned that we'd actually be reducing companies > > > incentive to be involved, or more of our time would be spent > > > trying to support people using the tool then doing what we're > > > best at, which is getting NFV supported by upstream projects. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Trevor Bramwell > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 09:04:57PM +0000, HU, BIN wrote: > > > > Tim, > > > > > > > > Not sure if you get a chance to follow the most recent > > > > discussion. > > > > > > > > The ask is merely to agree on a strategy (i.e. the vision and > > > > direction) outlined on Slide #13, supported by the steps of > > > > actions summarized on slide #16. See attached the most recent > > > > update v0.8. > > > > > > > > Please let me know if there is anything unclear here. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Bin > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On > > > > Behalf Of Tim Irnich > > > > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 12:57 PM > > > > To: HU, BIN <[email protected]>; AshYoung <[email protected]>; > > > > Georg > > > > Kunz <[email protected]>; Manuel Buil <[email protected]> > > > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > > > > rg > > > > Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan > > > > > > > > On 11/26/18 4:40 PM, HU, BIN wrote: > > > > > > > > > > If I understand correctly, Point #1 and #3 are actually the > > > > > same question, i.e. what will we do in the next step? > > > > > > > > No, I'm rather suggesting to make sure our understanding is > > > > complete before we proceed. We clearly do not yet sufficiently > > > > understand what exactly the decision is you're asking us to > > > > take, so we cannot proceed. > > > > Let's continue to work on this until we have the required > > > > clarity, and then decide. > > > > > > > > Regards, Tim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > > > Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. > > > > > > > > View/Reply Online (#4856): > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnf > > > > v.org > > > > _g_opnfv-2Dtsc_message_4856&d=DwIF-g&c=LFYZ- > > > > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6qPc > > > > DOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw&m=MsGFeXeJn1GRo- > > > > GvLejVXrmPgRHvZKjmVkiBKZgaQdc&s=j > > > > 9hLZ3q9g0pHbtq-b6cZkh4PaKLsKtMkaWRRHHHAcqQ&e= > > > > Mute This Topic: > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnf > > > > v.org > > > > _mt_27802341_557206&d=DwIF-g&c=LFYZ- > > > > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6qPcDOqMgwf1 > > > > K_r6YIIHhw&m=MsGFeXeJn1GRo- > > > > GvLejVXrmPgRHvZKjmVkiBKZgaQdc&s=fTo_-Z8GU > > > > Aaz9sCAJyClb_m_LGWxF3_23Siiy8SJdtY&e= > > > > Group Owner: [email protected] > > > > Unsubscribe: > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnf > > > > v.org > > > > _g_opnfv-2Dtsc_unsub&d=DwIF-g&c=LFYZ- > > > > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6qPcDOqMgwf > > > > 1K_r6YIIHhw&m=MsGFeXeJn1GRo- > > > > GvLejVXrmPgRHvZKjmVkiBKZgaQdc&s=f8xgHpaw > > > > JHb8E2ELrIpuKGYOIZmFHT6fOJf7huGMVHM&e= > > > > [[email protected]] > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > -- > Dr.-Ing. Tim Irnich, Senior Program Manager Developer Engagement > E-Mail: [email protected] > Mobile: +49 172 2791829 > SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham > Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. > > View/Reply Online (#22454): https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-disc > uss/message/22454 > Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/28277855/1217365 > Group Owner: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub [oll > [email protected]] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#22458): https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/22458 Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/28277855/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
