Hi Tim, thanks - I just want to make sure that we don't forget that there is quite a bit of work happening in OPNFV that we also want to see continue. This would for example also include test and ops tools for stand-alone testing / verification etc. that don't necessarily are part of a scenario/solution stack, nor are part of a "DevOps platform".... The more inclusive we can be with the "strategy statement" for what we do today, the more solid our foundation to evolve from where we are today.
BTW/ - Given that all the TSC can do is inspire the community to work on different tasks, we probably want to add a statement about that in the "work plan" slide. IMHO we probably want to inspire a project (existing or new) that would pull together the "DevOps Platform" as a release artifact. Cheers, Frank -----Original Message----- From: Tim Irnich <tim.irn...@suse.com> Sent: Dienstag, 4. Dezember 2018 10:43 To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbroc...@cisco.com>; BIN HU <bh5...@att.com>; Georg Kunz <georg.k...@ericsson.com>; Trevor Bramwell <tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org> Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan Hi Frank, I attempted to make the slide cover everything we do, so that we have a baseline to continue with (both in terms of communicating the projects direction to the Board and externally as well as fleshing out the details for ourselves). My thinking was that sooner or later we would probably move to doing cloud native only but at second thought we probably should not state it like this yet. So maybe we should rather just remove Cloud Native from the headline and say "Integrated reference stacks and DevOps platform for NFV and beyond". I've also removed it from the second main bullet and added a sub-bullet "Address state-of-the-art NFV and evolution to Cloud Native and Edge". Does this solve the issue? Regards, Tim On 12/4/18 9:21 AM, Frank Brockners (fbrockne) wrote: > Hi Tim, > > thanks for the updates. We might want to consider changing the title of slide > 13 to "Additional focus areas for OPNFV in 2019: Integrated reference stacks > and DevOps platform for Cloud Native NFV and beyond " rather than " OPNFV > Strategy - Integrated reference stacks and DevOps platform for Cloud Native > NFV and beyond", because the slide only talks about the additions to our > agenda. Otherwise people might be confused and think that the two bullets > would be all we'd do. > > Thoughts? > > Thanks, Frank > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Irnich <tim.irn...@suse.com> > Sent: Samstag, 1. Dezember 2018 13:57 > To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbroc...@cisco.com>; BIN HU > <bh5...@att.com>; Georg Kunz <georg.k...@ericsson.com>; Trevor > Bramwell <tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org> > Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org > Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV > Strategic Plan > > Following up on my AP from this week's TSC call, I went over slides 13 and 16 > and changed them to (IMHO) better reflect the balance and outcome of the > discussion so far. The strategy slide has become a bit more wordy, but I > think this is necessary to disambiguate. > > Regards, Tim > > On 11/30/18 12:45 PM, Frank Brockners via Lists.Opnfv.Org wrote: >> >> >> In the TSC meeting, Manuel voiced a pretty important ask that might >> help the discussion moving forward: "Cloud we create a table that >> compares OPNFV today with the proposed future", assuming that we'd >> evolve along the path that Bin started to articulate. The table >> format is to make things more concrete and could help us in a second >> step to articulate where we'd want to focus on moving forward. This >> includes which additional work areas we'd like to inspire projects to >> work on (or even new projects to be created for). I've tried to >> capture the current discussion and proposal into a table below (see >> also attached in case groups.io messes up the formatting and color) - >> feel free to add/evolve/change per your understanding - the below is >> just my reading of Bin's deck. >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >> Thanks, Frank >> >> >> >> >> >> *OPNFV today* >> >> >> >> *Potential Evolution *(changes in blue) >> >> *Design*- Outline requirements; Design NFV components and solution >> stacks >> >> >> >> *Design*- Outline requirements; Design NFV components and solution >> stacks; Focus on cloud native and edge use cases. >> >> *Create*- Create new and/or enhance components (most often by working >> upstream) to meet the design/requirements >> >> >> >> *Create*- Create new and/or enhance components (most often by working >> upstream) to meet the design/requirements. >> >> *Compose*- Follow the design and create a running system from a set >> of components >> >> >> >> *Compose*- Follow the design and create a running system from a set >> of components >> >> *Deploy*- Install and run the composed system on a set of labs >> worldwide. This includes enhancement and creation of specific test >> and deployment tools (installers, XCI,..). >> >> >> >> *Deploy*- Install and run the composed system on a set of labs >> worldwide. This includes enhancement and creation of specific test >> and deployment tools (installers, XCI,..). >> >> *Test*- Test the installation, i.e. running system that represents an >> NFV solution stack; as well as test specific aspects of a system. >> This includes creation and enhancement of specific test and deployment tools. >> In addition, this includes tooling for verification (OVP/CVP). >> >> >> >> *Test*- Test the installation, i.e. running system that represents an >> NFV solution stack; as well as test specific aspects of a system. >> This includes creation and enhancement of specific test and deployment tools. >> In addition, this includes tooling for verification (OVP/CVP). >> Tool suite: Compose individual tools into a tool suite. >> >> *Iterate/Automate *- Create guidelines and tooling for automated >> deployment, testing, and test-results reporting. >> >> >> >> *Iterate/Automate *- Create guidelines and tooling for automated >> deployment, testing, and test-results reporting. >> Create a "DevOps" platform: Tooling to automatically compose the >> entire DevOps workflow using cloud services. (Require migration from >> DIY hosted labs/git/gerrit/Jenkins to cloud services like packet.net, >> github, circleCI, ..) >> >> *Operate*- Operate a set of servers/labs and services (git, gerrit, >> jenkins,..). Offer Lab-as-a-Service (LaaS). >> >> >> >> *Operate*- Operate a set of servers/labs and services (git, gerrit, >> jenkins,..).Offer Lab-as-a-Service (LaaS). >> >> *OPNFV Release artifacts:* >> >> * Scenarios - installable NFV solution stacks (NFVI); >> "NFVI Platform" >> * Tools (mostly test/operations tools) >> * OVP/CVP solution >> >> >> >> *OPNFV Release artifacts:* >> >> * Scenarios - installable NFV solution stacks (NFVI); >> streamlined, i.e. fewer scenarios; increased focus on CN and edge; >> "NFVI Platform" >> * Packaged testing/operations tool suite >> * OVP/CVP solution >> * "DevOps Platform" >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org <opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org> On Behalf >> Of Georg Kunz >> Sent: Dienstag, 27. November 2018 18:46 >> To: HU, BIN <bh5...@att.com>; Tim Irnich <tim.irn...@suse.com>; >> Trevor Bramwell <tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org> >> Cc: AshYoung <a...@cachengo.com>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; >> opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org; Manuel Buil <mb...@suse.com> >> 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] >> http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2018/opnf >> v >> -meeting.2018-11-27-13.54.log.txt >> >> >> >> Best regards >> >> Georg >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: HU, BIN <bh5...@att.com <mailto:bh5...@att.com>> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 2:22 PM >> >> To: Tim Irnich <tim.irn...@suse.com <mailto:tim.irn...@suse.com>>; >> Trevor Bramwell <tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org >> <mailto:tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org>> >> >> Cc: AshYoung <a...@cachengo.com <mailto:a...@cachengo.com>>; Georg Kunz >> <georg.k...@ericsson.com <mailto:georg.k...@ericsson.com>>; >> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org >> <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>; >> opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org <mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org>; Manuel >> Buil <mb...@suse.com <mailto:mb...@suse.com>> >> >> 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: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org <mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org> >> <opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org <mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org>> On >> Behalf Of Tim Irnich >> >> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 11:59 PM >> >> To: HU, BIN <bh5...@att.com <mailto:bh5...@att.com>>; Trevor Bramwell >> <tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org >> <mailto:tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org>> >> >> Cc: AshYoung <a...@cachengo.com <mailto:a...@cachengo.com>>; Georg Kunz >> <georg.k...@ericsson.com <mailto:georg.k...@ericsson.com>>; >> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org >> <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>; >> opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org <mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org>; Manuel >> Buil <mb...@suse.com <mailto:mb...@suse.com>> >> >> 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: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org <mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org> >> <opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org <mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org>> On >> Behalf >> >>> Of Trevor Bramwell >> >>> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 4:54 PM >> >>> To: HU, BIN <bh5...@att.com <mailto:bh5...@att.com>> >> >>> Cc: Tim Irnich <tim.irn...@suse.com <mailto:tim.irn...@suse.com>>; >> AshYoung <a...@cachengo.com <mailto:a...@cachengo.com>>; >> >>> Georg Kunz <georg.k...@ericsson.com >>> <mailto:georg.k...@ericsson.com>>; >> Manuel Buil <mb...@suse.com <mailto:mb...@suse.com>>; >> >>> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org >> <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>; >> opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org <mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org> >> >>> 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 <tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org >> <mailto:tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org>> >> >>>> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 4:17 PM >> >>>> To: HU, BIN <bh5...@att.com <mailto:bh5...@att.com>> >> >>>> Cc: Tim Irnich <tim.irn...@suse.com <mailto:tim.irn...@suse.com>>; >> AshYoung <a...@cachengo.com <mailto:a...@cachengo.com>>; >> >>>> Georg Kunz <georg.k...@ericsson.com >> <mailto:georg.k...@ericsson.com>>; Manuel Buil <mb...@suse.com >> <mailto:mb...@suse.com>>; >> >>>> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org >> <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>; >> opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org <mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org> >> >>>> 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: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org <mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org> >> <opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org <mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org>> On >> >>>>> Behalf Of Tim Irnich >> >>>>> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 12:57 PM >> >>>>> To: HU, BIN <bh5...@att.com <mailto:bh5...@att.com>>; AshYoung >> <a...@cachengo.com <mailto:a...@cachengo.com>>; Georg >> >>>>> Kunz <georg.k...@ericsson.com <mailto:georg.k...@ericsson.com>>; >> Manuel Buil <mb...@suse.com <mailto:mb...@suse.com>> >> >>>>> Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org >> <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>; >> opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org <mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org> >> >>>>> 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.opnfv.o >>>>> r >>>>> g >> >>>>> _g_opnfv-2Dtsc_message_4856&d=DwIF-g&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6q >>>>> P >>>>> c >> >>>>> DOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw&m=MsGFeXeJn1GRo-GvLejVXrmPgRHvZKjmVkiBKZgaQdc&s >>>>> = >>>>> j >> >>>>> 9hLZ3q9g0pHbtq-b6cZkh4PaKLsKtMkaWRRHHHAcqQ&e= >> >>>>> Mute This Topic: >> >>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.o >>>>> r >>>>> g >> >>>>> _mt_27802341_557206&d=DwIF-g&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6qPcDOqMgw >>>>> f >>>>> 1 >> >>>>> K_r6YIIHhw&m=MsGFeXeJn1GRo-GvLejVXrmPgRHvZKjmVkiBKZgaQdc&s=fTo_-Z8 >>>>> G >>>>> U >> >>>>> Aaz9sCAJyClb_m_LGWxF3_23Siiy8SJdtY&e= >> >>>>> Group Owner: opnfv-tsc+ow...@lists.opnfv.org >> <mailto:opnfv-tsc+ow...@lists.opnfv.org> >> >>>>> Unsubscribe: >> >>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.o >>>>> r >>>>> g >> >>>>> _g_opnfv-2Dtsc_unsub&d=DwIF-g&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6qPcDOqMg >>>>> w >>>>> f >> >>>>> 1K_r6YIIHhw&m=MsGFeXeJn1GRo-GvLejVXrmPgRHvZKjmVkiBKZgaQdc&s=f8xgHp >>>>> a >>>>> w >> >>>>> JHb8E2ELrIpuKGYOIZmFHT6fOJf7huGMVHM&e= >> >>>>> [tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org] >> >>>>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >> >>>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Dr.-Ing. Tim Irnich, Senior Program Manager Developer Engagement >> >> E-Mail: tim.irn...@suse.com <mailto:tim.irn...@suse.com> >> >> Mobile: +49 172 2791829 >> >> SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham >> Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) >> > > -- > Dr.-Ing. Tim Irnich, Senior Program Manager Developer Engagement > E-Mail: tim.irn...@suse.com > Mobile: +49 172 2791829 > SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham > Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) > > -- Dr.-Ing. Tim Irnich, Senior Program Manager Developer Engagement E-Mail: tim.irn...@suse.com 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 (#22500): https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/22500 Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/28277855/21656 Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
