Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Updated invitation: OPNFV C Committee Call @ Every 2 weeks from 11pm to 12am on Monday (SGT) (christopher.don...@huawei.com)

[Raymond Paik]

All,

Tim/I just added an OVP update topic for the TSC call next week.  I'll just
make a couple of points


   1. The OPNFV Verified Program does not need any new approval from the
   LFN Board to move forward with the launch (the program was already approved
   by OPNFV Board & TSC in November'17).  There will be an update provided to
   the LFN Board next week on the OVP launch.
   2. Programs such as Powered By Open Daylight and OPNFV Verified will
   continue to operate under their existing governance and a request will be
   made to the LFN Board for the C Committee in OPNFV to operate again as it
   had until December 31, 2017 (as noted earlier, the OPNFV C Committee
   ceased to exist starting January 1st).  This will allow the committee
   members to manage the OVP.  Any new LFN compliance committee, structure,
   etc. can be decided on at a later date with communities' input.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Ray

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 7:17 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) <
bryan.sulli...@research.att.com> wrote:

> Also - any particular reason this thread is not on the tech-discuss and
> TSC list? This goes to my point about transparency. We have to always
> remember we are an open community and any proposals that affect the
> community need to be openly shared on the lists. Especially ones that
> address organizational issues.
>
> Thanks,
> Bryan Sullivan | AT
>
> -Original Message-
> From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L)
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 7:12 PM
> To: 'Christopher Donley (Chris)' ; Dave
> Neary ; Christopher Price  com>; m...@linuxfoundation.org; hkirk...@linuxfoundation.org; Lincoln
> Lavoie ; fzdar...@redhat.com;
> denglin...@chinamobile.com; fbroc...@cisco.com; ljlam...@vmware.com;
> Scott Nicholas ; trevor.coo...@intel.com;
> Wenjing Chu ; glenn.sei...@windriver.com;
> Tianhongbo ; dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org;
> fuq...@chinamobile.com; Raymond Paik ;
> t.nakam...@cablelabs.com; juha.oravai...@nokia.com;
> tapio.tallg...@nokia.com; morgan.richo...@orange.com; Tim Irnich <
> tim.irn...@ericsson.com>; feng.xiao...@zte.com.cn; Edward Abou Arrage
> (Eddie Arrage, Silicon Valley NFV Competency Center) <
> eddie.arr...@huawei.com>
> Subject: RE: Updated invitation: OPNFV C Committee Call @ Every 2 weeks
> from 11pm to 12am on Monday (SGT) (christopher.don...@huawei.com)
>
> Note also that any member of any LFN project is (or can easily become) a
> member of all LFN projects - at least there is no financial obligation
> beyond LFN membership. So if Amdocs wants to participate in OPNFV, nothing
> is stopping them.
>
> Infra synergy is clearly an opportunity with the LFN but we should ensure
> that any discussion on that (beyond selling proactivity toward it) is kept
> at a cross-community basis in the technical community, and not at the Board
> or Board committee level. The TAC may provide a venue for finalizing
> cross-community infra strategy but all the detailed discussion on it
> (including the CVP) should be at the level of inter-TSC dialog. We can
> setup cross-community focus groups as needed to facilitate that
> cross-community dialog, but it needs to remain open to community-level
> participation, and transparent.
>
> Thanks,
> Bryan Sullivan | AT
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Donley (Chris) [mailto:christopher.don...@huawei.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 11:08 AM
> To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) ; Dave
> Neary ; Christopher Price  com>; m...@linuxfoundation.org; hkirk...@linuxfoundation.org; Lincoln
> Lavoie ; fzdar...@redhat.com;
> denglin...@chinamobile.com; fbroc...@cisco.com; ljlam...@vmware.com;
> Scott Nicholas ; trevor.coo...@intel.com;
> Wenjing Chu ; glenn.sei...@windriver.com;
> Tianhongbo ; dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org;
> fuq...@chinamobile.com; Raymond Paik ;
> t.nakam...@cablelabs.com; juha.oravai...@nokia.com;
> tapio.tallg...@nokia.com; morgan.richo...@orange.com; Tim Irnich <
> tim.irn...@ericsson.com>; feng.xiao...@zte.com.cn; Edward Abou Arrage
> (Eddie Arrage, Silicon Valley NFV Competency Center) <
> eddie.arr...@huawei.com>
> Subject: RE: Updated invitation: OPNFV C Committee Call @ Every 2 weeks
> from 11pm to 12am on Monday (SGT) (christopher.don...@huawei.com)
>
> In the short term, my understanding is the main impact of having C under
> the LFN Board is that it opens us up for further participation (for
> example, from Amdocs, who is an LFN member but not an OPNFV member) and
> allows greater transparency.  It also encourages more cross-project
> discussion (you're right 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Updated invitation: OPNFV C Committee Call @ Every 2 weeks from 11pm to 12am on Monday (SGT) (christopher.don...@huawei.com)

[SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L)]

Also - any particular reason this thread is not on the tech-discuss and TSC 
list? This goes to my point about transparency. We have to always remember we 
are an open community and any proposals that affect the community need to be 
openly shared on the lists. Especially ones that address organizational issues.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

-Original Message-
From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 7:12 PM
To: 'Christopher Donley (Chris)' ; Dave Neary 
; Christopher Price ; 
m...@linuxfoundation.org; hkirk...@linuxfoundation.org; Lincoln Lavoie 
; fzdar...@redhat.com; denglin...@chinamobile.com; 
fbroc...@cisco.com; ljlam...@vmware.com; Scott Nicholas 
; trevor.coo...@intel.com; Wenjing Chu 
; glenn.sei...@windriver.com; Tianhongbo 
; dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org; 
fuq...@chinamobile.com; Raymond Paik ; 
t.nakam...@cablelabs.com; juha.oravai...@nokia.com; tapio.tallg...@nokia.com; 
morgan.richo...@orange.com; Tim Irnich ; 
feng.xiao...@zte.com.cn; Edward Abou Arrage (Eddie Arrage, Silicon Valley NFV 
Competency Center) 
Subject: RE: Updated invitation: OPNFV C Committee Call @ Every 2 weeks from 
11pm to 12am on Monday (SGT) (christopher.don...@huawei.com)

Note also that any member of any LFN project is (or can easily become) a member 
of all LFN projects - at least there is no financial obligation beyond LFN 
membership. So if Amdocs wants to participate in OPNFV, nothing is stopping 
them.

Infra synergy is clearly an opportunity with the LFN but we should ensure that 
any discussion on that (beyond selling proactivity toward it) is kept at a 
cross-community basis in the technical community, and not at the Board or Board 
committee level. The TAC may provide a venue for finalizing cross-community 
infra strategy but all the detailed discussion on it (including the CVP) should 
be at the level of inter-TSC dialog. We can setup cross-community focus groups 
as needed to facilitate that cross-community dialog, but it needs to remain 
open to community-level participation, and transparent.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

-Original Message-
From: Christopher Donley (Chris) [mailto:christopher.don...@huawei.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 11:08 AM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) ; Dave Neary 
; Christopher Price ; 
m...@linuxfoundation.org; hkirk...@linuxfoundation.org; Lincoln Lavoie 
; fzdar...@redhat.com; denglin...@chinamobile.com; 
fbroc...@cisco.com; ljlam...@vmware.com; Scott Nicholas 
; trevor.coo...@intel.com; Wenjing Chu 
; glenn.sei...@windriver.com; Tianhongbo 
; dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org; 
fuq...@chinamobile.com; Raymond Paik ; 
t.nakam...@cablelabs.com; juha.oravai...@nokia.com; tapio.tallg...@nokia.com; 
morgan.richo...@orange.com; Tim Irnich ; 
feng.xiao...@zte.com.cn; Edward Abou Arrage (Eddie Arrage, Silicon Valley NFV 
Competency Center) 
Subject: RE: Updated invitation: OPNFV C Committee Call @ Every 2 weeks from 
11pm to 12am on Monday (SGT) (christopher.don...@huawei.com)

In the short term, my understanding is the main impact of having C under the 
LFN Board is that it opens us up for further participation (for example, from 
Amdocs, who is an LFN member but not an OPNFV member) and allows greater 
transparency.  It also encourages more cross-project discussion (you're right 
that it will take some time to work out any such details - this would just 
provide a vehicle). For OVP, I think we proceed as planned as soon as we have 
the C rechartered (which has to happen, regardless of where we put it, since 
we were originally chartered as a Board committee).

Longer-term, we'll have to work out logistical issues with how we work inside 
LFN.  As you mention, questions of scope and passing criteria would go to the 
TSC through Dovetail and/or other OPNFV testing projects.  Likewise, I think 
tests/requirements generated by other communities should be governed by their 
TSC and branding/marketing handled in the respective communities, as well (the 
top-level LFN may need to weigh in if there's a gray area between llcs).  From 
the work we've done so far, I think a lot could be reused in a combined 
environment, including the governance document, committee structure, 
operational practices, Dovetail testing framework,  and back-end 
infrastructure.  

For OPNFV, I don't anticipate a change in scope in the near term (as Dave 
mentioned). We're not talking about re-tooling.  Longer-term, maybe we add some 
tests, which