Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP and Community Lab Requirements

[Bob Monkman]

Morgan,
   I believe we can work with that and wait for a signal confirming 
from the ONAP team near the end of April for us to go off-line. Note: Michael 
is out this week on vacation.
Michael, Sharad,
   Would you agree?
Regards,
Bob

From: morgan.richo...@orange.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 7:45 AM
To: Kadera, Michael J ; Monkman, Bob 
; Mishra, Sharad D ; 
daniel.milaszkiew...@nokia.com; xin.m...@fujitsu.com
Cc: David McBride ; onap-...@lists.onap.org; 
onap-tsc ; Gooch, Stephen 
Subject: RE:ONAP and Community Lab Requirements

Hi

are you OK with the timing (just after Honolulu ..in April..we never released 
the date we planned but never months after either :) ) ?

Morgan

De : RICHOMME Morgan TGI/OLN
Envoyé : vendredi 12 mars 2021 19:36
À : Kadera, Michael J; Monkman, Bob; Mishra, Sharad D; 
daniel.milaszkiew...@nokia.com; 
xin.m...@fujitsu.com
Cc : David McBride; onap-...@lists.onap.org; 
onap-tsc; Gooch, Stephen
Objet : RE:ONAP and Community Lab Requirements
Hi

I shared the info with the community during the last PTL meeting
A consensus would be to plan the operation just after the release H
Sign Off is planned on the 8th of April
so end of April sounds OK

/Morgan


De : Kadera, Michael J [michael.j.kad...@intel.com]
Envoyé : jeudi 4 mars 2021 11:13
Obligatoire : Kadera, Michael J; RICHOMME Morgan TGI/OLN; Monkman, Bob; Mishra, 
Sharad D; 
daniel.milaszkiew...@nokia.com; 
xin.m...@fujitsu.com
Objet : ONAP and Community Lab Requirements
Quand : jeudi 4 mars 2021 18:00-18:30.
Où : Microsoft Teams Meeting
Hi everyone,

This looks like our best option this week for us to meet and discuss the plans 
for the ONAP community labs.

Items to discuss:
·ONAP lab community goals for 2021
·Community hosting options and Intel lab status
·Next steps

Microsoft Teams meeting
Join on your computer or mobile app
Click here to join the 
meeting
Join with a video conferencing device
te...@conf.intel.com
Video Conference ID: 114 621 047 9
Alternate VTC dialing 
instructions
Or call in (audio only)
+1 916-245-6934,,322721328#   United States, 
Sacramento
Phone Conference ID: 322 721 328#
Find a local 
number
 | Reset PIN
Learn More | Meeting 
options



_
From: morgan.richo...@orange.com 
mailto:morgan.richo...@orange.com>>
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2021 2:07 AM
To: Kadera, Michael J 
mailto:michael.j.kad...@intel.com>>
Cc: Monkman, Bob mailto:bob.monk...@intel.com>>; Mishra, 
Sharad D mailto:sharad.d.mis...@intel.com>>; 
daniel.milaszkiew...@nokia.com; 
xin.m...@fujitsu.com
Subject: RE:ONAP and Community Lab Requirements

Hi

sure we can plan an ad hoc meeting on the topic this week.

I would suggest the following time slots:
- Tuesday 4 PM UTC / 9 AM PDT
- Wednesday 4 PM UTC / 9 AM PDT
- Thursday 4 PM UTC / 9 AM PDT

NB I added Daniel and Xin who are also supporting the community in the 
Windriver/Intel lab

/Morgan
  
De : Kadera, Michael J [michael.j.kad...@intel.com]
Envoyé : mardi 23 février 2021 20:30
À : RICHOMME Morgan TGI/OLN
Cc : Monkman, Bob; Mishra, Sharad D
Objet : ONAP and Community Lab Requirements
Hi Morgan,

My team is leading the support efforts for the Intel ONAP community lab and we 
would like to get your input on the lab needs and hosting requirements for the 
community. We have a few hosting decisions to plan for the future needs and we 
would like to make sure the community needs are considered. More specifically, 
we would like to know what community labs are also available, future plans for 
ONAP and how the Intel lab and other community labs will coordinate to meet the 
needs.

Would you have time to meet in the near fut

Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

[Bob Monkman]

+1  Thanks, Phil

Robert (Bob) Monkman
Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs
ARM
150 Rose Orchard Way
San Jose, Ca 95134
M: +1.510.676.5490
Skype: robert.monkman

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] 
On Behalf Of Phil Robb
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 6:20 PM
To: Lingli Deng 
Cc: onap-tsc 
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair 
Election

Hello Lingli and the ONAP development community:

First of all, please accept my apology for putting everyone in this position in 
the first place with regard to the election for the Use Case Subcommittee Chair 
position.  The irregularity stemming from the fact that some new members to the 
sub committee were added to the vote, and some were not is a clear operational 
error on the part of the Linux Foundation support team.  We won't let that 
happen again.

Further comments and clarifications are inline below

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Lingli Deng 
mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>> wrote:
Phil and all,

I also agree that it is important to make up for the loopholes in the TSC 
charter, but I think the correction of irregularities is the key to building a 
truly trusting environment. Without this basic openness and fairness, the 
prosperity and success of the open source community is at high risk.

Since when the voting is initiated, it was made clear that the vote would be 
carried out with reference to a specific version of membership. And hence all 
the new members, which China Mobile added later, did not ask to vote, but 
planned to participate in subsequent discussions. I strongly urge the LF to 
clarify the voting results, remove five votes that did not meet the clearly 
stated qualifications in the voting initiation email therefore gained unfair 
advantage to those who obeyed the regulations, and make the necessary public 
warning to the subject (individual or company).

​Lingli, you note that "when the voting is initiated, it was made clear that 
the vote would be carried out with reference to a specific version of 
membership".  I don't think this is actually true.  I believe the email you are 
referencing is here: 
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/private/onap-usecasesub/2017-June/15.html
While it does state that the source of the vote was taken from version 58 of 
the Use Case Subcommittee wiki page, it does not state that those are the only 
people allowed to vote.

I have worked in communities, OpenDaylight being one of them, where new members 
to a constituency are allowed to vote while an election is in process.  I have 
also worked in communities, where this is not allowed.  Hence, I do believe the 
rule needs to be specified if the community feels strongly one way or another.  
Such a rule is not articulated in the ONAP TSC Charter, in the Use Case 
Subcommittee Charter, nor is it articulated in the kick-off email of the 
Chairperson Election.  Regardless, the inconsistent implementation of allowing 
some new members to vote, but not all new members to vote is (as I mentioned 
above) an operational error on the LF, and we recognize and apologize for that.

Now, as for clarifying the voting results.  I am sorry but we are unable to do 
that.  The vote was set up as anonymous within the CIVS voting system and as a 
result, we *do not know* how the 5 added voters actually voted.  The output 
that we received, along with every other member who was invited to vote, shows 
the overall result, but it does not show the detailed ballot reporting and it 
keeps the actual voter information anonymous.  That URL is here for reference:  
http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_0acddbd223a75b25

I am however able to tell you the companies from which the 5 new voters came.  
4 came from Gigaspaces and 1 came from Orange.  But again, these 5 did not do 
anything wrong by making the request to be added to the vote.  We, the LF, 
should have either told those 5 that we were not allowing new voters, or we, 
the LF should have automatically included all new members to the sub-committee 
in the vote up until the voting ended.  I.e. in the absence of a clear rule 
from the TSC or subcommittee, the LF makes our best guess at the desire of the 
community, communicates that to the community, and implements it *consistently* 
across all participants.  We, the LF did not do that in this instance.

Firstly, it is normal and healthy that there must be different opinions in any 
open organization composed of many members. Therefore, it is necessary to agree 
as far as possible on clear and unambiguous rules to specify how to reach 
consensus when the dispute arises, including the formation of the rule itself, 
the election of officials, the resolution on a specific topic, and so on.
​Yes, I totally agree.​

Second, one has to admit that any pre-established rules or statutes are not 
likely to enumerate all the possible situations in a com

Re: [onap-tsc] REMINDER - Re: Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

[Bob Monkman]

Thanks, I was going to seek a more formal suggestion in conjunction with my 
open source legal colleague but she is travelling and it is making it 
difficult. In the end, other members of the subcommittee and LF legal can hone 
the language.

Chris Donley has a good start here. I suggest to add language around limits 
with respect to Related Companies, as we find in the charter. Mayeb 1 vote per 
member, with a maximum of two for a set of Related Companies- this is just a 
suggestion, but the idea is to ensure parent/subsidiaries/sister orgs from 
holding inordinate sway. In addition, it may make sense for some language 
requiring the member company to name a new voting representative if the current 
one in inactive, or an alternate named in cases where a vote comes up and the 
voting rep is on holiday/sabbatical.

I am happy to continue to iterate/comment further if a small working group is 
formed to work to a final version.

Regards,
Bob

Robert (Bob) Monkman
Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs
ARM
150 Rose Orchard Way
San Jose, Ca 95134
M: +1.510.676.5490
Skype: robert.monkman

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] 
On Behalf Of Christopher Donley (Chris)
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 3:43 PM
To: GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E) ; onap-tsc 

Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] REMINDER - Re: Irregularities in the Use Case 
Subcommittee Chair Election

I’m happy to help, but I’ll be traveling internationally starting Wednesday, so 
my participation will be limited after tomorrow.

I would like to make sure we differentiate between eligibility for 
participation and eligibility for voting.  For participation, I agree with Bob. 
As a general rule, I think the more open we can be, the better.  There will be 
exceptions (e.g. vulnerability committee) where it makes sense to have a 
constrained and tightly defined membership, but those should be relatively rare.

For voting in elections, given the challenges we’re facing here, perhaps we can 
borrow from OPNFV:

  1.  As Lingli mentioned, eligibility for voting should be determined at the 
time the election is called
  2.  Perhaps we could place a limit of one vote per company (to be determined 
by the committee members from that company prior to commencement of the vote).


For other issues, I’d like to draw attention to Section 5.4.2:
Subcommittees are advisory in nature, and not authoritative. They provide 
advice to projects and to the
TSC.
Subcommittees operate on a rough consensus basis. If the subcommittee is unable 
to reach consensus
on what advice to offer, the subcommittee Chair shall raise the issue with the 
TSC, where a formal vote
can be taken, or advise the project that the subcommittee cannot reach 
consensus.

In other words, aside from electing the Chairperson, there shouldn’t be any 
formal voting.

I wonder if we could resolve the issue with a small change to section 5.4.1:
Each subcommittee shall determine its own membership eligibility, in 
consultation with the TSC. It is
expected that subcommittee membership shall be open to all ONAP Contributors; 
however,
subcommittees may impose restrictions such as the number of participants from a 
single company.
While the desire may be to keep its size and scope limited, each subcommittee 
shall be open to the
ONAP membership. In particular, a Platinum member has the right to appoint its 
TSC representative or
a designate to such a subcommittee. Also, all elected TSC members are eligible 
to join a subcommittee.

Each subcommittee may elect a Chair who is responsible for leading meetings and 
representing the
subcommittee to the TSC. Only people listed on the committee’s membership list 
at the time the election is called shall be eligible to vote in the election.  
No company
shall have more than one vote.  In the event that more than one committee 
member is affiliated with a single company, the committee members from that 
company shall decide amongst themselves who is eligible to vote in the 
election, and shall notify LF prior to the start of the election.

Chris

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org> 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 2:57 PM
To: onap-tsc
Subject: [onap-tsc] REMINDER - Re: Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee 
Chair Election

Team
I have received only one volunteer to review and make proposed changes to the 
Charter.
If you would like to contribute or participate then let me know today.

thanks
mazin



On Jul 9, 2017, at 5:58 PM, GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E) 
mailto:ma...@research.att.com>> wrote:

ONAP Community,

Thank you for the healthy dialog, and thanks to Phil for outlining the key 
issues.
I raised this issue to the Linux Foundation two weeks back as the 
irregularities that led to Phil’s email
is not healthy in growing our community. Although these irregularities are not 
intentional, they a

Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

[Bob Monkman]

Phil,
  After re-reading the TSC portion, I would absolutely agree that 
this would be under TSC purview, and not GB.
Ed,
  I would be happy to do so. I will do so but will need to run my 
draft by a Legal dept colleague who is in UK. I should have something solid by 
Monday COB.

Regards,
Bob

Robert (Bob) Monkman
Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs
ARM
150 Rose Orchard Way
San Jose, Ca 95134
M: +1.510.676.5490
Skype: robert.monkman

From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 8:50 AM
To: Phil Robb 
Cc: Bob Monkman ; onap-tsc 
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair 
Election

Bob,

Would you be willing to do the first draft for the TSCs consideration?

Ed

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Phil Robb 
mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
Hi Ed and Bob:

Given that the Subcommittees we are talking about are technical subcommittees 
serving at the pleasure of the TSC, I suggest the TSC own setting the 
parameters for voting and company representation within these subcommittees.  
The TSC could punt to the Governing Board if they can't come to consensus, but 
otherwise, I suggest it stay within the purview of the TSC.

Best,

Phil.

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Ed Warnicke 
mailto:hagb...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Bob,

Your suggestion is goodness :)  Perhaps the TSC should draft something to 
propose to the board to give them a good starting point?

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Bob Monkman 
mailto:bob.monk...@arm.com>> wrote:
Phil, et al,
  I would like to echo Ed’s observation here regarding the Charter.
  In Section 3.b (GB) and Section 4.a.iii (TSC), specific care is 
taken to tightly limit the voting influence of any one Member Company/Related 
Companies, for good reason, I would say.

  While I did not see it explicitly stated for subcommittees, one 
would hope that same care is taken to ensure to ensure that no one company or 
group of companies have undue voting influence over the decisions made. It also 
should not matter how quickly one gets ones participants “on the list/at the 
available seats at the table”.

  To my mind, there is a distinction between encouraging broad 
participation (we all know of cases where we wish we had more participants) and 
ensuring equity wrt to voting decisions.

  I believe the Governing Board should immediately consider 
defining the voting representation parameters for all subcommittees, putting in 
place limits of how many votes Company/Related Companies can have, and consider 
whether any votes done needed to be cancelled and redone under more equitable 
guidelines.

  One opinion…comments welcome,
Bob

Robert (Bob) Monkman
Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs
ARM
150 Rose Orchard Way
San Jose, Ca 95134
M: +1.510.676.5490
Skype: robert.monkman

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org> 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>]
 On Behalf Of Ed Warnicke
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 8:00 AM
To: Lingli Deng mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>>
Cc: onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair 
Election

Thinking for the last few days around these issues.  I think we have a flaw in 
our governance around subcommittees.  If you look at the charter:


On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Lingli Deng 
mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>> wrote:
Hi Phil and all,

It is a pity that we did not have time to discuss this issue yesterday on the 
TSC call.

As for the typo in the call for nomination, I agree that this is minor and have 
no impact to the election, as neither of the nominees are coming from open labs 
subcommittee, and they are clearly stating their interest in running for 
Usecase subcommittee.

But regarding the inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case 
Subcommittee during the election time-frame, I find it not acceptable and would 
like to ask Kenny to remove them in order to clear the result of the election, 
and strongly suggest to consider publish these five extra voters as a warning.

Thanks,
Lingli

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org> 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>]
 On Behalf Of Phil Robb
Sent: 2017年7月6日 5:44
To: onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

Hello ONAP TSC:

The Use Case Subcommittee Chairperson election has just recently completed.  
However, there have been several irregularities/inconsistencies in the 
implementation of this election that warrants your attention.  In particular:

1) Inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case Subcommittee during t

Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

[Bob Monkman]

Phil, et al,
  I would like to echo Ed’s observation here regarding the Charter.
  In Section 3.b (GB) and Section 4.a.iii (TSC), specific care is 
taken to tightly limit the voting influence of any one Member Company/Related 
Companies, for good reason, I would say.

  While I did not see it explicitly stated for subcommittees, one 
would hope that same care is taken to ensure to ensure that no one company or 
group of companies have undue voting influence over the decisions made. It also 
should not matter how quickly one gets ones participants “on the list/at the 
available seats at the table”.

  To my mind, there is a distinction between encouraging broad 
participation (we all know of cases where we wish we had more participants) and 
ensuring equity wrt to voting decisions.

  I believe the Governing Board should immediately consider 
defining the voting representation parameters for all subcommittees, putting in 
place limits of how many votes Company/Related Companies can have, and consider 
whether any votes done needed to be cancelled and redone under more equitable 
guidelines.

  One opinion…comments welcome,
Bob

Robert (Bob) Monkman
Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs
ARM
150 Rose Orchard Way
San Jose, Ca 95134
M: +1.510.676.5490
Skype: robert.monkman

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] 
On Behalf Of Ed Warnicke
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 8:00 AM
To: Lingli Deng 
Cc: onap-tsc 
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair 
Election

Thinking for the last few days around these issues.  I think we have a flaw in 
our governance around subcommittees.  If you look at the charter:


On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Lingli Deng 
mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>> wrote:
Hi Phil and all,

It is a pity that we did not have time to discuss this issue yesterday on the 
TSC call.

As for the typo in the call for nomination, I agree that this is minor and have 
no impact to the election, as neither of the nominees are coming from open labs 
subcommittee, and they are clearly stating their interest in running for 
Usecase subcommittee.

But regarding the inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case 
Subcommittee during the election time-frame, I find it not acceptable and would 
like to ask Kenny to remove them in order to clear the result of the election, 
and strongly suggest to consider publish these five extra voters as a warning.

Thanks,
Lingli

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org> 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>]
 On Behalf Of Phil Robb
Sent: 2017年7月6日 5:44
To: onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

Hello ONAP TSC:

The Use Case Subcommittee Chairperson election has just recently completed.  
However, there have been several irregularities/inconsistencies in the 
implementation of this election that warrants your attention.  In particular:

1) Inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case Subcommittee during the 
election time-frame.
There are no guidelines in the TSC Charter, nor in the call for 
nominations/election for this vote, indicating if individuals can add 
themselves to the Use Case Subcommittee during the Chairperson voting, and be 
allowed to vote.
a) 64 individuals were members of the Use Case Subcommittee when the voting 
began.  They were invited to vote.
b) Currently (at the end of the voting period), there are 83 members of the 
subcommittee, hence 19 people were added during the voting timeframe
c) Of those new 19 members, 5 asked to be added to the vote, and only those 5 
were added.  The other 14 new members were not invited to vote in the election. 
 Hence the addition of new members was done inconsistently for this vote.

2) No guidelines on company participation within a sub-committee.
While this subcommittees does not mandate, but rather advise the TSC on 
use-case selection/definition for a given release, we can expect the 
subcommittee to perform votes to get a clear resolve on what the advice to the 
TSC should be.  While we want participation to be as open as possible in this 
subcommittee, we also want to ensure that the advice rendered is representative 
of the ONAP community as a whole and is not biased toward one, or a small group 
of participating organizations.  Currently, the membership breakdown of Use 
Case Subcommittee participants looks like this:
amdocs.com<http://amdocs.com> 17
att.com<http://att.com>12
boco.com.cn<http://boco.com.cn>6
chinamobile.com<http://chinamobile.com> 9
chinatelecom.cn<http://chinatelecom.cn>   1
ericsson.com<http://ericsson.com>   1
gigaspaces.com<http://gigaspaces.com> 4
gmail.com<http://gmail.com&g

Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Members - Are you Attending the China Face To Face Next Week?

[Bob Monkman]

+1 I will attend

Robert (Bob) Monkman
Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs
ARM
150 Rose Orchard Way
San Jose, Ca 95134
M: +1.510.676.5490
Skype: robert.monkman

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] 
On Behalf Of Jason Hunt
Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 8:05 AM
To: pr...@linuxfoundation.org
Cc: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Members - Are you Attending the China Face To 
Face Next Week?


+1  Also staying for the Monday morning ONAP mini-summit at OPNFV.


Regards,
Jason Hunt
Executive Software Architect, IBM

Phone: +1-314-749-7422
Email: djh...@us.ibm.com<mailto:djh...@us.ibm.com>
Twitter: @DJHunt


- Original message -
From: Phil Robb mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>>
Sent by: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>
To: onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Cc:
Subject: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Members - Are you Attending the China Face To Face 
Next Week?
Date: Fri, Jun 2, 2017 9:57 AM

Please +1 or -1 if you are attending or not.

Please respond ASAP so that we can know who can help facilitate different 
aspects of the event.

Thanks!

Phil.

--
Phil Robb
Executive Director, OpenDaylight Project
VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation
(O) 970-229-5949
(M) 970-420-4292
Skype: Phil.Robb
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc


IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are 
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any 
other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any 
medium. Thank you.
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc

Re: [onap-tsc] wiki and conference calls

[Bob Monkman]

Right…the IRC bot process we use in OPNFV likewise records all minutes using 
webchat IRC commands into a specific directory for each channel created for a 
project. When we #endmeeting, I get the links to my saved minutes files and can 
save them under the meetings directory of my project wiki page. Super easy for 
me as a non-engineer project lead. 😊

I recommend a similar process for ONAP.
Bob

Robert (Bob) Monkman
Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs
ARM
150 Rose Orchard Way
San Jose, Ca 95134
M: +1.510.676.5490
Skype: robert.monkman

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] 
On Behalf Of Ed Warnicke
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 10:05 AM
To: Danny Lin 
Cc: SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER) ; onap-tsc 

Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] wiki and conference calls

In many other communities, when a project get's approved it creates its own 
wiki page which has sub pages for things like its meetings, meeting minutes, 
etc.  Keeping IRC meeting minutes is a great practice, and highly recommended.  
Do do that you can create and onap-* IRC channel and open a helpdesk ticket to 
add meetbot to it.

Examples:
https://wiki.fd.io/view/VPP <- VPP project page at fd.io<http://fd.io>
https://wiki.fd.io/view/VPP/Meeting <- VPP project meeting page listing 
logistics, agenda, link to meeting minutes
https://wiki.fd.io/view/VPP/project-meeting-minutes <- VPP project meeting 
minutes
https://wiki.fd.io/view/IRC <- fd.io<http://fd.io> index of IRC channels
https://wiki.fd.io/view/Meetings <- fd.io<http://fd.io> index of public meetings

The goal is aggressive openness, not just making things publicly available, but 
easy to find.  Having a common pattern around project wiki pages etc is very 
helpful for that.

Ed


On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Danny Lin 
mailto:l...@vmware.com>> wrote:
+1

In our Multi-Cloud project, we have discussed the similar issue, in a slightly 
different context. We typically record all meetings, and also have a meeting 
note. We are wondering if we should post these recording and meeting notes, and 
if so, where?

Danny

From: mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>> 
on behalf of Ed Warnicke mailto:hagb...@gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, May 26, 2017 at 8:35 AM
To: "SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER)" 
mailto:spat...@research.att.com>>
Cc: onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] wiki and conference calls

+1k

I would strongly suggest we adopt the community norm that its totally cool for 
teams to start calls/IRC channels but they *really* need to list them in a 
central index so people can find them.  Aggressive Openness :)

Ed

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:03 AM, SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER) 
mailto:spat...@research.att.com>> wrote:

I noticed that a substantial number of teams are starting either ad hoc or 
weekly conference calls.  As I think it’s great that the community is forming I 
am wondering if we can start tracking those calls on the ONAP wiki page  (can 
we add a calendar or something like that?).

This would make it much easier to stay on top of attending the correct meetings 
… .

Thx

Oliver
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.onap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Dtsc&d=DwMFaQ&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JNXRgQ&r=3nVF4lkCrih5WqBdByLDuw&m=WWQywOe8bMgd3AP-qfR_OADQrRfgqCtyrhmqUIh9eY8&s=IUBkkzFuSoaLnnzuYQFCopAEe5a9WG-QNSqKaWJwieE&e=>


IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are 
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any 
other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any 
medium. Thank you.
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc

Re: [onap-tsc] CI/CD

[Bob Monkman]

Hi,
  As an OPNFV Board member, I can confirm that this was indeed a 
high priority of the cross project harmonization discussion from the Leadership 
Summit in Lake Tahoe and progress ongoing. I would recommend ONAP TSC to 
coordinate thru the appropriate means in a common CI/CD. I will ask Fatih D who 
wrote that page in OPNFV wiki. to update to add ONAP to the list for their 
reference.

Regards,
Bob

Robert (Bob) Monkman
Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs
ARM
150 Rose Orchard Way
San Jose, Ca 95134
M: +1.510.676.5490
Skype: robert.monkman

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] 
On Behalf Of SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER)
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 1:59 PM
To: Stephen Terrill 
Cc: onap-tsc 
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] CI/CD


Yes that would be in scope of the integration project.

Oliver

On May 11, 2017, at 4:46 PM, Stephen Terrill 
mailto:stephen.terr...@ericsson.com>> wrote:

Hi All,

I’ve become aware of colloborative work between a number of communities 
regarding CI/CD, where there is information 
here:https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/INF/Infra+Collaboration<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.opnfv.org_display_INF_Infra-2BCollaboration&d=DwMFAw&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=3WBYkehchaQg0p_gO26aU_ahomnFHCk_-us7kcQebm4&m=BiE0UeMVWL5BFRE96kIMByH1XejOpwHbW3SIxLd5Cq8&s=piF9PvqVxWeq0siuN2ZNMo2fbEu3aPw5UuiaulZJWk0&e=>

I assume it would be good to consider this as well from an ONAP perspective.  
Any ideas on how we should?  Under the integration project? Or opensource 
coordinator?

Best regards,

Steve.


[Ericsson]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ericsson.com_&d=DwMFAw&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=3WBYkehchaQg0p_gO26aU_ahomnFHCk_-us7kcQebm4&m=BiE0UeMVWL5BFRE96kIMByH1XejOpwHbW3SIxLd5Cq8&s=NyqbV-LL3sqqECuJii5rAeewNpPvBmhpkxJYhWWTorQ&e=>


STEPHEN TERRILL
Technology Specialist
DUIC, Systems and Technology
Development Unit IP & Cloud
Business Unit, IT & Cloud Products

Ericsson
Ericsson R&D Center, via de los Poblados 13
28033, Madrid, Spain
Phone +34 339 3005
Mobile +34 609 168 515
stephen.terr...@ericsson.com<mailto:stephen.terr...@ericsson.com>
www.ericsson.com<http://www.ericsson.com/>


[http://www.ericsson.com/current_campaign]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ericsson.com_current-5Fcampaign&d=DwMFAw&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=3WBYkehchaQg0p_gO26aU_ahomnFHCk_-us7kcQebm4&m=BiE0UeMVWL5BFRE96kIMByH1XejOpwHbW3SIxLd5Cq8&s=pBVN_riM-EkeZT6fbiLPsnsmLQZRKf-TnfMkYx4h5xA&e=>

Legal entity: Ericsson España S.A, compay registration number ESA288568603. 
This Communication is Confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis 
of the terms set out at 
www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ericsson.com_email-5Fdisclaimer&d=DwMFAw&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=3WBYkehchaQg0p_gO26aU_ahomnFHCk_-us7kcQebm4&m=BiE0UeMVWL5BFRE96kIMByH1XejOpwHbW3SIxLd5Cq8&s=NeP2mdByWwSPvDS48Hjg5D6zsLEpjWVAaF6sfd3XdSU&e=>

___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.onap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Dtsc&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=3WBYkehchaQg0p_gO26aU_ahomnFHCk_-us7kcQebm4&m=BiE0UeMVWL5BFRE96kIMByH1XejOpwHbW3SIxLd5Cq8&s=HRf6t_SB0Ec1Y5h2_JGwQWflOuJIVBmcBS66AEBNhxk&e=

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are 
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any 
other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any 
medium. Thank you.
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc

Re: [onap-tsc] Proposal: Architecture Subcommittee

[Bob Monkman]

+1  😊

Robert (Bob) Monkman
Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs
ARM
150 Rose Orchard Way
San Jose, Ca 95134
M: +1.510.676.5490
Skype: robert.monkman

From: Christopher Donley (Chris) [mailto:christopher.don...@huawei.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 12:03 PM
To: Bob Monkman ; onap-tsc@lists.onap.org
Subject: RE: Proposal: Architecture Subcommittee

Bob,

I propose that it’s open to anyone, regardless of membership level (if any).

Thanks,
Chris

From: Bob Monkman [mailto:bob.monk...@arm.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 11:32 AM
To: Christopher Donley (Chris); 
onap-tsc@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>
Subject: RE: Proposal: Architecture Subcommittee

Chris, TSC,
  Can Silver members put forth a representative to contribute to 
the architecture subcommittee, or will this be only available to TSC members or 
representatives from member companies of a certain level?

  This would seem to be to be a very important step for ONAP, btw. 
Very helpful to the success of this project.
Regards,
Bob

Robert (Bob) Monkman
Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs
ARM
150 Rose Orchard Way
San Jose, Ca 95134
M: +1.510.676.5490
Skype: robert.monkman

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org> 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Donley (Chris)
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 10:53 AM
To: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>
Subject: [onap-tsc] Proposal: Architecture Subcommittee

Dear TSC,
I'd like to propose the formation of an architecture subcommittee to develop 
and maintain a functional architecture for ONAP.

Please see the details below.

Chris

• TSC subcommittee name:
Architecture Subcommittee (ARC)

• TSC subcommittee purpose:
The architecture subcommittee is responsible for developing and maintaining a 
functional ONAP architecture. This functional architecture helps inform 
relationships and interaction between functional modules, which may include 
high level information flows between the modules supporting the use case(s) 
driving each release. It also helps the community with project proposals by 
clarifying the new project relationship with existing components.
The architecture subcommittee will not make decisions regarding internal 
functioning of projects.

The architecture subcommittee is advisory by nature, and not authoritative. It 
may provide advice to projects and to the TSC, such as by providing a forum to 
help resolve architectural questions that may arise.

The architecture subcommittee operates on a rough consensus basis.  If the 
subcommittee is unable to reach consensus on what advice to offer, the 
subcommittee will refer the matter to the TSC or inform the project that advice 
cannot be rendered.

The architecture subcommittee will consult with Projects to help drive 
alignment between components and with the functional architecture.

• TSC subcommittee expected deliverables:
The architecture subcommittee will develop and maintain a functional 
architecture diagram and any explanatory material.

Periodically, or midway through a release, the architecture subcommittee will 
schedule a walk-through with each project to understand API interactions 
between components.

• TSC subcommittee starting participants:
The architecture subcommittee is open to all interested participants, and 
meetings are open.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are 
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any 
other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any 
medium. Thank you.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are 
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any 
other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any 
medium. Thank you.
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc

Re: [onap-tsc] Proposal: Architecture Subcommittee

[Bob Monkman]

Chris, TSC,
  Can Silver members put forth a representative to contribute to 
the architecture subcommittee, or will this be only available to TSC members or 
representatives from member companies of a certain level?

  This would seem to be to be a very important step for ONAP, btw. 
Very helpful to the success of this project.
Regards,
Bob

Robert (Bob) Monkman
Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs
ARM
150 Rose Orchard Way
San Jose, Ca 95134
M: +1.510.676.5490
Skype: robert.monkman

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] 
On Behalf Of Christopher Donley (Chris)
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 10:53 AM
To: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org
Subject: [onap-tsc] Proposal: Architecture Subcommittee

Dear TSC,
I'd like to propose the formation of an architecture subcommittee to develop 
and maintain a functional architecture for ONAP.

Please see the details below.

Chris

* TSC subcommittee name:
Architecture Subcommittee (ARC)

* TSC subcommittee purpose:
The architecture subcommittee is responsible for developing and maintaining a 
functional ONAP architecture. This functional architecture helps inform 
relationships and interaction between functional modules, which may include 
high level information flows between the modules supporting the use case(s) 
driving each release. It also helps the community with project proposals by 
clarifying the new project relationship with existing components.
The architecture subcommittee will not make decisions regarding internal 
functioning of projects.

The architecture subcommittee is advisory by nature, and not authoritative. It 
may provide advice to projects and to the TSC, such as by providing a forum to 
help resolve architectural questions that may arise.

The architecture subcommittee operates on a rough consensus basis.  If the 
subcommittee is unable to reach consensus on what advice to offer, the 
subcommittee will refer the matter to the TSC or inform the project that advice 
cannot be rendered.

The architecture subcommittee will consult with Projects to help drive 
alignment between components and with the functional architecture.

* TSC subcommittee expected deliverables:
The architecture subcommittee will develop and maintain a functional 
architecture diagram and any explanatory material.

Periodically, or midway through a release, the architecture subcommittee will 
schedule a walk-through with each project to understand API interactions 
between components.

* TSC subcommittee starting participants:
The architecture subcommittee is open to all interested participants, and 
meetings are open.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are 
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any 
other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any 
medium. Thank you.
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc