Re: [onap-tsc] Usage of commercial VNF and NFVI+VIM solutions for ONAP R1 use cases, and open lab

[SULLIVAN, BRYAN L]

For an open source community, the use of proprietary software in the production 
of the platform (including tools, NFVI platforms, or VNFs used as use cases for 
developing the platform in open labs), or as part of the released platform, 
takes the project into a tricky space. It will complicate how “open” the labs 
actually are, e.g. who has the ability to use what where, and the transparency 
of test results with/against specific proprietary components.

Certainly it would be useful to provide some environment in which commercial 
NFVI platforms or VNFs are tested against the ONAP platform, and takeaways from 
that used to help improve the project. But that environment would probably need 
to be separate from the main “open” labs or more tightly controlled, as access 
to the proprietary components/VNFs would be problematic.

An alternative to using proprietary NFVI platforms is to focus the integration 
testing in the OPNFV, where open source versions of NFVI platforms are freely 
available for testing with. Integrating/testing with these (currently 
RedHat/RDO, Ubuntu, Mirantis, and Huawei) can address probably the vast 
majority of issues in ONAP-NFVI interop, and a side benefit is that any gaps 
would be addressed in an open source space (avoiding the temptation to address 
gaps by adding proprietary feature compatibility into ONAP). We are planning to 
drive ONAP-NFVI integration in OPNFV for that purpose over the current and next 
release. I will be giving a talk on this at the OPNFV Summit the week after 
next, so invite any more detailed discussion on what’s planned.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] 
On Behalf Of Hellmann, Gil
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 2:09 PM
To: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org
Subject: [onap-tsc] Usage of commercial VNF and NFVI+VIM solutions for ONAP R1 
use cases, and open lab

Dear TSC members,

It is very exciting to see the great momentum and grow in the ONAP community, I 
hear that there is different opinion / debate with regard to whether release 1 
of ONAP should be using commercial VNFs & NFVI+VIM’s solutions for the 
implementation of the proposed use cases and open lab / integration in release 
1 or should it be strictly limited to use only open source. I would suggest 
that the TSC will consider the following before making a decision:

As it was agreed by both the TSC and the wider ONAP community, using real life 
use case like the proposed VoLTE and vCPE use cases for release 1 is very 
important to ensure that ONAP is built from day 1 in a way that will provide 
close implementation to a real-life use case which can provide proper 
foundation to use ONAP in commercial deployment, and implementation of real 
life use case can have a great contribution to the success of this project.

ONAP as orchestration / MANO project require NFVI+VIMs (clouds) to run on, and 
VNFs to run to create the services. The use of commercial NFVI+VIMs and VNFs 
for the use case implementation and open lab / integration can have a big 
positive impact on our ability to be as close as possible to a real-life usage 
scenario. Limiting the usage *to only open source* solutions will limit 
dramatically the ability to get there. Not saying we should not use open source 
VNFs and NFVI+VIMs, but I hope we wouldn’t limit ourselves to only open source 
VNFs & NFVI+VIM in the open lab / integration lab and for the release 1 use 
cases, same like we would not limit yourself to only use open source hardware.

I hope this can be considered, and thanks for your consideration.

Regards,
Gil Hellmann, VP - Solutions Readiness
direct 289.553.5815  mobile 905.409.6878 
 skype ID gil.hellmann

[cid:image001.png@01D2DAF7.CCB53290]
 [cid:image002.png@01D2DAF7.CCB53290] 

  [cid:image003.png@01D2DAF7.CCB53290] 

  [cid:image004.png@01D2DAF7.CCB53290] 

  [cid:

Re: [onap-tsc] Call for vCPE VNFs proposals

[SULLIVAN, BRYAN L]

Having support info in the table of open source VNFs, as well as notes on 
functional limitations / fitness for a particular purpose, and some consensus 
assessment [limited, viable] or status [experimental, lab-ready, deployed] that 
can change over time, would be useful. There are various types/levels of 
purpose here, and for the community’s need, functionally complete / 
production-ready open source VNFs while clearly a desired goal, are a 
would-be-nice.

Viability would include the level of community support for maintaining or 
further developing the VNF. But some VNFs may be still be viable for particular 
purposes (e.g. in tests for performance or lifecycle automation) even if they 
are incomplete or there is no active community.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T

From: SPATSCHECK, OLIVER
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 6:07 AM
To: Zhou, Danny 
Cc: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L ; KLUGER, YOAV ; 
onap-tsc@lists.onap.org; onap-discuss 
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Call for vCPE VNFs proposals


Could we also start listing who is supporting the open source VNFs? E.g. even 
the simple open source based VNFs we are using for the current ONAP demo  based 
on the seed code took a couple of people 2 months or so to get to work properly 
in the integration environment. I would assume that for commercial VNFs this 
support will be provided by the vendor. However, for open source VNFs we need 
volunteers to take on that role. I would track those on the Wiki or identify 
them as gaps. If we can’t find that support we can’t use that VNF.

Thx

Oliver

On May 31, 2017, at 11:36 PM, Zhou, Danny 
mailto:danny.z...@intel.com>> wrote:

The wiki 
page<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.onap.org_display_DW_Use-2BCase-253A-2BResidential-2BBroadband-2BvCPE&d=DwMFAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=2-FskNSRL5sc9nQutgafCDIk3JbYrtcUwMwT5Zs1Tnk&m=Y6oSqusd5waa24F38QbqX5Q7z4FxBvAQy3WAxeNdz2E&s=QPIvHP7_JFzDMiX8sdebViT7Y8GADNDb_lq2G0otif0&e=>
 already lists preferred and usable open source VNFs like below, but the ONOS 
vBNG as open source vBNG and OpenWRT as open source vHGW does not make sense to 
me. Specifically, the ONOS vBNG is essentially a L3 NAT without the 
capabilities to address requirement such as session management, traffic 
aggregation and routing, etc., and in addition to OpenWRT acting as vHGW, VPP 
based high performance Home 
Gateway<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.fd.io_view_VPP_VPP-5FHome-5FGateway&d=DwMFAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=3WBYkehchaQg0p_gO26aU_ahomnFHCk_-us7kcQebm4&m=S8WnofRTLquCoooSWMs6VppfiPsKgSASeuqb2NassTM&s=nZY_T4pjVyyFucKeg0ijm68LJm5NaaF46RQY48VPSQM&e=>
 as well 
asvRouter<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.fd.io_view_VPP-5FSandbox_router&d=DwMFAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=3WBYkehchaQg0p_gO26aU_ahomnFHCk_-us7kcQebm4&m=S8WnofRTLquCoooSWMs6VppfiPsKgSASeuqb2NassTM&s=MPD8ZLXRaBDF8Nx2xexNTaR8uFKEDBJqPAABHk4TcAU&e=>
 should be better.

  *   vDHCP: ISC DHCP
  *   vDNS:   ISC Bind
  *   vAAA:   FreeRADIUS

-Danny Zhou
Intel

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org> 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 3:36 AM
To: KLUGER, YOAV mailto:yoav.klu...@amdocs.com>>; 
onap-tsc@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>; onap-discuss 
mailto:onap-disc...@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Call for vCPE VNFs proposals

I recommend that any available open source implementations of these VNFs also 
be included. I am aware of several potential VNFs as used in the R-CORD 
project, and as being collected through the similar ODL VCO (Virtualized 
Central Office) project. These are being collected and assessed for deployment 
on OPNFV reference platforms as part of the proposed “Edge” project: 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/PROJ/Multi-Access+Edge<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.opnfv.org_display_PROJ_Multi-2DAccess-2BEdge&d=DwMFAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=3WBYkehchaQg0p_gO26aU_ahomnFHCk_-us7kcQebm4&m=S8WnofRTLquCoooSWMs6VppfiPsKgSASeuqb2NassTM&s=pMPlFX7WiLZPIsWgpgL_uX8D9TNoYhXk3zlKzR_Wbsw&e=>
 intended to expand reference VNF options for edge-focused service deployments 
such as residential broadband. As a part of this project we will also be 
building reference blueprints (TOSCA based) for these VNFs and orchestrating 
them using ONAP components as well as other projects we are currently using for 
this in OPNFV (Cloudify, and OpenStack Tacker).

OPNFV is acquiring the necessary hardware (e.g. OLT devices) to have a 
fully-functional edge-focused lab environment in which to complete this 
integration. I’ll add the related info to the ONAP wiki as the usability of the 
open source VNFs becomes clear.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T

From: 
onap-discuss-boun...@lists.onap.org

Re: [onap-tsc] Call for vCPE VNFs proposals

[SULLIVAN, BRYAN L]

I recommend that any available open source implementations of these VNFs also 
be included. I am aware of several potential VNFs as used in the R-CORD 
project, and as being collected through the similar ODL VCO (Virtualized 
Central Office) project. These are being collected and assessed for deployment 
on OPNFV reference platforms as part of the proposed "Edge" project: 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/PROJ/Multi-Access+Edge intended to expand 
reference VNF options for edge-focused service deployments such as residential 
broadband. As a part of this project we will also be building reference 
blueprints (TOSCA based) for these VNFs and orchestrating them using ONAP 
components as well as other projects we are currently using for this in OPNFV 
(Cloudify, and OpenStack Tacker).

OPNFV is acquiring the necessary hardware (e.g. OLT devices) to have a 
fully-functional edge-focused lab environment in which to complete this 
integration. I'll add the related info to the ONAP wiki as the usability of the 
open source VNFs becomes clear.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T

From: onap-discuss-boun...@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-discuss-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of KLUGER, YOAV
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 12:23 PM
To: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org; onap-discuss 
Subject: [onap-discuss] Call for vCPE VNFs proposals

Dear ONAP community,

As we all know, the Residential Broadband vCPE use case is one of our two 
targeted use cases for R1.
Its wiki 
page
 has been significantly enriched recently, and more details are added on a 
daily basis.
A general residential broadband solution can be much more complex than what 
would be reasonably achievable by R1. We have narrowed down the description of 
the use case for R1, to something that should be both achievable and usable.
For the use case to work the following VNFs will be needed:

  *   vBNG
  *   vHGW
  *   vDHCP
  *   vDNS
  *   vAAA


In addition a simple hardware box with 802.1ad capabilities will be needed.

This is a call for vendors of such VNFs and/or such a box to join the activity. 
Would be great if by Beijing time the wiki will have at least one vendor name 
alongside every VNF, and also at least one vendor for the box.

Thanks,
Yoav Kluger
Amdocs Technology
+1(201)912-7294
+972-54-4850278
[amdocs-a]

This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and 
confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement,
you may review at 
https://www.amdocs.com/about/email-disclaimer
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc

Re: [onap-tsc] Open Lab Project Proposal

[SULLIVAN, BRYAN L]

I will try to join in the discussion, with the goal of synergy between the 
community lab programs of ONAP and OPNFV. In OPNFV we have a large and active 
community lab resource, and by summer should have ONAP integration tests 
running in OPNFV labs, with CI/CD starting soon after.

Infra collaboration across LF projects is one of our current initiatives, and 
with ONAP's nascent state this is a great time to start the dialog on 
cross-project infra.

On May 23, 2017, at 11:01 AM, GOLDNER, ALLA 
mailto:alla.gold...@amdocs.com>> wrote:

Hi Helen,

Thanks a lot for your work!

My understanding is that we are supposed to have some interim discussion 
tomorrow for the project proposal and this work is currently in progress.

Also, I don’t think it should be done by copying the contents including the 
supporting companies from the Integration project as is, as more issues were 
raised and need our attention, including Physical vs Virtual lab concept 
discussion. This is exactly the reason why work is still ongoing and Amdocs is 
committed to bring a detailed project proposal working with Nokia and the whole 
community.

Best regards,

Alla Goldner

Open Network Division
Amdocs Technology




From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Yunxia Chen
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 8:13 PM
To: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org
Subject: [onap-tsc] Open Lab Project Proposal

Dear TSC,

I would like to formally propose Open Lab project for your approval review.

Project details: 
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Open+Lab

Participants: Amdocs, AT&T, China Mobile, China Telecom, Huawei, Mirantis, 
Orange, TechMahindra, VMWare, Wind River, ZTE

Regards,
Helen Chen

Principal Architect, Open Orchestration
Huawei US R&D Center
Futurewei Technologies, Inc.

2330 Central Expressway, C2-16
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Tel: (408) 330-4696
Cell: (510) 825-7348
This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and 
confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement,
you may review at 
https://www.amdocs.com/about/email-disclaimer
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
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=2-FskNSRL5sc9nQutgafCDIk3JbYrtcUwMwT5Zs1Tnk&m=QlzPoe19xLxhVpHQ2j-uRez5hYEoueIsFcAiX_HK2os&s=tKFjNZsu1Met-AlgWTddNCj0b-BK3gPje06c7qyghsk&e=
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc

[onap-tsc] Updated TSC Charter

[SULLIVAN, BRYAN L]

That was also my comment on the charter. Projects should be able to setup 
multiple repos for their scope, e.g. code, documentation, ... and for multiple 
components separately managed in repos.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T

-Original Message-
From: SPATSCHECK, OLIVER 
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 8:47 AM
To: Christopher Donley (Chris) 
Cc: Dhananjay Pavgi ; Stephen Terrill 
; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L ; 
onap-tsc at lists.onap.org; Ed Warnicke 
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Updated TSC Charter

I have another question on the charter. I just noticed that a project (or sub 
project) and a repo are the same thing.  I find this to be sub optimal. In my 
mind a project is a well defined scope of work. A repo has to do with how to 
optimize my code management.  Am I the only one with the concern that binding 
the two will force people into sub optimal repo structures?

Thx

Oliver

[onap-tsc] Updated TSC Charter

[SULLIVAN, BRYAN L]

I agree also ? specializations in project repos is a natural way to focus 
contributors with different skill sets. That?s one of the reasons for my 
?multiple repos per project? comment. Often I see docs and code (at least) 
being managed in separate repos, under a single project. Code can be further 
managed in separate repos (e.g. service and client as in OpenStack). Thus the 
committers to those repos have the meritocratic history in the related skills 
and artifacts, centered around the purpose for the repo (which nonetheless can 
host artifacts of various types, e.g. user guides/readmes, unit tests, ? even 
if it?s mostly focused on one type of artifact).

The comment about using the generic ?contribution? term (vs code) was to 
reflect those various types of contribution as the prerequisite to being a 
committer, of whatever focus. So overall I think we are in agreement.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T

From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 12:59 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L 
Cc: Christopher Donley (Chris) ; onap-tsc at 
lists.onap.org; Ed Warnicke 
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Updated TSC Charter

Bryan,

I agree with you that it's good to get architecture documents in git repos 
managed via gerrit :)  That's pure goodness.

The essense of committerness is the ability to merge a patch into a project's 
repo.  Because of this a committer should have expertise appropriate to 
exercising that ability.  One highly productive way I've seen this handled in 
other communities is to have your 'code' project, where the metric for 
committerness is code contribution as a demonstration of merit.  System test 
often has its own, separate project because the skillset for producing good 
system tests is often distinct from the skillset for generating good underlying 
code, and is often written in different languages with different tools.  
Similarly for 'user facing docs' and 'architecture docs'.  By having them be 
separate projects with separate committer pools, you select for people with the 
correct skillset to make decisions about merging to each.

This makes things fairly simple.  People become committers on 'code' projects 
by contributing code, on testing projects by contributing testing, on user 
facing doc projects by contributing user facing docs, and on architecture doc 
projects by contributing to architecture docs.  It also has the nice effect of 
building communities around each function that value each kind of contribution.

Ed

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:07 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L mailto:bs3131 at att.com>> wrote:
Yes, IMO architecture as documented should be managed thru gerrit. Discussions 
and preliminary proposals can be on wikis etc (even etherpads), but at some 
point a document is written, reviewed, and change-managed. Those stages should 
be managed thru gerrit using a document format that works for the community. I 
recommend git/gerrit-friendly formats e.g. RST which can also incorporate rich 
text artifacts (e.g. diagrams). But even pure rich-text format docs can be 
reviewed thru gerrit if the proposed changes are adequately summarized in the 
commit message and comments to it.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T

From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagbard at gmail.com<mailto:hagb...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 11:00 AM

To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L mailto:bs3131 at att.com>>
Cc: Christopher Donley (Chris) mailto:Christopher.Donley at huawei.com>>; onap-tsc at 
lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc at lists.onap.org>; Ed Warnicke mailto:eaw at cisco.com>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Updated TSC Charter

Totally agree that gerrit can provide info on reviews, and that documentation 
and test code contributions simply show up as patches in whichever project they 
are contributed to.  Do you see contributions to architecture coming via 
reviews?

Ed

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 10:56 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L mailto:bs3131 at att.com>> wrote:
Gerrit can also provide info on reviews, documentation contributions, etc. 
Tests and project infra I assume you could class as code, but these other types 
of contributions are also tracked by gerrit.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T

From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagbard at gmail.com<mailto:hagb...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10:50 AM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L mailto:bs3131 at att.com>>
Cc: Christopher Donley (Chris) mailto:Christopher.Donley at huawei.com>>; onap-tsc at 
lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc at lists.onap.org>; Ed Warnicke mailto:eaw at cisco.com>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Updated TSC Charter

Brian,

How would one be able to point to demonstration of meritocratic contribution 
for non-code contribution for the purpose of committer promotion?  For code 
contribution (and test case automation, which also then turns out to be code) 
one can point to the gerrit history.  For these other k

[onap-tsc] Updated TSC Charter

[SULLIVAN, BRYAN L]

FYI, you can see an example of what they can do (bitergia) at 
https://opnfv.biterg.io/.
With some understanding of what it shows you, its possible to gain a valuable 
perspective on how well the community is working.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T

From: onap-tsc-bounces at lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Yunxia Chen
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 11:58 AM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L ; Ed Warnicke 
Cc: Ed Warnicke ; onap-tsc at lists.onap.org
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Updated TSC Charter

Bitergia or Spectrometer could put ONAP community?s various activities / 
contribution, including integrating with Gerrit data, etc.,  together. I could 
volunteer working on it and welcome more help and suggestion.

Regards,

Helen Chen

From: mailto:onap-tsc-bounces at 
lists.onap.org>> on behalf of "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L" mailto:bs3...@att.com>>
Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 10:56 AM
To: Ed Warnicke mailto:hagbard at gmail.com>>
Cc: "onap-tsc at lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc at lists.onap.org>" mailto:onap-tsc at lists.onap.org>>, Ed Warnicke mailto:eaw at cisco.com>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Updated TSC Charter

Gerrit can also provide info on reviews, documentation contributions, etc. 
Tests and project infra I assume you could class as code, but these other types 
of contributions are also tracked by gerrit.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T

From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10:50 AM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L mailto:bs3131 at att.com>>
Cc: Christopher Donley (Chris) mailto:Christopher.Donley at huawei.com>>; onap-tsc at 
lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc at lists.onap.org>; Ed Warnicke mailto:eaw at cisco.com>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Updated TSC Charter

Brian,

How would one be able to point to demonstration of meritocratic contribution 
for non-code contribution for the purpose of committer promotion?  For code 
contribution (and test case automation, which also then turns out to be code) 
one can point to the gerrit history.  For these other kinds of contribution, 
what would be the analog demonstration?

Ed

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 10:12 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L mailto:bs3131 at att.com>> wrote:
Chris,

Not sure I can post to the TSC list, but here are some comments in the draft:

? Each project will have its own code repositories (one or multiple),?

o   The concept of an umbrella project may address this, but that?s an overhead 
that should be optional. It may be more effective in some cases for projects 
just to have multiple repos.

? A Contributor is someone who contributes code or other artifacts to a 
project, and reviews the contributions of others. Contributors are not 
necessarily from Member companies.

o   We should encourage and recognize all forms of contribution, especially 
reviews. IMO contributors may provide *no* code but still contribute valuable 
advice on architecture, quality, testability, or other contributions of a 
non-code/artifact nature.

? Committer rights for a project are earned via code contribution ?

o   The potential pool of committers should go beyond just code contribution, 
given the merit of their other types of contributions

? (description of Incubation phase) Project has resources, but is 
recognized to be in early stages of development, having yet to achieve a MVP 
(Minimum Viable Product) that is (or can be) used in production environments.

o   Clarification as to what an MVP is as the target for the end of the 
incubation phase.

? Other editorial items


Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T

From: onap-tsc-bounces at lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-bounces at 
lists.onap.org> [mailto:onap-tsc-bounces at 
lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>] On Behalf Of 
Christopher Donley (Chris)
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 8:45 AM
To: onap-tsc at lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc at lists.onap.org>
Cc: Ed Warnicke mailto:eaw at cisco.com>>
Subject: [onap-tsc] Updated TSC Charter

Dear TSC,

On behalf of the Charter drafting team, please find attached an updated version 
of the TSC Charter incorporating your suggestions and feedback from the last 
review.  We have attempted to highlight the open issues that need a decision 
from the TSC.  We are sending this draft with the intention that you review it 
in preparation for discussion and voting during our next TSC meeting.

Chris, Steve, Ed, Lingli, Alla, and Phil

___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC at lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC at 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=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OrbtGCluczz9awEKz9Fv7g&m=p0kzAvQDjXsrgQPIbU8s2Jv4A-H7H4aAbsbfuneN4Rg&s=vKRHTwaZCMn5ytWOCvgd

[onap-tsc] Updated TSC Charter

[SULLIVAN, BRYAN L]

Sure, that works too. I had recently heard this MVP term being used and thought 
it would be good to clarify - but the more acronyms we can avoid, the better!

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T

From: onap-tsc-bounces at lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Terrill
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 12:02 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L ; Christopher Donley (Chris) 
; onap-tsc at lists.onap.org
Cc: Ed Warnicke 
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Updated TSC Charter

Hi,

Thanks for the comments Bryan.  On responding comment in the "incubation" and 
MVP definition and that is on the proposed addition of "That is (or can be) 
used in a production environment".  The use in a "production environment" is 
also subject to whatever additions and support is required.   I can agree that 
MVP is subject to the same question in that its very subjective.  Its not 
obvious to phrase in a non-subjective way, but we could remove MVP and  go with 
"Project has resources, but is recognized to be in an early stage of 
development and not generally considered suitable to a production environment."

I'm ok with the contributor clarification.

Best Regards,

Steve.

From: onap-tsc-bounces at lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-bounces at 
lists.onap.org> [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of SULLIVAN, 
BRYAN L
Sent: 19 April 2017 19:12
To: Christopher Donley (Chris) mailto:Christopher.Donley at huawei.com>>; onap-tsc at 
lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc at lists.onap.org>
Cc: Ed Warnicke mailto:eaw at cisco.com>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Updated TSC Charter

Chris,

Not sure I can post to the TSC list, but here are some comments in the draft:

* Each project will have its own code repositories (one or multiple),...

o   The concept of an umbrella project may address this, but that's an overhead 
that should be optional. It may be more effective in some cases for projects 
just to have multiple repos.

* A Contributor is someone who contributes code or other artifacts to a 
project, and reviews the contributions of others. Contributors are not 
necessarily from Member companies.

o   We should encourage and recognize all forms of contribution, especially 
reviews. IMO contributors may provide *no* code but still contribute valuable 
advice on architecture, quality, testability, or other contributions of a 
non-code/artifact nature.

* Committer rights for a project are earned via code contribution ...

o   The potential pool of committers should go beyond just code contribution, 
given the merit of their other types of contributions

* (description of Incubation phase) Project has resources, but is 
recognized to be in early stages of development, having yet to achieve a MVP 
(Minimum Viable Product) that is (or can be) used in production environments.

o   Clarification as to what an MVP is as the target for the end of the 
incubation phase.

* Other editorial items


Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T

From: onap-tsc-bounces at lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-bounces at 
lists.onap.org> [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of 
Christopher Donley (Chris)
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 8:45 AM
To: onap-tsc at lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc at lists.onap.org>
Cc: Ed Warnicke mailto:eaw at cisco.com>>
Subject: [onap-tsc] Updated TSC Charter

Dear TSC,

On behalf of the Charter drafting team, please find attached an updated version 
of the TSC Charter incorporating your suggestions and feedback from the last 
review.  We have attempted to highlight the open issues that need a decision 
from the TSC.  We are sending this draft with the intention that you review it 
in preparation for discussion and voting during our next TSC meeting.

Chris, Steve, Ed, Lingli, Alla, and Phil
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.onap.org/pipermail/onap-tsc/attachments/20170419/9922f42c/attachment-0001.html>

[onap-tsc] Updated TSC Charter

[SULLIVAN, BRYAN L]

Yes, IMO architecture as documented should be managed thru gerrit. Discussions 
and preliminary proposals can be on wikis etc (even etherpads), but at some 
point a document is written, reviewed, and change-managed. Those stages should 
be managed thru gerrit using a document format that works for the community. I 
recommend git/gerrit-friendly formats e.g. RST which can also incorporate rich 
text artifacts (e.g. diagrams). But even pure rich-text format docs can be 
reviewed thru gerrit if the proposed changes are adequately summarized in the 
commit message and comments to it.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T

From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 11:00 AM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L 
Cc: Christopher Donley (Chris) ; onap-tsc at 
lists.onap.org; Ed Warnicke 
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Updated TSC Charter

Totally agree that gerrit can provide info on reviews, and that documentation 
and test code contributions simply show up as patches in whichever project they 
are contributed to.  Do you see contributions to architecture coming via 
reviews?

Ed

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 10:56 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L mailto:bs3131 at att.com>> wrote:
Gerrit can also provide info on reviews, documentation contributions, etc. 
Tests and project infra I assume you could class as code, but these other types 
of contributions are also tracked by gerrit.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T

From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagbard at gmail.com<mailto:hagb...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10:50 AM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L mailto:bs3131 at att.com>>
Cc: Christopher Donley (Chris) mailto:Christopher.Donley at huawei.com>>; onap-tsc at 
lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc at lists.onap.org>; Ed Warnicke mailto:eaw at cisco.com>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Updated TSC Charter

Brian,

How would one be able to point to demonstration of meritocratic contribution 
for non-code contribution for the purpose of committer promotion?  For code 
contribution (and test case automation, which also then turns out to be code) 
one can point to the gerrit history.  For these other kinds of contribution, 
what would be the analog demonstration?

Ed

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 10:12 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L mailto:bs3131 at att.com>> wrote:
Chris,

Not sure I can post to the TSC list, but here are some comments in the draft:

? Each project will have its own code repositories (one or multiple),?

o   The concept of an umbrella project may address this, but that?s an overhead 
that should be optional. It may be more effective in some cases for projects 
just to have multiple repos.

? A Contributor is someone who contributes code or other artifacts to a 
project, and reviews the contributions of others. Contributors are not 
necessarily from Member companies.

o   We should encourage and recognize all forms of contribution, especially 
reviews. IMO contributors may provide *no* code but still contribute valuable 
advice on architecture, quality, testability, or other contributions of a 
non-code/artifact nature.

? Committer rights for a project are earned via code contribution ?

o   The potential pool of committers should go beyond just code contribution, 
given the merit of their other types of contributions

? (description of Incubation phase) Project has resources, but is 
recognized to be in early stages of development, having yet to achieve a MVP 
(Minimum Viable Product) that is (or can be) used in production environments.

o   Clarification as to what an MVP is as the target for the end of the 
incubation phase.

? Other editorial items


Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T

From: onap-tsc-bounces at lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-bounces at 
lists.onap.org> [mailto:onap-tsc-bounces at 
lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>] On Behalf Of 
Christopher Donley (Chris)
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 8:45 AM
To: onap-tsc at lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc at lists.onap.org>
Cc: Ed Warnicke mailto:eaw at cisco.com>>
Subject: [onap-tsc] Updated TSC Charter

Dear TSC,

On behalf of the Charter drafting team, please find attached an updated version 
of the TSC Charter incorporating your suggestions and feedback from the last 
review.  We have attempted to highlight the open issues that need a decision 
from the TSC.  We are sending this draft with the intention that you review it 
in preparation for discussion and voting during our next TSC meeting.

Chris, Steve, Ed, Lingli, Alla, and Phil

___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC at lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC at 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=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OrbtGCluczz9awEKz9Fv7g&m=p0kzAvQDjXsrgQPIbU8s2Jv4A-H7H4aAbsbfuneN4Rg&s=vKRHT

[onap-tsc] Updated TSC Charter

[SULLIVAN, BRYAN L]

Gerrit can also provide info on reviews, documentation contributions, etc. 
Tests and project infra I assume you could class as code, but these other types 
of contributions are also tracked by gerrit.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T

From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10:50 AM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L 
Cc: Christopher Donley (Chris) ; onap-tsc at 
lists.onap.org; Ed Warnicke 
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Updated TSC Charter

Brian,

How would one be able to point to demonstration of meritocratic contribution 
for non-code contribution for the purpose of committer promotion?  For code 
contribution (and test case automation, which also then turns out to be code) 
one can point to the gerrit history.  For these other kinds of contribution, 
what would be the analog demonstration?

Ed

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 10:12 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L mailto:bs3131 at att.com>> wrote:
Chris,

Not sure I can post to the TSC list, but here are some comments in the draft:

? Each project will have its own code repositories (one or multiple),?

o   The concept of an umbrella project may address this, but that?s an overhead 
that should be optional. It may be more effective in some cases for projects 
just to have multiple repos.

? A Contributor is someone who contributes code or other artifacts to a 
project, and reviews the contributions of others. Contributors are not 
necessarily from Member companies.

o   We should encourage and recognize all forms of contribution, especially 
reviews. IMO contributors may provide *no* code but still contribute valuable 
advice on architecture, quality, testability, or other contributions of a 
non-code/artifact nature.

? Committer rights for a project are earned via code contribution ?

o   The potential pool of committers should go beyond just code contribution, 
given the merit of their other types of contributions

? (description of Incubation phase) Project has resources, but is 
recognized to be in early stages of development, having yet to achieve a MVP 
(Minimum Viable Product) that is (or can be) used in production environments.

o   Clarification as to what an MVP is as the target for the end of the 
incubation phase.

? Other editorial items


Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T

From: onap-tsc-bounces at lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-bounces at 
lists.onap.org> [mailto:onap-tsc-bounces at 
lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>] On Behalf Of 
Christopher Donley (Chris)
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 8:45 AM
To: onap-tsc at lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc at lists.onap.org>
Cc: Ed Warnicke mailto:eaw at cisco.com>>
Subject: [onap-tsc] Updated TSC Charter

Dear TSC,

On behalf of the Charter drafting team, please find attached an updated version 
of the TSC Charter incorporating your suggestions and feedback from the last 
review.  We have attempted to highlight the open issues that need a decision 
from the TSC.  We are sending this draft with the intention that you review it 
in preparation for discussion and voting during our next TSC meeting.

Chris, Steve, Ed, Lingli, Alla, and Phil

___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC at lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC at 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=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OrbtGCluczz9awEKz9Fv7g&m=p0kzAvQDjXsrgQPIbU8s2Jv4A-H7H4aAbsbfuneN4Rg&s=vKRHTwaZCMn5ytWOCvgd5Lh-5iID3MW7HnGXLUdQlEI&e=>

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.onap.org/pipermail/onap-tsc/attachments/20170419/4572ed7e/attachment-0001.html>

[onap-tsc] Updated TSC Charter

[SULLIVAN, BRYAN L]

Chris,

Not sure I can post to the TSC list, but here are some comments in the draft:

* Each project will have its own code repositories (one or multiple),...

o   The concept of an umbrella project may address this, but that's an overhead 
that should be optional. It may be more effective in some cases for projects 
just to have multiple repos.

* A Contributor is someone who contributes code or other artifacts to a 
project, and reviews the contributions of others. Contributors are not 
necessarily from Member companies.

o   We should encourage and recognize all forms of contribution, especially 
reviews. IMO contributors may provide *no* code but still contribute valuable 
advice on architecture, quality, testability, or other contributions of a 
non-code/artifact nature.

* Committer rights for a project are earned via code contribution ...

o   The potential pool of committers should go beyond just code contribution, 
given the merit of their other types of contributions

* (description of Incubation phase) Project has resources, but is 
recognized to be in early stages of development, having yet to achieve a MVP 
(Minimum Viable Product) that is (or can be) used in production environments.

o   Clarification as to what an MVP is as the target for the end of the 
incubation phase.

* Other editorial items


Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T

From: onap-tsc-bounces at lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Donley (Chris)
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 8:45 AM
To: onap-tsc at lists.onap.org
Cc: Ed Warnicke 
Subject: [onap-tsc] Updated TSC Charter

Dear TSC,

On behalf of the Charter drafting team, please find attached an updated version 
of the TSC Charter incorporating your suggestions and feedback from the last 
review.  We have attempted to highlight the open issues that need a decision 
from the TSC.  We are sending this draft with the intention that you review it 
in preparation for discussion and voting during our next TSC meeting.

Chris, Steve, Ed, Lingli, Alla, and Phil
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ONAP TSC Charter DRAFT 6 8 CLEAN.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 102673 bytes
Desc: ONAP TSC Charter DRAFT 6 8 CLEAN.docx
URL: