[opnfv-tech-discuss] Farewell on behalf of the OPNFV Board

2017-12-29 Thread Sen, Prodip 
Dear All


As we end 2017, we are also at the end of the existence of OPNFV as an 
independent organization with its own governance structure and Board.  We have 
held our last Board meeting, all the necessary documents for asset transfer and 
dissolution have been signed and are being executed - so the OPNFV organization 
as we knew it, no longer exists.



However, as we head into 2018, ALL of the technical activities of OPNFV will 
continue under the guidance of an independent TSC, under the auspices of the 
new Linux Foundation  Networking Fund (LFN). LFN will house all the technical 
activities of OPNFV, ONAP, ODL, fd.io and other joining organizations. The 
various (independent, eventually merit-based) TSCs will run the technical 
activities, and the LFN will control and allocate the funding, host events and 
run the common infrastructure required for all the projects. Our own TSC 
composition will continue as is to provide some continuity in leadership, with 
a new charter and various mechanisms to facilitate transition to a merit-based 
composition over time.
Since the foundation of OPNFV, the Board has tried to establish a framework for 
the activities within OPNFV, trying to shepherd the community towards the goals 
OPNFV was founded on.  We tried to do this while remaining responsive to the 
needs and desires of the OPNFV community. We had several Board members with 
strong ties to the technical activities of OPNFV, which helped us tremendously 
in this endeavor. We started humbly with an intentionally limited scope, but 
later removed these scope restrictions to cover the entire NFV architecture.

All of you in the technical community deserve our congratulations in getting us 
to where we are now. Our latest release - Euphrates (Release 5.0!) - allows for 
the choice of a variety of control planes, several data planes, supports 
VM-based and container-based virtualization mechanisms and integrates 
orchestration capabilities related to VNF onboarding and application 
management. It includes tools and features that provide increased visibility, 
and tackle service assurance, performance and security. As part of Euphrates, 
we now have also established a cross-community continuous integration (XCI) 
process with several upstream projects: OpenStack, ODL and fd.io.  We are also 
about to launch a compliance and validation program that has completed its beta 
phase.  This is a far cry from where we started. Our software, processes and 
tooling artifacts address all aspects of the NFV architecture - the goal we had 
set out with three years ago. Clearly the coverage is not complete and there is 
a lot of work to be done, but I think we have proved to the industry that our 
goal was achievable, and that we have realized a major part of the original 
vision.

To all of  you who will continue your involvement with OPNFV , good luck with 
the journey ahead. On behalf of the Board, I wish you all well.

Regards
- Prodip
-
Prodip Sen
Chair, OPNFV Board of Directors

Chief Technology Strategist
HPE Pointnext
Hewlett Packard Enterprise.
prodip@hpe.com


___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Announcing the 2016 TSC Chair election result

2016-10-10 Thread Sen, Prodip 
Congratulations Tapio!

On Oct 10, 2016 8:07 AM, Raymond Paik  wrote:
All,

I'm happy to officially announce that Tapio Tallgren (Nokia) has been elected 
as the new TSC Chair for OPNFV.  Tapio will run the TSC meeting starting on 
October 11th.  Congratulations, Tapio!

Thanks,

Ray
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release][hackfest] Release Milestone Review presentation

2016-09-07 Thread Sen, Prodip 
This is absolutely one of the value-adds that OPNFV brings to the table – very 
much in line with part of the current mission statement we have been iterating 
on: “ .. by facilitating the development and evolution of NFV components in 
upstream open source projects and …”.

We may need our Marketing colleagues to help us get the right balance of 
language as we publicize this, but I think we should absolutely do so.

And in terms of tracking OPNFV contributions and progress, we should track and 
report on these type of artifacts too.

- Prodip

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Heather Kirksey
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 10:59 AM
To: HU, BIN 
Cc: opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 

Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release][hackfest] 
Release Milestone Review presentation

Tim and Bin Hu,

Great stuff, thanks. I'm simply wondering if there's a way for us to 
communicate more formally to the industry on some of the things that we've 
learned for those who aren't involved as deeply in the development/bug-fixing 
work or reading our (awesome) documentation in detail. This would obviously 
need to be balanced with a desire to be respectful to our upstreams and their 
evolving capabilities. I'll spend some time noodling on this but I'd continue 
to love to hear more thoughts from y'all.

Heather

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 3:14 PM, HU, BIN > 
wrote:
Regarding the knowledge of specific strength and weakness in upstream releases, 
we have done this type of gap analysis in IPv6. For example:


-  In Brahmaputra, we evaluated Liberty and Beryllium:

o   
http://artifacts.opnfv.org/opnfvdocs/brahmaputra/docs/userguide/featureusage-ipv6.html

-  In Colorado we evaluated Mitaka and Boron:

o   http://artifacts.opnfv.org/ipv6/docs/userguide/index.html

o   Old NetVirt (odl-ovsdb-openstack) and new NetVirt (odl-netvirt-openstack) 
were evaluated in terms of IPv6 gap analysis

Certainly, this type of gap analysis and knowledge is the value OPNFV provided 
to industry as well.

Thanks
Bin

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org]
 On Behalf Of Heather Kirksey
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 1:24 PM
To: Tim Rozet >
Cc: 
opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org;
 TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release][hackfest] 
Release Milestone Review presentation

It feels like perhaps we need a more nuanced understanding of what we mean by 
our "use" of upstream components. If I am understanding some of the 
conversations correctly, Be might be more generally overall stable, but doesn't 
enable key capabilities (or has higher instability) around VPN and SFC 
advancement. B might be more stable around those features but has some 
instability around other features like HA, and that some scenarios might find 
one or the other more appropriate depending on their focus.

Is this an accurate characterization?

If it is, it seems as though we're in an interesting position to understand at 
system level where specific strengths and weaknesses are in upstream releases, 
and that knowledge itself might be valuable for our ecosystem.

With an overall mission of advancing and accelerating NFV, does this sort of 
knowledge capture possibly fit into our deliverables as much as release 
creation and upstream influence.

And, yes, I realize our documentation should and likely does capture this sort 
of thing, but I'm wondering about elevating this sort of knowledge in terms of 
our value to the industry.

This is merely speculative thinking meant to spur some conversation rather than 
an assertion, but I'm curious to hear thoughts from people.

Heather

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Tim Rozet 
> wrote:
I don't see any issue here.  Colorado 1.0 is set to use Beryllium, which is 
already released.  Even the scenarios that require Boron (FDS/SFC) do not 
require ODL HA, and we already have Boron RC builds that work.  ODL HA is known 
to be buggy, so at least in Apex we don't enable it.

Tim Rozet
Red Hat SDN Team

- Original Message -
From: "David McBride" 
>
To: "Christopher Price" >
Cc: 
opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org,
 "TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV" 
>
Sent:

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Announcing the results of the Committer-at-Large TSC election

2016-09-07 Thread Sen, Prodip 
Congratulations to the new TSC members. This is an important step in our 
continued efforts  to sustain broad-based participation in OPNFV.

- Prodip

From: opnfv-tsc-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tsc-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Raymond Paik
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 12:32 AM
To: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: [opnfv-tsc] Announcing the results of the Committer-at-Large TSC 
election

All,

Thanks to everyone who participated in the first Committer-at-Large TSC 
election.  I'd like to announce that the following 5 individuals have been 
elected as new TSC members for OPNFV (listed alphabetically by first name).

  *   Bin Hu
  *   Fatih Degirmenci
  *   Hongbo Tian
  *   Jack Morgan
  *   Morgan Richomme
Congratulations to the new TSC members!

Thanks,

Ray
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss