Thanks Al and David.
Per the discussion in the TSC meeting, I’ve added a poll to the vote page [0]
that Al created to give the TSC an understanding which projects are interested
in participating in the next release and how these projects would categorize
themselves (“integrated” vs.
of Slack, we've found it very helpful
to keep in touch, particularly right now when we're all working remotely and
quarantined at home.
If it's not useful, we don't have to use it, but it is fairly easy to make a
workspace available, so we thought we'd try it out.
Cheers,
Heather
On Wed, Apr 22, 20
Jim,
Why do we need slack (which is a great tool) given that we have and
standardized on IRC?
Thanks, Frank
Am 22.04.2020 um 21:38 schrieb Jim Baker :
Anyone for slack?
-- Forwarded message -
From: Slack mailto:feedb...@slack.com>>
Date: Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 1:37 PM
Hi Jim,
Thanks for the update. While LFN does carry forward – it may or may not apply
to the budget allocated to OPNFV, because the board reevaluates the budget
situation across all projects when deciding on 2020 budget.
Cheers, Frank
From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org On Behalf Of Jim
Baker
Thanks Trevor for the kind words and nomination. And yes David, I accept the
nomination.
Cheers, Frank
From: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
On Behalf Of David McBride
Sent: Dienstag, 9. Juli 2019 02:37
To: Cooper, Trevor ; Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
Cc:
David,
Thanks – could you supply the Jenkins links?
If I understand your email correctly, you say that apart from the scenarios, we
don’t really know what we’d release, correct?
Thanks, Frank
From: David McBride
Sent: Donnerstag, 9. Mai 2019 15:51
To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
Cc: TSC OPNFV
David,
Thanks for the summary. To be able to form an opinion on how to vote, could you
supply the following additional information?
On the scenarios: Could you supply a pointer to the test results? E.g.
http://testresults.opnfv.org/master/functest/status-apex.html is found empty.
On the
to (IMHO) better reflect the balance and outcome of the
> discussion so far. The strategy slide has become a bit more wordy, but I
> think this is necessary to disambiguate.
>
> Regards, Tim
>
> On 11/30/18 12:45 PM, Frank Brockners via Lists.Opnfv.Org wrote:
>>
>
16
and changed them to (IMHO) better reflect the balance and outcome of the
discussion so far. The strategy slide has become a bit more wordy, but I think
this is necessary to disambiguate.
Regards, Tim
On 11/30/18 12:45 PM, Frank Brockners via Lists.Opnfv.Org wrote:
>
>
> In the TSC me
In the TSC meeting, Manuel voiced a pretty important ask that might help the
discussion moving forward: "Cloud we create a table that compares OPNFV today
with the proposed future", assuming that we'd evolve along the path that Bin
started to articulate. The table format is to make things
FYI - for those interested in Cloud-Native NFV.
Telecom ParisTech and Cisco will hold a Cloud Native Networking Bootcamp to
share knowledge, experience, and grow community around open source cloud native
network and network function virtualization technologies.
With the move to groups.io as the mailer infrastructure for OPNFV mailing
lists, we can (and should) make use of the hashtag concept that groups.io
offers.
See also https://groupsio.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/202739265-Hashtags
Moving forward, please use #yourprojectname in the subject line
Hi David,
thanks for getting the election started. When voting, I noticed that CIVS was
setup in a way that the results are not openly viewable once the election is
finished. CIVS does offer this option.
Could this be changed?
Thanks much, Frank
From: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
On
Dear OPNFV community,
I would like to nominate myself as a TSC member of the OPNFV project.
· Name of the nominee: Frank Brockners
· The nominee's organization: Cisco
· A brief statement about the nominees qualifications and contributions
to the OPNFV community:
As a
Hi Aric,
well... we can and should check that the provided link indeed links to a git
repo of the LFN. I.e. we'd only need to check on the overall top level domain,
as opposed to deal with every single project.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
On
Hi Parker,
while I agree that option 2) would be nicer from a user perspective, IMHO we
should start with 1) – because not all the projects even have INFO files yet…
let alone that they are in the right location.
E.g. https://git.onap.org/appc/tree/ has an info file, while
IMHO it would be best to have the user provide the INFO.yaml link - and then
just check that the repo belongs to an LFN project (just check the domain name).
This mitigates the need to walk repo trees.
We should also limit things to LFN projects, given that it is LFN that pays for
the service.
In today's TSC meeting, we'll discuss how to evolve the current
Lab-as-a-Service (LaaS) offering.
LaaS started with a MVP (minimum viable product - which is a single bare metal
server with pre-provisioned OS) back in February 2018.
By now we have sufficient experience to plan the next step
18 matches
Mail list logo
