#opnfv-meeting: Weekly TSC meeting

Meeting started by tallgren at 14:01:20 UTC (full logs).

Meeting summary

    1. Dave Neary (dneary, 14:01:29)
    2. Rossella Sblendido (rossella_s, 14:01:32)
    3. Bin Hu (bh526r, 14:01:33)
    4. Bryan Sullivan (bryan_att, 14:01:35)
    5. hongbo (hongbo8080, 14:01:36)
    6. Fatih Degirmenci (fdegir, 14:01:37)
    7. Tim Irnich (timirnich, 14:01:41)
    8. Frank Brockners (frankbrockners, 14:01:48)
    9. Carlos Goncalves (proxy for Xavier Costa) (cgoncalves, 14:01:50)
    10. Edgar StPierre (edgarstp, 14:02:05)
    11. Tapio Tallgre (tallgren, 14:02:06)
    12. https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/TSC#TSC-April18,2017 today's agenda (rpaik, 14:02:36)
    13. Jack Morgan (jmorgan1, 14:03:01)
    14. no feedback, so previous minutes approved (rpaik, 14:03:07)
    15. no other topics (rpaik, 14:04:18)
    16. multi-access edge proposal will be reviewed at next TSC call (rpaik, 14:05:44)
    17. https://lists.opnfv.org/pipermail/opnfv-tech-discuss/2017-April/015967.html Board meeting summary (rpaik, 14:06:17)
    18. Trevor Cooper (for Brian Skerry) (trevor_intel, 14:06:22)
    19. ChrisPriceAB led the discussion on LF networking projects harmonization, marketing committee update, goals & value proposition, and budget updates were covered during the Board only part of the meeting (rpaik, 14:07:44)
    20. dmcbride gave a reminder on Danube 2.0 that's coming in a few weeks and pushing out the intent to participate date for Euphrates to accommodate next week's Plugfest (rpaik, 14:09:40)
    21. Danube retrospectives will continue during the release call today (rpaik, 14:10:18)
    22. there could also be follow-up retrospectives sessions during the Plugfest (rpaik, 14:10:44)
    23. https://lists.opnfv.org/pipermail/opnfv-tech-discuss/2017-April/015998.html summary of graduation review discussions (rpaik, 14:11:37)
    24. The graduation review topic has been discussed a few times, in the Hackfest and also in the TSC meeting (tallgren, 14:12:52)
    25. https://www.opnfv.org/software/technical-project-governance/project-lifecycle (Julien-zte, 14:14:16)
    26. https://www.opnfv.org/software/technical-project-governance/project-lifecycle (rpaik, 14:14:19)
    27. There seems to be a consensus on the topic: should keep the graduation review and remove the integration review (tallgren, 14:15:52)
    28. frankbrockners points out that since no project has graduated, it is too early to think about removing the integration review (tallgren, 14:17:06)
    29. Discussion about the the metrics in the graduation review (tallgren, 14:19:36)
    30. numerical metrics are somewhat arbitrary and could be gamed (rpaik, 14:20:39)
    31. having some projects go through the graduation process would be helpful for the community (rpaik, 14:22:57)
    32. having a graduated project will give some baseline to other projects to compare to (tallgren, 14:23:28)
    33. https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/incubation-integration-requirements.html Minimal Requirements for Incubation and Integrated Status in OpenStack (cgoncalves, 14:24:50)
    34. community can also help with coming up with a template for graduation reviews (rpaik, 14:27:35)
    35. encourage community members from "mature" projects to step forward for graduation reviews (rpaik, 14:28:23)
    36. rpaik any project who wants to start the the procedure, can refer to creation review (Julien-zte, 14:28:23)

  1. Monthly support payment for Read the Docs (tallgren, 14:28:28)
    1. Proposal to support Read the Docs with $50 a month (tallgren, 14:30:27)
    2. gives us opportunity for branding and priority support (rpaik, 14:31:31)
    3. The money would come from the TSC budget (tallgren, 14:31:47)
    4. RTD could be the common documentation format for all the Linux Foundation networking projects (tallgren, 14:32:28)
    5. Trevor Cooper voting for Brian Skerry (trevor_intel, 14:34:47)
    6. Anand Gorti (Anand, 14:34:54)
    7. VOTE: Voted on "does TSC approve spending $50/month for readthedocs support?" Results are, +1: 14 (rpaik, 14:35:29)
    8. support $'s for readthedocs approved (rpaik, 14:35:48)
    9. there has been concerns about installer project's impact on community resources (rpaik, 14:37:27)
    10. bryan_att suggests starting a wiki/etherpad page to collect discussions on this topic (rpaik, 14:38:22)
    11. we need to have the resource concerns clarified, and responded to on the wiki. (bryan_att, 14:39:00)
    12. there is no obligation of feature projects to support specific installers, or for installers to inherently support feature projects (bryan_att, 14:39:30)
    13. on the one hand, concerns from testing/feature projects that additional installers create more requirement for their projects (rpaik, 14:39:42)
    14. on the other, should there be different project creation criteria for installer projects? (rpaik, 14:40:24)
    15. bryan_att notes that there are resource requirements for every project (not just installers) (rpaik, 14:42:42)
    16. rpaik - we need those testing/feature project members to be specific about what they believe are the additional overheads (bryan_att, 14:44:14)
    17. currently we have no concrete requirements (mandate) for testing or feature use/applicability on an installer basis - testing is developed per the interests/familiarity of testers with the installer as core of scenarios (bryan_att, 14:46:21)
    18. jose_lausuch noted that smote tests were run for each installers in Danube, but there's probably a need to have better test coverage going forward (rpaik, 14:47:15)
    19. FuncTest impact is only some minor patches to the Functest config as needed (bryan_att, 14:48:02)
    20. frankbrockners:no, there is no requirement that projects integrate with CI. Only if the project intends to participate in releases, and at that point there needs to be some testing. (bryan_att, 14:49:19)
    21. ChrisPriceAB asks if more emphasis from OPNFV should be on features/capabilities development (rpaik, 14:50:52)
    22. IMO the unique value of OPNFV is to integrate and release reference platforms, so evolving the processes and tools that make that integration and deployment possible, is in OPNFV's interest (bryan_att, 14:53:49)
    23. in particular the evolution to cloud-native control planes will involve various technical approaches, similar to the various technical approaches used by the current vendor/upstream-community-centered installer projects (bryan_att, 14:55:36)
    24. timirnich notes that for feature projects there's a desire to support larger user base (and this translates to more installers typically) (rpaik, 14:58:24)
    25. Releng/Infra impacts is to the Jenkins master config for adding new CI pods to the jobs etc, and some minor impact to the resources for the dashboards. Similar to the Functest impact, this is a one-time patch to the Releng config. (bryan_att, 14:59:20)
    26. fdegir: please clarify the hidden costs you mentioned - unless they are clarified we cannot address them (bryan_att, 15:00:02)

Meeting ended at 15:01:50 UTC (full logs).

Action items

  1. (none)

People present (lines said)

  1. rpaik (34)
  2. bryan_att (14)
  3. tallgren (14)
  4. collabot (8)
  5. trevor_intel (6)
  6. fdegir (6)
  7. Julien-zte (4)
  8. cgoncalves (4)
  9. frankbrockners (3)
  10. timirnich (3)
  11. dneary (2)
  12. Anand (2)
  13. bh526r (2)
  14. hongbo8080 (2)
  15. jmorgan1 (2)
  16. edgarstp (2)
  17. rossella_s (1)
  18. dmcbride (1)

Generated by MeetBot 0.1.4.