Hi Folks,
Maybe it’s good to start by agreeing on the purpose of the different WG’s, it might make it easier to figure out where to do what. My understanding is something like this: When we initiated the MANO WG I was under the impression it was intended to be a place for MANO related projects to; collaborate and discuss their coming work items, ensure they are aligned with each other, provide as common an approach across our project activities as possible. I had additionally understood the Polestar WG would be looking at future needs of our overall community and platform, would work with the community to establish threads to develop those, and would report back, through the SPC to the board, on commonly identified goals (or perceived gaps). I think it’s great that the Polestar WG is spinning up activity around areas they feel is important, that’s why we have the group. J The onus, however, is on that WG to ensure they are engaging the right people in the community in those discussions in order to find a common objective and approach to any topic area. This should be meaningful discussion amongst invested PTL’s and stakeholders which would lead to projects wanting to fulfill the discussed use cases. At the end of the day we do work in projects. Successful WG’s are able to facilitate common objectives across associated projects through and across releases. / Chris From: <[email protected]> on behalf of Ash <[email protected]> Date: Friday 9 September 2016 at 18:51 To: Margaret Chiosi <[email protected]> Cc: Min Yu <[email protected]>, "[OPNFV SPC] ([email protected])" <[email protected]>, TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-strategic-plan-committee] [SPC Polestar] Minutes from the OPNFV SPC Polestar WG call (September 8, 2016) I'm in total agreement and am happy to follow your lead. I would just like to know too so that I can provide my input back into any of our resource teams. Trying to support you. On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Margaret Chiosi <[email protected]> wrote: Ash that is fine. We just need to decide what gets worked with each WG. On Friday, September 9, 2016, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: Guys, That last bullet in the minutes is a little disconcerting. If there are in fact overlaps between MANO and Polestar WGs, it would be nice if they could be clarified with the whole list vs. just with Margaret. Sorry to be a pain. Just want to make sure we're all on the same page vs different ones. Best, Ash On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Min Yu <[email protected]> wrote: Attendees: Anthony Soong, Bryan Sullivan, Larry Lamers, Margaret Chiosi, Michael Bugenhagen, Prakash Ramchandran, Steven Wright, Tapio Tallgren, Yunjun Zhang, Min Yu · Meeting Minutes/Agenda Approval: Approved · User Scenarios of Pain Points and Priorities by Steven o Steven noted that expansions and comments have been added to the Pain Points and a separate VNF Onboarding page has been created on the EUAG’s wiki. o A question was asked about the difference between “provider” and “operator” and if they have different requirements. A discussion then followed about the need to define these terms so the ecosystem operates from the same understanding. A suggestion was made that the Polestar WG could take this up as a future action item. o In the VNF Options section, a question was raised regarding the VNF Package being a “single binary object.” Steven noted that replacing “binary” with “executable” perhaps helps clarify the meaning. o A question was asked to define the OPNFV community as an actor. The attendees discussed whether this means OPNFV has a role to play in hosting technical validation of platform capability that enables VNFs rather than validating VNF packages in the market. A comment was made that if VNF onboarding is a feature in future OPNFV releases, OPNFV will also have a role in certifying that VNFs work with a particular release. The attendees generally agreed that it would be helpful for VNF vendors if operators start to outline what the processes are going to be, even though some are more business-oriented and do not apply to the OPNFV system. Such outlines would inform the vendors of the expectations and scope. o Margaret polled attendees’ plans to attend a F2F meeting at ODL Summit in Seattle to further discuss this. She also mentioned there was some overlap between what the MANO WG and the Polestar WG are doing. Bryan confirmed there are some overlaps and will clarify them for Margaret after the call. -- Min Yu Client Services Coordinator The Linux Foundation +1(530) 902-6464 (m) [email protected] Skype: minyudecorah _______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss -- Margaret CHiosi _______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
_______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
