Hello Everyone. thank you all for your responses. I can see that this will require some more discussion and work. When we started OPNFV (and in fact through Arno (remember the Fish on the Sweater?), our tenant and marketing has indicated that one of the main value adds for OPNFV is that we push requirements back upstream.
From the threads I can summarize a couple of things: 1st – We don’t have a method of knowing/pushing things upstream in a holistic OPNFV group method (from Bryan’s comments – people should do this on their own). In my mind that is a bit of a hard one for me to see how that would work/be more effective than a individual pushing a blueprint to say Openstack. My understanding was that the scope, size and relationships established by the TSC and Governance board were to put such paths in place so that OPNFV is see *by upstream communities – as a valid vehicle for this work. 2nd – We are three years in and while we have thought about this and then shelved it, I wonder what that communicates to the people who have delivered requirements projects (or however you want to call it – I really think we spend too much time debating labels ) in the previous two releases and in Colorado. To me, the thread indicates that OPNFV doesn’t have a method to “do something” with what is produced 3rd – While we are very adept at creating documents, wiki’s and the like – in the thread I haven’t really seen an answer to the question – again, going back to the three line of the Missions statement of OPNFV when it was started – that being that OPNFV as a organization delivers requirements from the NFV/NFV space back to upstream communities. In Vancouver there was discussion with the Openstack Telco WorkGroup regarding this very topic, so I would wonder “who” in OPNFV is chasing this down to ensure that the marketing and mission statements that we make (and thus use to have Companies provide money, resources and people )to OPNFV is actually being met – in short – where is the Proof that we are doing this. Thanks again for all the commentary, I hope that at the very least this thread causes the “forming TSC” and more importantly the Governance board to take a look at the number and amount of information that is being generated by people, that as far as I can tell up to now, is delivered and then sits. I don’t think that you can say to a group that joined OPNFV (as this vehicle) that the PTLs then have go chase down the upstream communities – if that is the case, then why do it in OPNFV? (not being nasty – but we should sometimes ask ourselves some tough questions about what we are doing with the output by the masses). Regards, Daniel Smith From: Heather Kirksey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 6:11 PM To: Dave Neary <[email protected]> Cc: Daniel Smith <[email protected]>; David McBride <[email protected]>; Fatih Degirmenci <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Christopher Price <[email protected]>; Ray Paik <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Follow up on Upstreaming Questions On the "Requirements phase" discussion specifically: It might depend on what you, as a project, are interested in and what is helpful. As Dave says, we've generally taken a fairly laissez-faire approach to this, and it's generally resulted in a project using their requirements document as a project-internal tool to facilitate a set of upstream contributions as they've decided such blueprints, patches, Jira tickets, etc., make sense. If projects in this phase of their work think getting more eyes outside of the project would benefit their work, let's think about how to highlight some of this rather than waiting for extremely interested parties to visit the repo. Not to make work, but if requirements-phase projects think it would be beneficial. I think on a similar thread folks suggested a wiki page or something like that. It could perhaps be linked to on the general upstream blueprint progress tracking page (if that's even up to date) and perhaps our EUAG page (for end-user input). This wouldn't be something like a gate or requirement but a facilitation of information sharing. (This may or may not be related to some of what you were thinking, Ash). What do y'all as projects doing this work want? What serves your needs? Heather On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Dave Neary <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi, On 09/20/2016 12:57 PM, Daniel Smith wrote: > Several weeks ago as part of the inclusion of Requirements Projects, I > asked how we know that people are looking at what we are producing in > Requirements projects and how we (OPNFV) ensure that deliverables from > Requirements projects are being reviewed and taken into account upstream > (from an OPNFV overall standpoint). > > Would any of you be able to shed some light on this? The current > impression that I have is we have the docs that sit in a repo and that’s it. To my knowledge, there is no formal process. It is up to individual project members to reach out to the relevant upstream projects and propose their changes there. Regards, Dave. -- Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com Ph: +1-978-399-2182<tel:%2B1-978-399-2182> / Cell: +1-978-799-3338<tel:%2B1-978-799-3338> -- Heather Kirksey Director, OPNFV Mobile: +1.512.917.7938 Email/Google Talk: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Skype: HeatherReneeKirksey IRC: HKirksey [OPNFV_RGB.png]
_______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
