Hi Bin, On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 01:16:30AM +0000, HU, BIN wrote: > Trevor, > > Thank you so much for spending your time on additional questions. I really > appreciate it. > > > 1. Regarding supporting resources, I think we discussed it earlier in the > thread, and we need to enforce the resource availability criteria when > approving new projects so that the we will have sufficient new resources to > support those additional tools / deliverables.
I agree. Its important that when new projects start we ensure the resources (infra and people) are available before approval. > > 1. Regarding the strategy and details of work plan at the next step, it is > structured in a way that > > * Slide #13 is a strategy, i.e. a high level vision and direction. The > targeted audience is those business executives who care more about where we > are heading at strategic business level. The vision and direction allow > flexibility for us to carefully continue to work out more details of a work > plan which is a work in progress summarized on slide #16. > * Slide #16 is a summary of the work plan with more details as you > expected. It addresses the “how” question. This is a work in progress, and > subject to further discussion in different working groups, and more details > will be developed as we go further. > > The ask is to agree on the high level strategy outlined on slide #13, which > shows stakeholders and business executives that we OPNFV, as an entire > community, is actively adapting ourselves to the evolving business > environment, and is able to take actions quickly to embrace the change. And > we are continuously improving ourselves, expanding our business outreach in > order to provide more and greater value to LFN and industry. > > We leave slide #16 as living document, or just a plan of plan, to guide > further development of those details that you expected as we go further once > we send the business message out. Ah, okay, this clarifies what I was not following. My assumption was the strategy's audience was us (the TSC) and not others. We as a community are obviously aware of our pain points, and I was concerned that the issues we know need to be addressed did not seem to line up with where you are pointing we should go. But since we're talking about two different levels of messaging here, I don't have a problem with the strategy if you feel the language will help others understand better the direction we're heading. > 1. Regarding the urgency, we are quickly finishing 2018 and heading into > 2019, we really need a clear strategy by the end of 2018 so that we can be > directed to work further on more details in 2019. Looking at calendar: > > * Dec 25 and Jan 1 are holidays, and I don’t expect any TSC meeting on > those 2 days > * Dec 18: we usually don’t get quorum based on past experience > * Dec 11: because people starts to go on holidays, it is also very risky > to have a quorum on Dec 11 based on past experience. And there will be many > more TSC business we need to handle before the end of year > * It leaves Dec 4 the only feasible date of having a quorum and making a > decision As long as we're not agreeing to the opposite of what we want (which I don't think is the case anymore), and ensuring we take time to answer the technical questions this discussion raised in the future, I'm good. I did not realize the 4th may be the last time we have quorum before the end of the year, and I can see the benefit of utilizing the momentum from the change in years to start addressing these issues, instead of debating what direction we should take. > 1. Regarding your wording suggestion, I think it is a great idea. How > about we switch “Solution” and “Platform” in the headline? So it will read “A > DevOps Solution for Integrated NFV Platform and Beyond”. This way, we keep > our original great value of an integrated NFV platform in its entirety, and > allow us more flexibility in defining a DevOps solution. I think that works, since it addresses my only concern that we'd be redefining our platform as DevOps instead of NFV. Regards, Trevor Bramwell > > Please let me know what you think. > > Thank you > Bin > > From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org <opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org> On Behalf Of > Trevor Bramwell > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 2:39 PM > To: HU, BIN <bh5...@att.com> > Cc: Georg Kunz <georg.k...@ericsson.com>; Tim Irnich <tim.irn...@suse.com>; > AshYoung <a...@cachengo.com>; OPNFV Tech > <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>; OPNFV TSC <opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org>; > Manuel Buil <mb...@suse.com> > Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan > > Hi Bin, > > You wrote: > > Regarding the concern of spending our time to help people use our tools, > > isn't it the usual business we are supposed to do today? For example, > > after we release Gambia, we are supposed to help people use it, right? > > There is a "opnfv-user" mailing list for this purpose. > > This concern was not about dropping support for our tools, but increasing the > amount > of support our already constrained community provides. Georg stated this > better than I did: > > > That said, my current view on the proposal is the following: it broadens > > the scope of the > > community (by a currently undefined amount), i.e., it adds on top of what > > we are currently > > doing. I do not think that this is the right approach given shrinking > > amounts of resources > > in the community - both in terms of developers and funding. > The concern regarding the strategy is that it seems you're asking us to > approve a > plan that increase the scope of OPNFV, without any details, or at least > saying the > details will be figured out later. And that's hard for some of us to agree to > when we're detail > oriented and especially when it's coupled with an unclear urgency. > > > We are losing developers and other resources, and primarily reason is ROI. > > If we keep on doing today's way without a direction, no one will magically > > come back. We will lose more exponentially. A new vision and direction > > will bring a fresh look of OPNFV, and we will have the opportunity to bring > > new developers and investments that are interested in working on this > > direction. > > Absolutely agree. > > > Now we face the difficulties - evolve CI/CD in a more installer-centric > > way, or > > in a more CI/CD-compliant way. I don't intend to discuss those details of > > choice here. Those are tactical discussion, and many times we chose a > > shortcut for the sake of release instead of a right way for long term > > benefit. > > However, a strategy and direction will guide those choices when we face > > those difficulties. > > You're right that we've chosen the shortcut because we didn't have the > strategy, and I > think that part of the issue with urgency is that the strategy lacks an > answer to that question. > > And per Tim's point: > > The current material does not do > > this clearly enough. It sort of says "we keep doing everything we > > already do and add a few things." IMHO it would be better is we > > described the change we want to achieve (i.e. in the form of "instead of > > [...] we want [...]"). > > It's important that our strategic vision indicate how it is we're > changing even if we didn't have an explicit statement before. > > One side note - Perhaps a simple restructuring of > "A DevOps Platform for Integrated NFV Solutions and Beyond" > to > "An Integrated NFV Platform for DevOps Solutions and Beyond" > would clarify we're not changing the platform. > > Regards, > Trevor Bramwell > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:18 AM HU, BIN > <bh5...@att.com<mailto:bh5...@att.com>> wrote: > Georg, > > Thank you for your questions and concerns. > > One key role of TSC is to provide direction to the community, which is the > other pillar that strengthens the community-driven approach. The direction > from TSC will inspire the community and represent our community externally, > and the "personal motivation" will ultimately decide where the resource will > go. > > One of the questions in the TSC discussion today is whether or not we have > had strategy from TSC in the past. As far as I know, there wasn't. Correct me > if I am wrong and show me where it is documented. So community needs a > direction from TSC, which is more urgent for now than ever, because: > - We don't have a strategy. Everything is driven by "personal motivation", > which is good and bad. Sorry that I am quite frank and straightforward. If > everything is driven by "personal motivation" without a direction, it > eventually hurts the entire community. And it won't achieve your goal of > strengthening platform and compliance program at all. > - We are losing developers and other resources, and primarily reason is ROI. > If we keep on doing today's way without a direction, no one will magically > come back. We will lose more exponentially. A new vision and direction will > bring a fresh look of OPNFV, and we will have the opportunity to bring new > developers and investments that are interested in working on this direction. > - The WG mechanism is a good way of how to organize the work in a tactic > level. However, without the blessing of a strategy, vision and direction that > can be articulated and marketed, it won't bring new developers. So tactics > (slide #16) is the way of how to achieve the strategy (slide #13). However, > under no circumstance can a tactic replace a strategy. > - You brought a great example of XCI. It was bottom up, and has achieved > great result. However, because there was no strategy, there were hiccups in > terms of scenarios v.s. installers etc. Now we face the difficulties - evolve > CI/CD in a more installer-centric way, or in a more CI/CD-compliant way. I > don't intend to discuss those details of choice here. Those are tactical > discussion, and many times we chose a shortcut for the sake of release > instead of a right way for long term benefit. However, a strategy and > direction will guide those choices when we face those difficulties. > > So there is a reality urgency and need of having a direction for our > community, not only for new things to bring in new developers, but also help > solve the issues for many projects when they are facing the choices of where > to go, what to do next, and whether a shortcut or for long term. > > At last, no one disagrees with strengthening platform and compliance program, > which has been captured on slide #13. Adding new direction will not only help > bring in new developers but also help many existing projects to make the > right choice. Eventually, "personal motivation" decides where resources will > go, because no one can force anyone else to work on a specific project. So I > don't see the concern of new direction will be competing with existing > developers. For example, "personal motivation" may bring all developers to > platform capabilities and compliance program, which is great. > > Again, thank you for your question, but I do see the urgency of having a > strategy asap, because of the reality needs as I stated above. > > Best regards > Bin > > -----Original Message----- > From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org> > <opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org>> On Behalf Of > Georg Kunz > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 9:46 AM > To: HU, BIN <bh5...@att.com<mailto:bh5...@att.com>>; Tim Irnich > <tim.irn...@suse.com<mailto:tim.irn...@suse.com>>; Trevor Bramwell > <tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org>> > Cc: AshYoung <a...@cachengo.com<mailto:a...@cachengo.com>>; > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>; > opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org>; Manuel Buil > <mb...@suse.com<mailto:mb...@suse.com>> > Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan > > Hi Bin, > Hi all, > > Due to the lively discussions during today's TSC call, the IRC minutes are a > little light [1]. However, I have to voice my concern that I cannot agree > with the following items: > > [.] > 14:41:31 <bh526r> #info Vote for strategy on Tuesday Dec 4 > 14:42:01 <bh526r> #info Hopefully everyone will agree > 14:43:12 <bh526r> #info We need a decision on Dec 4 in order to trigger > following actions > 14:43:35 <dmcbride> #topic budget discussion > 14:43:45 <bh526r> #info Stalemate is not an option [.] > > I don't understand why "we need a decision by Dec 4 in order to trigger > actions". I seriously appreciate your ambition to move this forward quickly > as the main intention is to strengthen OPNFV's position. However, I also > don't see why concrete actions are being blocked if there is no decision on > Dec 4. > > A core value of open source communities is that those who are interested in a > particular topic, naturally tend to form a group which jointly works towards > a common goal. In our concrete scenario, we could i) form a devops working > group which works on fleshing out the details of the proposal, and/or ii) > find a group of interested people prototyping some of the "cloud-based devops > methodologies. None of such activities would be considered a stalemate. The > results of such _community-driven_ activities would help to convince the > entire community. A very successful example in this regard is XCI, which was > driven by a small group of people. > > Certainly, it is the job of all TSC members to actively participate in the > strategy definition and discussion and I urge everybody to do so. An open > source community works best if it is driven by personal motivation. For sure > it does not work well if deadlines for decisions about unclear directions are > put on a community without a clear understanding why. > > > That said, my current view on the proposal is the following: it broadens the > scope of the community (by a currently undefined amount), i.e., it adds on > top of what we are currently doing. I do not think that this is the right > approach given shrinking amounts of resources in the community - both in > terms of developers and funding. I believe we need to instead discuss, as an > alternative, if we should and can focus on a very specific, well-defined and > sought-after contribution to the ecosystem. I mentioned this in a previous > email already: based on input from stakeholders, I would argue for > strengthening the reference platform (as defined through comprehensive tests) > and the corresponding compliance program. This is my perspective for sure - > others might disagree and I'd love to discuss better proposals. > > [1] > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org_meetings_opnfv-2Dmeeting_2018_opnfv-2Dmeeting.2018-2D11-2D27-2D13.54.log.txt&d=DwIFAw&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw&m=r9hen4pWj29O0xCWW_XdI-Cyb5ZQJ1eBww0QIv_RyCM&s=myFYapb13OCO_9JxKW28OhoywMw8B5SXe1c_nPUWSK0&e= > > Best regards > Georg > > -----Original Message----- > From: HU, BIN <bh5...@att.com<mailto:bh5...@att.com>> > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 2:22 PM > To: Tim Irnich <tim.irn...@suse.com<mailto:tim.irn...@suse.com>>; Trevor > Bramwell <tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org>> > Cc: AshYoung <a...@cachengo.com<mailto:a...@cachengo.com>>; Georg Kunz > <georg.k...@ericsson.com<mailto:georg.k...@ericsson.com>>; > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>; > opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org>; Manuel Buil > <mb...@suse.com<mailto:mb...@suse.com>> > Subject: RE: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan > > Thank you for pointing out one possibility based on the assumption that the > same resources will do both work. The assumption itself may not be true > because there will be different resources to do different work in different > projects (which is the reality today). > > So the resource availability is a key factor to consider when we approve the > new projects subsequently after we plan the product portfolio. When we have > dedicated resources to do each job, such possibility will be unlikely to > happen. > > Thanks > Bin > > -----Original Message----- > From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org> > <opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org>> On Behalf Of > Tim Irnich > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 11:59 PM > To: HU, BIN <bh5...@att.com<mailto:bh5...@att.com>>; Trevor Bramwell > <tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org>> > Cc: AshYoung <a...@cachengo.com<mailto:a...@cachengo.com>>; Georg Kunz > <georg.k...@ericsson.com<mailto:georg.k...@ericsson.com>>; > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>; > opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org>; Manuel Buil > <mb...@suse.com<mailto:mb...@suse.com>> > Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan > > The way I understand Trevor's concern is that if we start spending more time > on packaging tools and supporting their usage downstream, there will be less > time for doing integration work and driving upstream production readiness. > Which is something I'm concerned about too. > > Pretending that this problem doesn't exist isn't helpful IMHO. > > Tim > > On 11/27/18 2:11 AM, HU, BIN wrote: > > Trevor, > > > > Thank you for you clarifying it. > > > > The integration work is explicitly mentioned to be continued in 3rd bullet > > on slide #13 of v0.8. I am attaching it again just in case you missed it. > > That work will continue as usual. All related bug fixes and new features in > > upstream will continue as usual too. So I am not sure why it is a concern > > here. > > > > Regarding the concern of spending our time to help people use our tools, > > isn't it the usual business we are supposed to do today? For example, after > > we release Gambia, we are supposed to help people use it, right? There is a > > "opnfv-user" mailing list for this purpose. There isn't much traffic > > though. It means either everyone is an expert or no one is interested in > > using our release. I wish it was because everyone is an expert, though the > > reality might be opposite. > > > > Recently, someone asked me how to run Yardstick on Dovetail. Thanks Georg > > for sharing the docs. I was really excited because finally someone is > > interested in using our tool. So getting user to use our tools is exactly > > what we want, right? Without users, I don't know how to show others our > > value, frankly. > > > > So IMHO, spending our time to help user isn't a concern at all. It is what > > we need. And there is no difference of supporting users, e.g. use OpenStack > > by OpenStack community, use ODL by ODL community. Etc. > > > > If there is no user to support, we are in trouble because our deliverables > > has no value. > > > > Let me know what you think, and if you still have concerns. > > > > Thank you > > Bin > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org> > > <opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org>> On Behalf > > Of Trevor Bramwell > > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 4:54 PM > > To: HU, BIN <bh5...@att.com<mailto:bh5...@att.com>> > > Cc: Tim Irnich <tim.irn...@suse.com<mailto:tim.irn...@suse.com>>; AshYoung > > <a...@cachengo.com<mailto:a...@cachengo.com>>; > > Georg Kunz <georg.k...@ericsson.com<mailto:georg.k...@ericsson.com>>; > > Manuel Buil <mb...@suse.com<mailto:mb...@suse.com>>; > > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>; > > opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org> > > Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan > > > > Hi Bin, > > > > Perhaps 'integrated' is a better word here than 'supported'. A lot of the > > work in OPNFV involves integrating many of these upstream components which > > in turn exposes bugs, or creates features that enable an NFV use case. > > > > I'm quite terrible with examples, but I'm sure others from the community > > have time. > > > > Regards, > > Trevor Bramwell > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:26:33AM +0000, HU, BIN wrote: > >> Trevor, > >> > >> Thank you for your question. > >> > >> Can you give more details and examples of "doing what we're best at, which > >> is getting NFV supported by upstream projects."? > >> > >> Thank you > >> Bin > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Trevor Bramwell > >> <tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org>> > >> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 4:17 PM > >> To: HU, BIN <bh5...@att.com<mailto:bh5...@att.com>> > >> Cc: Tim Irnich <tim.irn...@suse.com<mailto:tim.irn...@suse.com>>; AshYoung > >> <a...@cachengo.com<mailto:a...@cachengo.com>>; > >> Georg Kunz <georg.k...@ericsson.com<mailto:georg.k...@ericsson.com>>; > >> Manuel Buil <mb...@suse.com<mailto:mb...@suse.com>>; > >> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>; > >> opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org> > >> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan > >> > >> Hi Bin, > >> > >> I'm still unclear on the first point: "Enabling and automating > >> stakeholders' business transformation into DevOps organization" > >> > >> From what I've read it seems like the suggestion is to package up > >> everything that makes up OPNFV (Platform, CI/CD piplines, testing / > >> verification / certification tools, etc.) and turn that into something > >> that can be deployed by a company internally. > >> > >> Is that what is being suggested here, or something else? And if so I'd be > >> concerned that we'd actually be reducing companies incentive to be > >> involved, or more of our time would be spent trying to support people > >> using the tool then doing what we're best at, which is getting NFV > >> supported by upstream projects. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Trevor Bramwell > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 09:04:57PM +0000, HU, BIN wrote: > >>> Tim, > >>> > >>> Not sure if you get a chance to follow the most recent discussion. > >>> > >>> The ask is merely to agree on a strategy (i.e. the vision and direction) > >>> outlined on Slide #13, supported by the steps of actions summarized on > >>> slide #16. See attached the most recent update v0.8. > >>> > >>> Please let me know if there is anything unclear here. > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> Bin > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org> > >>> <opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org>> On > >>> Behalf Of Tim Irnich > >>> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 12:57 PM > >>> To: HU, BIN <bh5...@att.com<mailto:bh5...@att.com>>; AshYoung > >>> <a...@cachengo.com<mailto:a...@cachengo.com>>; Georg > >>> Kunz <georg.k...@ericsson.com<mailto:georg.k...@ericsson.com>>; Manuel > >>> Buil <mb...@suse.com<mailto:mb...@suse.com>> > >>> Cc: > >>> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>; > >>> opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org> > >>> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan > >>> > >>> On 11/26/18 4:40 PM, HU, BIN wrote: > >>>> > >>>> If I understand correctly, Point #1 and #3 are actually the same > >>>> question, i.e. what will we do in the next step? > >>> > >>> No, I'm rather suggesting to make sure our understanding is complete > >>> before we proceed. We clearly do not yet sufficiently understand what > >>> exactly the decision is you're asking us to take, so we cannot proceed. > >>> Let's continue to work on this until we have the required clarity, and > >>> then decide. > >>> > >>> Regards, Tim > >>> > >> > >> > >>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > >>> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. > >>> > >>> View/Reply Online (#4856): > >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org > >>> _g_opnfv-2Dtsc_message_4856&d=DwIF-g&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6qPc > >>> DOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw&m=MsGFeXeJn1GRo-GvLejVXrmPgRHvZKjmVkiBKZgaQdc&s=j > >>> 9hLZ3q9g0pHbtq-b6cZkh4PaKLsKtMkaWRRHHHAcqQ&e= > >>> Mute This Topic: > >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org > >>> _mt_27802341_557206&d=DwIF-g&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6qPcDOqMgwf1 > >>> K_r6YIIHhw&m=MsGFeXeJn1GRo-GvLejVXrmPgRHvZKjmVkiBKZgaQdc&s=fTo_-Z8GU > >>> Aaz9sCAJyClb_m_LGWxF3_23Siiy8SJdtY&e= > >>> Group Owner: > >>> opnfv-tsc+ow...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tsc%2bow...@lists.opnfv.org> > >>> Unsubscribe: > >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org > >>> _g_opnfv-2Dtsc_unsub&d=DwIF-g&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6qPcDOqMgwf > >>> 1K_r6YIIHhw&m=MsGFeXeJn1GRo-GvLejVXrmPgRHvZKjmVkiBKZgaQdc&s=f8xgHpaw > >>> JHb8E2ELrIpuKGYOIZmFHT6fOJf7huGMVHM&e= > >>> [tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org>] > >>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > >> > > -- > Dr.-Ing. Tim Irnich, Senior Program Manager Developer Engagement > E-Mail: tim.irn...@suse.com<mailto:tim.irn...@suse.com> > Mobile: +49 172 2791829 > SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB > 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#22472): https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/22472 Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/28277855/21656 Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
