2019-12-04 Meeting notes

Date

Dec 4, 2019

Attendees

LF Staff: @Jim Baker @Kenny Paul @Casey Cain
Committee Members: @VM (Vicky) Brasseur    @Morgan Richomme  @cl664y@att.com @Davide Cherubini  @Ranny Haiby  @djhunt @Olaf Renner @Mark Beierl  @FREEMAN, BRIAN D @Ed Warnicke @Frank Brockners @Bin Hu @Abhijit K
Proxies: @Chaker Al-Hakim
Guests: @Prabhjot Singh Sethi  (TF), @Mike Lazar (OPX)

Agenda

• Start the Recording

• Antitrust Policy

• Agenda Bashing (Roll Call, Action Items (5 minutes)

• General Topics

  • Discuss Project Retirement guidance - Chaker Al-Hakim

  • Review the Project Health Review Page & Template - Jason Hunt

  • Discuss draft of TAC Chair role description - Jason Hunt

  • Technical Whitepaper Update - Ranny Haiby

  • Action Item Review

Minutes

• Project Retirement Guidance @Chaker Al-Hakim

  • Focus on ONAP - not LFN wide yet... outcome: document the framework for using components and EOL

  • How to retire a project that has inter-dependencies and the project loses support from the community?

  • ODL experience: acknowledge the risk when first using the component and identify a method to introduce alternative committers if needed.

  • Project using the component needs to have the contingency plan should the component support get reduced/dropped

  •  @cl664y@att.com Need to consider cross-dependencies between LFN projects i.e. ODL & ONAP; ONAP VVP/VNFSDK and OVP/CNTT etc.

    • BTW similar comment considering cross-LFN projects roadmap. I do not think today we have visibility about potential requirements across LFN projects.

  • @Ranny Haiby seems to be some confusion over the purpose of the proposal - original seems to be more focused on technical and now discussion seems to be one of asking communities for ongoing commitment.

  • @Ed Warnicke wants the lowest bar to entry for a project, but it makes sense for one project to ask hard questions about cross-project dependencies.

  • @VM (Vicky) Brasseur it is the responsibility of those that are using a dependency to practice due diligence. That is basic SW dev, not anything specific to OSS.

  • @Mark Beierl OSS already has the equivalent of an escrow for commercial software. Any company can pick it up and maintain it.

  • @VM (Vicky) Brasseur If the problem is companies not understanding OSS, that is a fundamentally different problem. 

  • Several people note that almost all OSS projects have a "no warranty" clause in the licenses; there should be no need for further notices.

  • In Summary- The responsibility is on the company/project using upstream OSS dependencies

• Review the Project Health Review Page & Template - @djhunt

  • Reviewed the proposed template

  • Projects being reviewed should plan for 15 min preso + 15 min Q&A using the template provided.

  • Metrics should be Q/Q since the last review

  • Jason will update the preso based upon feedback

• Discuss draft of TAC Chair role description - DRAFT TAC Chair Role.docx - Jason Hunt

  • reviewed the proposal

Action items