2020-10-13 - CNTT / OPNFV - Meld Planning Session
- Scot Steele
- Jim Baker
- Pankaj.Goyal
Topic Leader(s)
@Scot Steele
@Beth Cohen
@Pankaj.Goyal
@Trevor Cooper
@Al Morton
Topic Overview
Meld Planning Session covering Organization, Technical and Marketing Efforts to support Meld
Slides & Recording
Minutes
This is a working session, so there is no formal agenda, but we are looking for furthering the ideas and suggestions for how the Melded OPNFV/CNTT communities come together. It is your opportunity to have a direct impact on the project.
Marketing Home Marketing Taskforce: @Bob Monkman (Deactivated) is the lead (chef cook and bottle washer) for the Marketing Taskforce. This group is working on the mission statement. Heather: BTW, Marketing task force, the page you were just seeing was my attempt to jumpstart the mission statement brainstorming...I figured a wiki page where we could propose some ideas would be a good idea, and I generated a couple myself. They're not meant to authoritative. Need a technical charter and a mission statement. They are complementary documents. Question: Did I hear that something was only to be approved by OPNFV but not CNTT? Answer: This is more about the legal entity that exists, which is OPNFV, and the fact that CNTT doesn't officially have a legal existence. The people involved in both groups will collaborate and agree on the mission statement and technical charter together.
Need three docs:
Technical Charter which includes the Mission Statement – The technical charter is the most legalistic doc required
The operational guidelines – project workstream lifecycles, release cadences, etc.
Voting eligibility and community engagement guidelines – Generally posted on the main wiki,
Here is the brainstorming link we started with last Thursday 2020-10-8 CNTT/OPNFV Meld Marketing Meeting for more details of the pre-work that was done in preparation for the session. Discussion of the materials that Heather and the team worked on to create a scope document that will help drive the mission statement. The current scope statement is fairly broad so that is legally acceptable. We need a stronger scope statement with more detail. Mission statement should be more high level and goal oriented, doesn't change very often, but sets the value proposition. Scope statement sets out how the mission (value) will be delivered. Trevor: Value is perceived differently. Some might find that POC is of value, while others don't see value unless it is able to be put into production. Important point. What is the community's consensus on what is the value to the community? Also who are the stake holders in the new entity. Al: OPNFV was driven by the Telecom stakeholders, then the vendors joined. Similar to CNTT trajectory. Who are the stakeholders that we need to be thinking about. Clearly the Telecoms, but the vendors in the ecosystem are equally important. Personas: Business Exec (Business Focus) , developer/architect (Technical focus).
Organization/Governance Home Governance Taskforce: What are the functions that need to be continued and what ones move to other groups? Example: Does marketing move to the LFN overall marketing as other LFN groups do. The general thinking is that we need one TSC that is responsible for the board. What are the ongoing activities that the TSC does and what resources are needed to deliver on the work that is needed to meet the goals (mission). This is getting into the operational guidelines requirements. The proposal is to have a TSC and have the oversight would move to the LFN Board. This means that the TSC possibly needs some governance functionality. Another possibility is to have the TSC serve as an oversight group to make technical decisions that support the individual workstreams. How does the TSC cover all the decisions that are needed. The proposed strawman TSC overs some business coordination and marketing activities, plus all the more technical activities. How can these somewhat divergent functions work together. In CNTT the two functions are in two boards, but there is lots of overlap with the members being on both committees. How can this be translated in the new organization? Question from the group: Is the release scope defined top-down or bottom-up (from WSs up)?
Need to better define the release process and how is it determined to move forward with a given release. In CNTT each workstream determines what is in a given release. The deliverables of OPNFV and CNTT are very different.
With the OPNFV the TSC has a vote on the release due to the nature of what is being delivered. Code needs a go/no go, while requirements are more flexible. Each workstream makes its own decision about what is in the release.
Operational/TSC Home Operations/TSC Taskforce: The merger will need to merge workspaces. OPNFV is on Jira now. CNTT is on GitHub. The decision is being put off due to larger decisions on the best platform for LFN projects as a whole. Looking at GitLab. Is GitLab access level for CNTT folks to see how it would work for them? The release cycles need to be aligned. Proposing a possible interim TSC then follow with elections. Limited time frame, starting January and then go until the structures are in place to have a proper vote for the melded TSC going forward.
Note from Heather: I put down some thoughts in actual writing (instead of me stream of consciousness talking) on this page: Discussion and Brainstorming Page for Governance Topics It's about halfway down the page Pankaj, Trevor Bramwell tbramwell@linuxfoundation.org can probably get you set up w/GitLab. For CNTT-type work, it should be quite similar from my understanding. You can learn from Mark Beierl: https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/~mbeierl/GitLab+and+StorPerf more about GitLab.
Thanks to @Bob Monkman (Deactivated)for his efforts on the marketing side, @Trevor Cooperfor his efforts on the Governance, @Georg Kunz for his work on the Operational aspects. Also @Heather Kirksey, @Brandon Wickand of course, @Jim Bakerfrom the LFN.