Attendees & Representation (default sort: member first name)

TAC Members and Project representatives should mark their attendance below 

LF Staff: @Casey Cain @LJ Illuzzi @Ranny Haiby @Sandra Jackson (Deactivated) 

Community: @Olivier Smith @Martin Matyáš (Deactivated) @Oliver Horecny

Agenda

• We will start by mentioning the project's Antitrust Policy, which you can find linked from the LF and project websites. The policy is important where multiple companies, including potential industry competitors, are participating in meetings. Please review and if you have any questions, please contact your company legal counsel. Members of the LF may contact Andrew Updegrove at the firm Gesmer Updegrove LLP, which provides legal counsel to the LF.

  • Antitrust Policy

• Check Action Items & Topic Requests (Backlog)

• General Topics

  • CNTi Sandbox Induction Review and Vote 40m @LJ Illuzzi @Olivier Smith  

    • CNTi LFN Sandbox Induction

  • Paraglider Candidate Annoucement 10m @LJ Illuzzi 

    • Paraglider LFN Onboarding as Candidate Project

  • Lifecycle Updates and revision 10m@Casey Cain 

    • Draft proposal documentation https://lf-networking.atlassian.net/wiki/x/2I7v

• Any other business

Action items

Minutes

CNTi Sandbox Project induction

• @Olivier Smith provided a presentation to the TAC detailing the CNTi Project

• Key Points:

  • CNTi aims to drive cloud-native transformations within telco networks.

  • The initiative focuses on creating a collaborative environment to explore and implement cloud-native technologies.

  • Highlighted the benefits of sandbox induction, such as increased visibility, access to shared resources, and fostering community engagement.

• Discussion:

  • @Ranny Haiby  Asked about the specific cloud-native technologies CNTi will prioritize and how they integrate with existing LFN projects.

  • @Olivier Smith  Responded that CNTi would focus on Kubernetes and other container orchestration tools, ensuring compatibility and integration with current LFN projects like ONAP and OPNFV.

  • @Frank Brockners  Inquired about the timeline and milestones for the CNTi induction and initial activities.

  • @Olivier Smith  Outlined a phased approach for induction, with the first phase focusing on community outreach and establishing a baseline architecture.

  • @Muddasar Ahmed  Raised a concern about resource allocation and support for CNTi given the existing commitments to other projects.

  • @Olivier Smith  Acknowledged the concern and emphasized leveraging shared resources and seeking additional community contributions to mitigate any strain on existing resources.

• Vote: 

  • Resolution:  The TAC hereby approves the CNTi as a Sandbox project of the LF Networking Umbrella

  • A motion was made by @Muddasar Ahmed and seconded by @Olaf Renner 

  • A vote was cast and with 8 approvals and 1 abstention, the resolution is hereby confirmed approved and adopted. 

Paraglider Candidate

• @LJ Illuzzi discussed the new Candidate Project, Paraglider.

• Key Points:

  • Paraglider aims to enhance edge computing capabilities, particularly in telco environments.

  • Discussed the initial scope, objectives, and potential milestones for the project.

  • Emphasized the collaborative opportunities with existing projects to enhance edge computing solutions.

• Discussion:

  • @Casey Cain and @LJ Illuzzi   Noted the immediate steps for onboarding and how the community can start contributing. Detailed the initial onboarding process, including setting up project repositories, defining contribution guidelines, and organizing introductory workshops.

  • @Muddasar Ahmed  Inquired about how Paraglider plans to integrate with ongoing projects and its roadmap for delivering tangible outcomes.

  • @LJ Illuzzi  Highlighted the integration strategies with other edge-focused projects and outlined the roadmap leading to the first major deliverables.

Lifecycle Documentation Updates

• @Casey Cain presented the updated Lifecycle documentation, emphasizing the need for clearer guidelines and streamlined processes in the project review lifecycle.

• Key Updates:

  • Revised criteria for project evaluation and progression through different stages (incubation, mature, and core projects).

  • More structured processes for onboarding new projects and supporting existing ones.

  • Detailed documentation on the roles and responsibilities of project maintainers and contributors.

• Discussion:

  • @Olaf Renner  Sought clarification on how the changes in evaluation criteria would affect current and future projects.

  • @Casey Cain  Explained that the new criteria are designed to provide more clarity and support, with minimal disruption to ongoing projects.

  • @Ranny Haiby  Asked about the implications for resource allocation and support, particularly for projects in the incubation phase.

  • @Casey Cain  Confirmed that resource allocation would be more aligned with project maturity stages, ensuring support is proportional to the project’s needs and growth potential.

• Vote:

  • The updated Lifecycle documentation was put to a vote.

  • Result: The documentation was unanimously approved by all attendees.