Meld Ops and Org 2020-11-05 Meeting notes

Date

Nov 5, 2020

Attendees

@Jim Baker @Heather Kirksey @Scot Steele @Beth Cohen @Al Morton @David McBride @Qiao Fu @Toshi Wakayama @Ulrich Kleber @Georg Kunz @Trevor Cooper @William DIEGO (Orange) @Jonne Soininen @Lincoln Lavoie @Ildiko @Sunku Ranganath (Deactivated) @Phil Robb @Tom Van Pelt (Deactivated)

Discussion items

Time	Item	Who

Time	Item	Who
10min	Interim TSC Election plans	@Scot Steele
20min	Release artifact discuss and agree	@Mark Beierl	Deferred for @Mark Beierl presence
10min	Business coordination function Scope and life span How to get involved	@Scot Steele	Follow up needed after defintion Nov 12, 2020
20min	Release process and naming same name for spec release and test release? Spec rel FOO has a RC release 6mo later also called FOO OR RC release FOO_1..FOO_n implement the Spec FOO	@Jim Baker @David McBride
10min	Role of Installers	@Trevor Cooper
10min	Conformance projects - what they deliver	@Trevor Cooper	Defer for Release Artifacts disussion
2min	Proposed Wiki Structure	@Jim Baker

Notes

Interim TSC plans

OPNFV providing 8 members from the seated TSC as selected by the active community members
CNTT will wait for completion of the OPNFV proposed interim TSC membership
- Look for equitable distribution of seats between operators and vendors for Anuket TSC
This is for a INTERIM TSC ONLY - not a permanent change

Business Coordination Function

Expect a short term function - up to two years. Can continue as needed.
Volunteer staffed - likely to be the same folks that are staffing the Anuket MeldMarketing
Focused on the initial project spin-up. Eventually absorbed by MAC function
@Trevor Cooper Please write down the scope and responsibility of this function
- CNTT equates Governance to Business Coordination
Notes from @Scot Steele
- Strategy, Participant interface; On-boarding, escalation point for complex, inter-related issues; Virtual Conference mgmt, other Admin tasks, Coordination with other projects, Recruitment

Release Process and Naming

Key problem statement: How do we use naming to unify the specification versions with subsequent releases of the RC?
@Georg Kunz Joint release planning between the spec developers and the RC developers could address this.
@Trevor Cooper It's dependency management.
- RC project does not equal the OVP program
  - RC develops test cases and tools to test RA requirements - unlikely to ever deliver 100% of the requirements - MUST be decoupling and independent projects
@Lincoln Lavoie RC is a work stream of individual projects - not a single entity
- Perhaps RC should handle the traceability and coverage mapping - by definition it will lag the specification version
- What is the stated goal of the lag?
- The specifications are a monotonically increasing list (moving target)
- RC may not always track the increase in feature sets
@David McBride propose decoupling of specification and RC releases
- Likewise use different naming to avoid assumptions of RC fulling implementing a specific RA version
@Lincoln Lavoie RA/RM release Q1 and Q3, RI/RC release on Q2 and Q4
- 4 releases per year: 2 spec focused and 2 test focused
- RC must provide 100% coverage of RI - for whatever features that are implemented in the RI
@Georg Kunz There will always be a gap/offset
@Heather Kirksey Could create a longer release process that just makes the spec a milestone in a longer release cycle.
@Al Morton Community is asking for more synchronized processes
- 3 month is not sufficient for developing response to the specifications - far shorter than prior OPNFV releases
- Possibly overlap the last 3 months of spec dev with first 3 months testing development
@David McBride Concern is development of specifications will outpace the development of tests
@Jim Baker FOCUS is first 3 months of 2021

Role of Installers

@Trevor Cooper Role of installers has been an issue in the history of OPNFV
- Proposed statement: Installers are NOT a part of a release. They are a tool to create an RI
- OPNFV Jerma has one installer: Airship - it is unclear that this installer meets all the needs of the community
@Georg Kunz Installers may be released as a part of "RI"
- How many installers and sets of components (RIs) does Anuket want to support?
  - Would prefer ONE RI to pool resources
@Trevor Cooper Airship project is a stand-alone tool - it doesn't deliver a RI
- RI is delivered as a cookbook or method for deploying the RI
@Georg Kunz Would like to use an RI in the internal testing process for commercial xNFs
@Trevor Cooper Propose deferring the decision to the Release Artifacts discussion
@Al Morton There are many ways to end up with a RI as defined by the RA and validated as correct by RC