Greg, The moment marketing will bring a check with the money the feature will be implemented by Juniper and it will ship regardless who says what outside of that.
So you have only two choices here .. * Let Juniper marketing drive the features and keep single code base or * Split Open Contrail into two independent code branches one driven by Juniper and one pure open source which pretty soon will be incompatible with each other. Cheers, R. On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote: > Greg, > > > Can you think of a candidate who can dictate architecture both to > Juniper internal engineering and all other community participants? How’s > your spare time now-a-days? > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Gregory Elkinbard <gelkinb...@juniper.net > > wrote: > >> Harshad, >> while in general I agree. It is simply too hard to find such. Since Linus >> and Vish are not applying for the job I am afraid that an attempt to impose >> such as system, may lead to what I experienced while Nicira led Neutron. I >> would not call that benign. >> >> >> >> Do you remember Bill Jolitz by any chance? Then you understand my concern >> about handing the keys over. BSD386 kicked Linux ass when they both came >> out. Linux was just barely more functional then Minux, yet it put BSD386 >> into the ground in less than 1 year. Sun’s ARB worked ok for every Berkley >> ass on it, there was a kindly mentor who would help you understand what >> your code should be, creating a counter balance. >> >> >> >> If we find the right candidate we can reorganize the ARB around a chief >> architect with assistants to help carry the load. So far no volunteers >> internally from Juniper. Can you think of a candidate who can dictate >> architecture both to Juniper internal engineering and all other community >> participants? How’s your spare time now-a-days? >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Dev <dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org> on behalf of Harshad >> Nakil <hna...@gmail.com> >> *Date: *Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 7:49 PM >> *To: *"Gasparakis, Joseph" <joseph.gaspara...@intel.com> >> *Cc: *dev <dev@lists.opencontrail.org> >> >> *Subject: *Re: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to open source >> - PLEASE VOTE >> >> >> >> IMHO architecture board does not work and design by committee does not >> work. >> >> You really need a benevolent dictator. >> >> Regards >> >> -Harshad >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 24, 2017, at 7:34 PM, Gasparakis, Joseph < >> joseph.gaspara...@intel.com> wrote: >> >> Thank you all. Clearly option is the winner, and this is the direction >> we take moving forward, thank you all for your voting. Voting is now >> closed. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Joseph >> >> >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> >> From: gu...@certusnet.com.cn >> >> Date: 9/23/17 03:17 (GMT-08:00) >> >> To: "Gasparakis, Joseph" <joseph.gaspara...@intel.com>, dev < >> dev@lists.opencontrail.org> >> >> Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to open source - >> PLEASE VOTE >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> Support option #2. >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> Gengliang Guo >> >> >> >> *From:* Gasparakis, Joseph <joseph.gaspara...@intel.com> >> >> *Date:* 2017-09-20 03:34 >> >> *To:* 'dev@lists.opencontrail.org' <dev@lists.opencontrail.org> >> >> *Subject:* [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to open source - >> PLEASE VOTE >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> Transitioning into an open source model it makes sense for Juniper to >> have for the first public release more control than others since they have >> all the knowledge and it makes sense for them to be able to prevent radical >> architectural changes. >> >> >> >> In the last TSC WG call we came up with a few proposals: >> >> >> >> 1. Allow someone in Juniper have veto powers to reject a proposed >> change >> >> 2. Create an Architectural Review Board (ARB as defined in >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zNIVEOY3XsnUdYKy1ddwgjJo >> OV-Iwx1pHU_8ViYlTFs/edit >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1zNIVEOY3XsnUdYKy1ddwgjJoOV-2DIwx1pHU-5F8ViYlTFs_edit&d=DwMCaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=VQrMBvKeploIeBocya36pOwODBVDvmbjFqFgowqJuhs&m=9TFxAtQI_7jSQ2oa1xI7ets0wS_J49PN6d5qWwwVBn8&s=qvV9qp2w3N36Lg5uaVH2QzdUKHdJjOe0teYOjavDCgg&e=>) >> that will be reviewing in order to accept or reject architectural >> proposals, and Juniper to have the majority of the seats so they can >> control by the power of majority what goes in and what not. >> >> >> >> If we decide for 2, we can choose at a later stage if we will have an ARB >> ongoing or only for this first release. >> >> >> >> Please vote one of the two options and for the sake of openness and >> transparency REPLY ALL so your vote is visible to the whole list. If I >> receive any private votes I will be forwarding them to this list. >> >> >> >> Also please vote by end of day today as we would like to have this >> decision made during the summit tomorrow. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Joseph >> >> >> >> -- >> >> <image002(09-23-18-15-40).png> >> >> Joseph Gasparakis >> >> Intel Corporation >> >> Networking Platforms Group >> >> Architecture Division >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Dev mailing list >> Dev@lists.opencontrail.org >> http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.opencontrail.org_mailman_listinfo_dev-5Flists.opencontrail.org&d=DwMCaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=VQrMBvKeploIeBocya36pOwODBVDvmbjFqFgowqJuhs&m=9TFxAtQI_7jSQ2oa1xI7ets0wS_J49PN6d5qWwwVBn8&s=X9ai0GdDLCNzU4vd3-Fl3XRdqhUSYBPghyB_Abskb3Y&e=> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Dev mailing list >> Dev@lists.opencontrail.org >> http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@lists.opencontrail.org http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org
