Thanks for the work on this Ranny.  

The concern and effort that has gone into the survey are much appreciated. The 
fundamental questions regarding timely end-user input and requirements and an 
understanding of what we need to build are critically important to all of us.  
I'd like to try again to communicate what I had difficulty getting across on 
that TSC call a couple of weeks ago however.

 

The key concerns being raised by the community were already being discussed at 
the LFN Board level. I brought that up repeatedly.  Phil had previously 
circulated a survey with the Operators on the Board well before the community 
decided an ONAP survey to the operators was the thing to do.  The results of 
Phil's survey were reviewed with the Board last week at ONS and there are 
follow-ups in the works.  As many are aware, Phil has also been working 
diligently to address some of the gaps for input and strategy across all LFN 
Projects. This was also discussed at the Board meeting and a workgroup 
comprised of Board member operators and vendors was established to nail down 
that structure in short order. ONAP is the first target of the workgroup's 
attention.

 

Several people on the original TSC call pointed out there has not been any 
movement with the LFN-EUAG yet, which is both true and unfortunate. I am the PM 
responsible for the LFN-EUAG. The lack of progress falls directly on me. The 
ONAP community was expected to be in a far more self-operational state by now 
and I would be focusing some attention on the LFN-EUAG.  I am hopeful that 
progress on both fronts can be made shortly.

 

Getting back to what triggered the initial discussion was the Usecase 
subcommittee's concern that calls for operator input are going unanswered.  
From my point-of-view this is because no one is really signed up to provide it. 
 What folks are referring to as "The ONAP EUAG" were just a few folks 
hand-picked by the former Chair to provide input. This was done with the best 
of intentions, but it was completely informal. An EUAG was never formally 
established by the TSC.  There was there was no charter presented, there was no 
subcommittee proposal, there was no vote on setting up such a group.  From that 
perspective we can only be upset with ourselves if no formal input from "The 
EUAG" is coming in.

 

We can send this survey to the LFN-EUAG, but a review of its  Charter by the 
TSC is probably in order.  In addition, I'm sure you would all agree that the 
LFN-EUAG needs to be operational before we hit them up with a survey out of the 
blue. 

 

I am neither encouraging the community to, nor discouraging the community from 
setting up an ONAP specific EUAG if one is desired. If the TSC approves an 
operational charter for such a group and secures committed membership, any 
survey should probably be distributed by under the auspices of that structure.

 

…and before anyone mentions it, YES, I am keenly aware of the timing of input 
that is necessary for us to maintain our current release cadence for Dublin.  
There were two key themes that I kept hearing over and over at ONS; Stability 
and modularity, the latter almost always mentioned in the context of 
eliminating hard wired usecases which was a turn-off to many implementers.  
Perhaps that should be evaluated as a potential release theme. 

 

All of the things above are hard decisions TSC needs to assess in the context 
of time, content and quality of the next release. 

 

 

Thanks!

-kenny

 

 

From: <[email protected]> on behalf of ramki krishnan <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 9:01 AM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] EUAG Survey

 

Thanks Ranny, nice survey.

 

It may be worth adding another line as follows under  “Please choose which best 
describes your company’s strategic approach to ONAP”
We are committed to leverage some components of ONAP for our network service. 
We are currently making some progress towards this.
 

Thanks

Ramki

 

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Haiby, 
Ranny (Nokia - US/San Jose USA)
Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2018 8:48 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [onap-tsc] EUAG Survey

 

Hi,

Following a discussion on the TSC weekly call two weeks ago I started creating 
a survey that will be used to solicit EUAG input to ONAP.

With the help of several community members we now have a first draft of the 
survey available for review:

https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/EUAG+Survey

 

Please feel free to use the comments section of the wiki page for any 
suggestions for additions or modifications.

 

Ranny.

 

_.

 


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#3816): https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-tsc/message/3816
Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/26654273/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-tsc/leave/2743226/1412191262/xyzzy  
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Reply via email to