Thanks for your note Kenny. I'm happy to present the feedback I have collected from operators thus far, as well as go through the rationale and method for how I am collecting it. I've asked Kenny to see if he can find a slot for me to present this at the next, or a near-term TSC meeting.
Best, Phil. On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 3:52 PM Kenny Paul <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > <https://wiki.lfnetworking.org/download/attachments/2916362/LFN%20EUAG%20Charter%204-13-2018.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1523664238000&api=v2> > 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 > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.onap.org%2Fdisplay%2FDW%2FEUAG%2BSurvey&data=02%7C01%7Cramkik%40vmware.com%7C9a052dece7dc48aa22ed08d6287e810e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C1%7C0%7C636740921133499538&sdata=b5mHTCBeT8lgkib%2FJResdVkmPMPMfM7d41QJJnRPNJY%3D&reserved=0> > > > > Please feel free to use the comments section of the wiki page for any > suggestions for additions or modifications. > > > > Ranny. > > > > _. > > > -- Phil Robb VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation (O) 970-229-5949 (M) 970-420-4292 Skype: Phil.Robb -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#3817): https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-tsc/message/3817 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]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
