Hey Bin, Let me try to answer combining a bit both email threads. Thanks for replying by the way!
In line with the ROI statement, as you were saying: "we are setting a strategy based on potential addressable market and potential customer needs, and our expertise and strength", I am afraid that the different OPNFV product portfolio which you listed in the previous mail address different markets and needs. This, in my opinion, will result in not having a clear focus and thus still not increasing the ROI. I kind of agree with Georg and Ash that so far we have probably been working on too many areas (and maybe jumping onto the next new thing) and never finished any completely. AFAIK, that's what our stakeholders claim, right? Therefore, I am a bit afraid to jump onto the next new thing with the devops line of work and that's why I was asking whether you have some indications pointing to that market as an addressable one for OPNFV (we definitely have skills in that area!). My suggestion would be to focus on one thing which could result in 2 or 3 "products". After a few years, I wonder if our "original product" of OPNFV (the reference patform) is still interesting for anyone (specially stakeholders) and thus we should focus there. According to Georg and Ash's mail, it seems they have some indications that it is and we are not too late. Unfortunately, I can't really tell but I'll try to investigate a bit :). Regards, Manuel On Wed, 2018-11-21 at 21:34 +0000, HU, BIN wrote: > Hi Georg and Ash, > > Thank you very much for sharing your view and concern. > > First of all, please refer to the message I sent earlier that tried > to answer Manuel’s concerns. That message outlines the thought- > process and my view to address Manuel’s 3 concerns. > > Then back to your concern, i.e. integrated platform capability and > compliance toolset that we are having now. I am really sorry that if > there is a misunderstanding here. My view is that the offering (or > the delivered product) will be defined in Step 2 in detail (as a > Product Management function). My personal understanding is that what > we can offer is a portfolio instead of a single product. Our OPNFV > product portfolio may include: > DevOps solution as outlined in User Story on slide #12. > A packaged testing tool chain that can be offered standalone > An Integrated Platform Capabilities grown from our DevOps pipeline > (our original product) > A conformance testing solution of the integrated platform (our CVP / > Dovetail) > A LaaS infrastructure solution > Etc. > > Just like a cloud provider has a portfolio of products and services, > including fundamental IaaS, PaaS and SaaS solutions and services. So > it is a portfolio. > > Please note that I used the word “Product” to illustrate what we can > offer. It does not mean anything commercial. > > Hopefully I clarified it. Of course, we cannot do it all at one time. > so when we define product portfolio in Step 2, we also need to define > the roadmap and timeline in long term view. Once we have the > strategy, and then portfolio and roadmap, we will have a very good > story to market it and attract investment and resources back, and of > course the most important is to implement it with necessary > resources. > > Please let me know if you have more questions. > > Thank you > Bin > > From: Georg Kunz <georg.k...@ericsson.com> > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 9:04 AM > To: Ash Young <a...@cachengo.com>; HU, BIN <bh5...@att.com> > Cc: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org > Subject: RE: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan > > Hi Bin, Ash, all, > > I’d like to pick up Manuel’s question about the value that our > stakeholders would like to see and Ash’s point of building a > reference platform: I believe that both aspects point towards the > need for strengthening our compliance program – which is already > based on a broad base of great test tools. OVP does not yet consume > enough of the available tests for various reasons – having to admit > this as a former Dovetail PTL. But I also think that we can still > improve the capabilities of the OPNFV platform – by means of > integration and closing gaps upstream. This is a requirement for > adding additional tests covering NFV capabilities to the > corresponding test tools and then eventually to OVP. Additional NFV > capabilities we could think about include, for instance, L2GW, SR- > IOV, LBaaS, FWaaS – in addition to emerging use cases like edge > computing and cloud native computing, i.e., covering both OpenStack > and K8s-based deployments. > > So, in the context of the proposed DevOps approach, I am a little > concerned that we lose track of enabling platform capabilities which > are a requirement for the test tools and the compliance program. We > need to make sure that this does not get out of focus too much (in my > opinion). Specifically, if the main deliverable of OPNFV is an > integration and CI framework, who do we consider performs the > integration of components into a (reference) software stack: the > users of OPNFV (using the new toolchain) or still OPNFV itself, > leveraging the new toolchain? > > Best regards > Georg > > From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org <opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org> On Behalf > Of Ash Young > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 4:24 PM > To: HU, BIN <bh5...@att.com> > Cc: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org > Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan > > Hi Bin, > > When we first created OPNFV, we set out to resolve the gaps we needed > for the NFVI, which we saw as missing in the various open sourced > projects. It was focused on NFV, not upon being the best installer of > OpenStack or some other component that we said could be leveraged, > but which was still deemed as not meeting our needs. I don't feel we > ever completed this task before moving on to orchestration, because > it became the next shiny thing. But what are we orchestrating if > things are not instrumented to be orchestrated in a highly efficient > manner. Recently, I met with an operator who said that our SDN > controllers were simply too slow to meet their objectives. This > statement is not intended as a slam of any of the controller > projects. It's just meant as a point of reference that there's a need > to implement a feature that is consumable for the intended recipient. > > Your task and the task of the TSC is not an easy one. And I really > love how our CI/CD and DevOps folks have matured over these years. > But I think this cannot be the major mission for OPNFV. I think we > are still missing that E2E reference architecture and stack that be > easily leveraged. With that said, I do NOT propose we throw the baby > out with the bathwater. I'd like to propose a solution for attracting > more developers to our community and still develop features and > components that are missing, but which resolve the gaps identified > years ago. > > What we're doing is some really good stuff. But I would still like to > see a smaller group drive a tightly coupled framework that can be > easily leveraged by the consumers with a top level API, and which can > figure out how to best implement certain features/component projects > within OPNFV into this framework, and can also develop whatever new > features might be missing. > > At the end of the day, I have shortened my list of projects I am > participating in. I truly believe that OPNFV is very relevant and > needed, but struggles too much trying to be like other projects out > there. I'd love for us to get back to why we formed in the first > place. But whatever you and the other TSC members decide, I'll > support. We have already made provisions in our charter for what I am > asking for. But I do not wish to be the tail wagging the dog. I see > the need for these other things we're doing too. And I certainly see > the challenge that you're now wrestling with. I am looking forward to > an amazing year. > > Best, > > Ash > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 9:23 AM HU, BIN <bh5...@att.com> wrote: > > Hello community, > > > > Thank you for the input and discussion of OPNFV Strategy and Plan > > in the past 3 weeks, including in TSC discussion and Weekly > > Technical Discussions. > > > > One critical role of TSC is to set up the direction and vision. So > > please continue your input and discussion in the mailing list in > > order to further mature the vision and strategy for the future. We > > target for TSC to approve the strategy and vision next week Nov 27 > > as the 1st milestone, if we can mature the discussion. Then we can > > continue to work on next steps for details of deliverables that fit > > our resource availability and capability. > > > > Thank you and I am looking forward to more inputs and discussions. > > > > Bin > > > > From: HU, BIN > > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 10:16 PM > > To: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org > > Subject: Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan > > > > Hello community, > > > > At the 1st meeting of our new TSC today, we kicked off a discussion > > of OPNFV Strategic Plan. The outline of the OPNFV Strategic Plan > > includes: > > First 3 agenda items outline the current status of OPNFV (slide #3- > > #8), which is a Problem Statement > > Slide #7 is a summary of input from new TSC members. > > Then it talks about key objectives of evolving OPNFV (slide #10), > > focusing on > > Stakeholder-oriented business opportunity > > Technology excellence > > Community growth > > Slide #11-#13 talks about stakeholder-oriented business > > opportunity, including > > Why should we evolve to DevOps platform > > A user story > > OPNFV new strategy, including addressing key roadblocks of other > > communities including ONAP, OpenStack and Acumos > > Slide #14 talks about technology excellence, such as cloud-native > > and microservices, edge, and a long-term vision of cloud-services > > based toolchain > > Slide #15 talks about community growth > > Slide #16 talks about the next step to develop a detailed work plan > > > > We would like community involvement in discussing OPNFV strategic > > plan, and shaping OPNFV’s future. So we plan to discuss it in the > > Weekly Technical Discussion on Nov 8. > > > > Meanwhile, please feel free to give any feedback via email so that > > the discussion on Nov. 8 will be more effective and productive. > > > > Thank you and look forward to everyone’s involvement and feedback. > > > > Bin > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. > > > > View/Reply Online (#4834): https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv- > > tsc/message/4834 > > Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/27802341/675449 > > Group Owner: opnfv-tsc+ow...@lists.opnfv.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tsc/unsub > > [a...@cachengo.com] > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. > > View/Reply Online (#4845): https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv- > tsc/message/4845 > Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/27802341/675458 > Group Owner: opnfv-tsc+ow...@lists.opnfv.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tsc/unsubb [mbuil@suse. > com] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#22425): https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/22425 Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/28277855/21656 Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
