Re: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to open source - PLEASE VOTE

[gu...@certusnet.com.cn]

Agree with Greg,  single code base is better.

Regards
Gengliang Guo

From: Gregory Elkinbard
Date: 2017-09-27 02:42
To: Harshad Nakil; Jakub Pavlik
CC: dev
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to open source - PLEASE 
VOTE
While Juniper engineering may develop an occasional feature on down rev release 
branches to cash the fat check. They are fully committed to pushing it up to 
master respecting the community process. We are not about the kill the golden 
goose we are desperately trying to create. By the way down rev branches are 
pubic as well, no core code will be developed behind closed doors.
 
Greg
 
 
From: Dev <dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org> on behalf of Harshad Nakil 
<hna...@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 11:14 AM
To: Jakub Pavlik <jpav...@mirantis.com>
Cc: dev <dev@lists.opencontrail.org>
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to open source - PLEASE 
VOTE
 
Wouldn’t this be true of anybody who is serious developer in open contrail.  
Either they have need for a feature in their cloud or they are getting a fat 
check. For Speed of development they will have private fork.
 
However it is in their interest to sync with main branch, otherwise they lose 
the benefit of community.
 
So I would not be worried about it.
 
Regards
-Harshad
 
On Sep 26, 2017, at 7:44 AM, Jakub Pavlik <jpav...@mirantis.com> wrote:
 
+1 to Robert
 
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote:
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
Date: 2017-09-20 03:34
To: '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 propos

Re: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to open source - PLEASE VOTE

[CARVER, PAUL]

I agree. There may be certain cases where certain features are mutually 
exclusive. For example, desire for absolute highest possible packet throughput 
may be at odds with some feature that requires a large amount of processing per 
packet. However, even in that case, I think it will still be in everyone’s best 
interest to make it at least an install-time configurable option.

I don’t see the ARB’s function as deciding what features are “allowed” to be 
developed. The function is to provide guidance and coordination in order to 
allow contributors to cooperate without tripping each other up.

Anybody who absolutely needs to maintain a private fork in order to meet a due 
date for a feature with a lot of money behind it can do so, but it’s still 
going to be better for them to eventually integrate it upstream than to diverge 
permanently.

From: Dev [mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org] On Behalf Of Harshad Nakil
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 14:13
To: Jakub Pavlik <jpav...@mirantis.com>
Cc: dev <dev@lists.opencontrail.org>
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to open source - PLEASE 
VOTE

Wouldn’t this be true of anybody who is serious developer in open contrail.
Either they have need for a feature in their cloud or they are getting a fat 
check. For Speed of development they will have private fork.

However it is in their interest to sync with main branch, otherwise they lose 
the benefit of community.

So I would not be worried about it.

Regards
-Harshad

On Sep 26, 2017, at 7:44 AM, Jakub Pavlik 
<jpav...@mirantis.com<mailto:jpav...@mirantis.com>> wrote:

+1 to Robert

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Robert Raszuk 
<rob...@raszuk.net<mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>> wrote:
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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org>> 
on behalf of Harshad Nakil <hna...@gmail.com<mailto:hna...@gmail.com>>
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 7:49 PM
To: "Gasparakis, Joseph" 
<joseph.gaspara...@intel.com<mailto:joseph.gaspara...@intel.com>>
Cc: dev <dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:gu...@certusnet.com.cn>
Date: 9/23/17 03:17 (GMT-08:00)
To: "Gasparakis, Joseph" 
<joseph.gaspara...@intel.com<mailto:joseph.gaspara...@intel.com>>, dev 
<dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto:dev@lists.opencontrail.org>>
Subje

Re: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to open source - PLEASE VOTE

[Gregory Elkinbard]

I hope that we can manage avoiding openstack pitfalls and ARB will serve as a 
guide an a mentor on how to implement a feature as opposed to a roadblock.
Greg


From: Dev <dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org> on behalf of Robert Raszuk 
<rob...@raszuk.net>
Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM
To: Harshad Nakil <hna...@gmail.com>
Cc: dev <dev@lists.opencontrail.org>
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to open source - PLEASE 
VOTE

It is in their interest to sync, but don't forget that accepting such sync is 
subject to Archtecture Board decision now and if the gurus say "NO" poor guys 
are on their own 

Cheers,
R.

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Harshad Nakil 
<hna...@gmail.com<mailto:hna...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Wouldn’t this be true of anybody who is serious developer in open contrail.
Either they have need for a feature in their cloud or they are getting a fat 
check. For Speed of development they will have private fork.

However it is in their interest to sync with main branch, otherwise they lose 
the benefit of community.

So I would not be worried about it.

Regards
-Harshad

On Sep 26, 2017, at 7:44 AM, Jakub Pavlik 
<jpav...@mirantis.com<mailto:jpav...@mirantis.com>> wrote:

+1 to Robert

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Robert Raszuk 
<rob...@raszuk.net<mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>> wrote:
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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org>> 
on behalf of Harshad Nakil <hna...@gmail.com<mailto:hna...@gmail.com>>
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 7:49 PM
To: "Gasparakis, Joseph" 
<joseph.gaspara...@intel.com<mailto:joseph.gaspara...@intel.com>>
Cc: dev <dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:gu...@certusnet.com.cn>
Date: 9/23/17 03:17 (GMT-08:00)
To: "Gasparakis, Joseph" 
<joseph.gaspara...@intel.com<mailto:joseph.gaspara...@intel.com>>, dev 
<dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto: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<mailto:joseph.gaspara...@intel.com>
Date: 2017-09-20 03:34
To: 'dev@lists.opencontrail.org'<mailto:dev@lists.opencontrail.org>
Subject: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to op

Re: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to open source - PLEASE VOTE

[Gregory Elkinbard]

While Juniper engineering may develop an occasional feature on down rev release 
branches to cash the fat check. They are fully committed to pushing it up to 
master respecting the community process. We are not about the kill the golden 
goose we are desperately trying to create. By the way down rev branches are 
pubic as well, no core code will be developed behind closed doors.

Greg


From: Dev <dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org> on behalf of Harshad Nakil 
<hna...@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 11:14 AM
To: Jakub Pavlik <jpav...@mirantis.com>
Cc: dev <dev@lists.opencontrail.org>
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to open source - PLEASE 
VOTE

Wouldn’t this be true of anybody who is serious developer in open contrail.
Either they have need for a feature in their cloud or they are getting a fat 
check. For Speed of development they will have private fork.

However it is in their interest to sync with main branch, otherwise they lose 
the benefit of community.

So I would not be worried about it.

Regards
-Harshad

On Sep 26, 2017, at 7:44 AM, Jakub Pavlik 
<jpav...@mirantis.com<mailto:jpav...@mirantis.com>> wrote:

+1 to Robert

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Robert Raszuk 
<rob...@raszuk.net<mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>> wrote:
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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org>> 
on behalf of Harshad Nakil <hna...@gmail.com<mailto:hna...@gmail.com>>
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 7:49 PM
To: "Gasparakis, Joseph" 
<joseph.gaspara...@intel.com<mailto:joseph.gaspara...@intel.com>>
Cc: dev <dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:gu...@certusnet.com.cn>
Date: 9/23/17 03:17 (GMT-08:00)
To: "Gasparakis, Joseph" 
<joseph.gaspara...@intel.com<mailto:joseph.gaspara...@intel.com>>, dev 
<dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto: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<mailto:joseph.gaspara...@intel.com>
Date: 2017-09-20 03:34
To: 'dev@lists.opencontrail.org'<mailto: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 f

Re: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to open source - PLEASE VOTE

[Robert Raszuk]

It is in their interest to sync, but don't forget that accepting such sync
is subject to Archtecture Board decision now and if the gurus say "NO" poor
guys are on their own 

Cheers,
R.

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Harshad Nakil <hna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Wouldn’t this be true of anybody who is serious developer in open
> contrail.
> Either they have need for a feature in their cloud or they are getting a
> fat check. For Speed of development they will have private fork.
>
> However it is in their interest to sync with main branch, otherwise they
> lose the benefit of community.
>
> So I would not be worried about it.
>
> Regards
> -Harshad
>
> On Sep 26, 2017, at 7:44 AM, Jakub Pavlik <jpav...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>
> +1 to Robert
>
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote:
>
>> 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,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Josep

Re: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to open source - PLEASE VOTE

[Robert Raszuk]

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/1zNIVEOY3XsnUdYKy1ddwgjJoOV-
> Iwx1pHU_8ViYlTFs/edit
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1zNIVEOY3XsnUdYKy1ddwgjJoOV-2DIwx1pHU-5F8ViYlTFs_edit=DwMCaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=VQrMBvKeploIeBocya36pOwODBVDvmbjFqFgowqJuhs=9TFxAtQI_7jSQ2oa1xI7ets0wS_J49PN6d5qWwwVBn8=qvV9qp2w3N36Lg5uaVH2QzdUKHdJjOe0teYOjavDCgg=>)
> 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>

Re: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to open source - PLEASE VOTE

[Harshad Nakil]

All good comments. I wondered if you even tried to find a person for the job. 
Looks like you already zeroed in on architecture board and gave the choices 
accordingly.

Any way my 2 cents.

regards
-Harshad

> On Sep 25, 2017, at 10:51 AM, 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 
> <mailto: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 <mailto:gu...@certusnet.com.cn>
> Date: 9/23/17 03:17 (GMT-08:00) 
> To: "Gasparakis, Joseph" <joseph.gaspara...@intel.com 
> <mailto:joseph.gaspara...@intel.com>>, dev <dev@lists.opencontrail.org 
> <mailto: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 <mailto:joseph.gaspara...@intel.com>
> Date: 2017-09-20 03:34
> To: 'dev@lists.opencontrail.org' <mailto: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/1zNIVEOY3XsnUdYKy1ddwgjJoOV-Iwx1pHU_8ViYlTFs/edit
>  
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1zNIVEOY3XsnUdYKy1ddwgjJoOV-2DIwx1pHU-5F8ViYlTFs_edit=DwMCaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=VQrMBvKeploIeBocya36pOwODBVDvmbjFqFgowqJuhs=9TFxAtQI_7jSQ2oa1xI7ets0wS_J49PN6d5qWwwVBn8=qvV9qp2w3N36Lg5uaVH2QzdUKHdJjOe0teYOjavDCgg=>)
>  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>
>

Re: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to open source - PLEASE VOTE

[Gregory Elkinbard]

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<mailto: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<mailto:gu...@certusnet.com.cn>
Date: 9/23/17 03:17 (GMT-08:00)
To: "Gasparakis, Joseph" 
<joseph.gaspara...@intel.com<mailto:joseph.gaspara...@intel.com>>, dev 
<dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto: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<mailto:joseph.gaspara...@intel.com>
Date: 2017-09-20 03:34
To: 'dev@lists.opencontrail.org'<mailto: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/1zNIVEOY3XsnUdYKy1ddwgjJoOV-Iwx1pHU_8ViYlTFs/edit<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1zNIVEOY3XsnUdYKy1ddwgjJoOV-2DIwx1pHU-5F8ViYlTFs_edit=DwMCaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=VQrMBvKeploIeBocya36pOwODBVDvmbjFqFgowqJuhs=9TFxAtQI_7jSQ2oa1xI7ets0wS_J49PN6d5qWwwVBn8=qvV9qp2w3N36Lg5uaVH2QzdUKHdJjOe0teYOjavDCgg=>)
 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<mailto: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=DwMCaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=VQrMBvKeploIeBocya36pOwODBVDvmbjFqFgowqJuhs=9TFxAtQI_7jSQ2oa1xI7ets0wS_J49PN6d5qWwwVBn8=X9ai0GdDLCNzU4vd3-Fl3XRdqhUSYBPghyB_Abskb3Y=>
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org

Re: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to open source - PLEASE VOTE

[Gasparakis, Joseph]

Hi Harshad,

Although I agree with you that the Benevolent Dictator model works very well, 
it requires this Benevolent Dictator to be extremely knowledgeable with the 
code and architecture, and at the same time doing this job full time (in some 
cases more than just full time). We had this discussion in the 1st OpenContrail 
summit and it doesn’t seem like we have someone like that.

On the other hand, the designs (blueprints) are done by individuals or small 
teams of individuals. The ARB or TSC will be only reviewing those blueprints. 
Again, this has been discussed in the TSC WG calls which are public and open. 
At the 2nd Summit last week we agreed to move forward this way for the first 
open OpenContrail release and then we will adjust based on the learning.

Regards,

Joseph

From: Harshad Nakil [mailto:hna...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2017 7:49 PM
To: Gasparakis, Joseph <joseph.gaspara...@intel.com>
Cc: gu...@certusnet.com.cn; 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<mailto: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<mailto:gu...@certusnet.com.cn>
Date: 9/23/17 03:17 (GMT-08:00)
To: "Gasparakis, Joseph" 
<joseph.gaspara...@intel.com<mailto:joseph.gaspara...@intel.com>>, dev 
<dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto: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<mailto:joseph.gaspara...@intel.com>
Date: 2017-09-20 03:34
To: 'dev@lists.opencontrail.org'<mailto: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/1zNIVEOY3XsnUdYKy1ddwgjJoOV-Iwx1pHU_8ViYlTFs/edit)
 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<mailto: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

Re: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to open source - PLEASE VOTE

[Abhijit Gadgil]

#2

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Gasparakis, Joseph <
joseph.gaspara...@intel.com> wrote:

> 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/1zNIVEOY3XsnUdYKy1ddwgjJoOV-
> Iwx1pHU_8ViYlTFs/edit) 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
>
>
>
> --
>
> [image: intel-logo-small]
>
> 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
>
>
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org

Re: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to open source - PLEASE VOTE

[Edgar Magana]

Hello,


My support is for option #2

Thanks,

Edgar

From: Dev  on behalf of "Gasparakis, 
Joseph" 
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 12:34 PM
To: "'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/1zNIVEOY3XsnUdYKy1ddwgjJoOV-Iwx1pHU_8ViYlTFs/edit)
 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

--
[ntel-logo-small]
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

Re: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to open source - PLEASE VOTE

[Valentine Sinitsyn]

2

On 20.09.2017 00:34, Gasparakis, Joseph wrote:

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/1zNIVEOY3XsnUdYKy1ddwgjJoOV-Iwx1pHU_8ViYlTFs/edit) 
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

--

intel-logo-small

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



___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org

Re: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to open source - PLEASE VOTE

[Masood Ul Amin]

2

Masood Ul Amin
Practice Leader - Converged System, Innovation
Aricent
3979 Freedom Circle
Santa Clara CA 95054
Mobile +1 630 605 1459

From: Dev  on behalf of Gasparakis, Joseph 

Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 12:34:53 PM
To: '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/1zNIVEOY3XsnUdYKy1ddwgjJoOV-Iwx1pHU_8ViYlTFs/edit)
 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

--
[intel-logo-small]
Joseph Gasparakis
Intel Corporation
Networking Platforms Group
Architecture Division

"DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Aricent and is intended solely for 
the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged or 
confidential information and should not be circulated or used for any purpose 
other than for what it is intended. If you have received this message in error, 
please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended 
recipient, you are notified that you are strictly prohibited from using, 
copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this message. Aricent accepts 
no responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of the information 
transmitted by this email including damage from virus."
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org

Re: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to open source - PLEASE VOTE

[Edward Ting]

2

From: Dev [mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org] On Behalf Of Jakub Pavlik
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 12:43 PM
To: Gasparakis, Joseph
Cc: dev@lists.opencontrail.org
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to open source - PLEASE 
VOTE

2

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Gasparakis, Joseph 
<joseph.gaspara...@intel.com<mailto:joseph.gaspara...@intel.com>> wrote:
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/1zNIVEOY3XsnUdYKy1ddwgjJoOV-Iwx1pHU_8ViYlTFs/edit)
 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

--
[intel-logo-small]
Joseph Gasparakis
Intel Corporation
Networking Platforms Group
Architecture Division


___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto:Dev@lists.opencontrail.org>
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org



--
Jakub Pavlik
+420 602 177 027
jpav...@mirantis.com<mailto:jpav...@mirantis.com>
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org

Re: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to open source - PLEASE VOTE

[Jakub Pavlik]

2

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Gasparakis, Joseph <
joseph.gaspara...@intel.com> wrote:

> 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/1zNIVEOY3XsnUdYKy1ddwgjJoOV-
> Iwx1pHU_8ViYlTFs/edit) 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
>
>
>
> --
>
> [image: intel-logo-small]
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
Jakub Pavlik
+420 602 177 027
jpav...@mirantis.com
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org

Re: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to open source - PLEASE VOTE

[Foucault de Bonneval]

2




Le 19 sept. 2017 21:35, "Gasparakis, Joseph" 
a écrit :

> 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/1zNIVEOY3XsnUdYKy1ddwgjJoOV-
> Iwx1pHU_8ViYlTFs/edit) 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
>
>
>
> --
>
> [image: intel-logo-small]
>
> 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
>
>
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org