Re: [onap-tsc] REMINDER - Re: Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

[Christopher Donley (Chris)]

I’m happy to help, but I’ll be traveling internationally starting Wednesday, so 
my participation will be limited after tomorrow.

I would like to make sure we differentiate between eligibility for 
participation and eligibility for voting.  For participation, I agree with Bob. 
As a general rule, I think the more open we can be, the better.  There will be 
exceptions (e.g. vulnerability committee) where it makes sense to have a 
constrained and tightly defined membership, but those should be relatively rare.

For voting in elections, given the challenges we’re facing here, perhaps we can 
borrow from OPNFV:

1.  As Lingli mentioned, eligibility for voting should be determined at the 
time the election is called

2.  Perhaps we could place a limit of one vote per company (to be 
determined by the committee members from that company prior to commencement of 
the vote).
For other issues, I’d like to draw attention to Section 5.4.2:
Subcommittees are advisory in nature, and not authoritative. They provide 
advice to projects and to the
TSC.
Subcommittees operate on a rough consensus basis. If the subcommittee is unable 
to reach consensus
on what advice to offer, the subcommittee Chair shall raise the issue with the 
TSC, where a formal vote
can be taken, or advise the project that the subcommittee cannot reach 
consensus.

In other words, aside from electing the Chairperson, there shouldn’t be any 
formal voting.

I wonder if we could resolve the issue with a small change to section 5.4.1:
Each subcommittee shall determine its own membership eligibility, in 
consultation with the TSC. It is
expected that subcommittee membership shall be open to all ONAP Contributors; 
however,
subcommittees may impose restrictions such as the number of participants from a 
single company.
While the desire may be to keep its size and scope limited, each subcommittee 
shall be open to the
ONAP membership. In particular, a Platinum member has the right to appoint its 
TSC representative or
a designate to such a subcommittee. Also, all elected TSC members are eligible 
to join a subcommittee.

Each subcommittee may elect a Chair who is responsible for leading meetings and 
representing the
subcommittee to the TSC. Only people listed on the committee’s membership list 
at the time the election is called shall be eligible to vote in the election.  
No company
shall have more than one vote.  In the event that more than one committee 
member is affiliated with a single company, the committee members from that 
company shall decide amongst themselves who is eligible to vote in the 
election, and shall notify LF prior to the start of the election.

Chris

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] 
On Behalf Of GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 2:57 PM
To: onap-tsc
Subject: [onap-tsc] REMINDER - Re: Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee 
Chair Election

Team
I have received only one volunteer to review and make proposed changes to the 
Charter.
If you would like to contribute or participate then let me know today.

thanks
mazin



On Jul 9, 2017, at 5:58 PM, GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E) 
> wrote:

ONAP Community,

Thank you for the healthy dialog, and thanks to Phil for outlining the key 
issues.
I raised this issue to the Linux Foundation two weeks back as the 
irregularities that led to Phil’s email
is not healthy in growing our community. Although these irregularities are not 
intentional, they are an indication of a lack of clear policies
and guidelines. Addressing those will be the responsibility of the TSC. I will 
set up a small subcommittee that will propose modifications
to the charter.  If you were part of the charter subcommittee and would like to 
participate then LMK by Monday.

Phil, Kenny,
Please set up an hour later this week for the TSC to propose and vote on those 
changes with respect to the election
of PTLs and subcommittee chairs, as well as the number and diversity of 
committers per project.

While the TSC will provide additional more rigid language in the Charter, I 
urge everyone to work together as a team to make
our first release a big success.

Mazin


On Jul 5, 2017, at 5:44 PM, Phil Robb 
> wrote:

Hello ONAP TSC:

The Use Case Subcommittee Chairperson election has just recently completed.  
However, there have been several irregularities/inconsistencies in the 
implementation of this election that warrants your attention.  In particular:

1) Inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case Subcommittee during the 
election time-frame.
There are no guidelines in the TSC Charter, nor in the call for 
nominations/election for this vote, indicating if individuals can add 
themselves to the Use Case Subcommittee during the Chairperson voting, and be 
allowed to vote.
a) 64 individuals were members of the Use Case 

Re: [onap-tsc] July Virtual Developers Meeting Poll

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Thanks Kenny.

ONAP community,
Please cast your vote. We will announce this in our TSC meeting on Thursday.
Mazin

On Jul 10, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Kenny Paul 
> wrote:

All,

This is a bit of an unwieldy doodle pool, but it is the best compromise between 
for multiple days/times I could come up with given the tradeoff between 
functionality and practicality.


Please select the one of the three day options under DAYS

-and-

The 4 hour time you would prefer daily. All three days will begin and end at 
the same time.

https://doodle.com/poll/38ca2yt66294mwmy

Thanks!


Best Regards,
-kenny

Kenny Paul,  Technical Program Manager
kp...@linuxfoundation.org
510.766.5945

___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.onap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Dtsc=DwICAg=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ=n1ksc3vmAcJyawJH0JEz_umKqa9XqJXyijKbCiGCYc8=YtIgcFtglQUV6hVQuFvTBJu3la2dhkHXCHGapJJeZBk=

___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc

Re: [onap-tsc] [Onap-usecasesub] Use case subcommittee - agenda for the upcoming meeting this Monday

[Ievgen Zhukov]

Hi, Alla

Can we put into Agenda SD-WAN and SD-LAN for Release 2?
This Use Cases will be able to demonstrate ONAP Orchestration capability for 
VNFs hosted on CPE device (SD-WAN Case) and beyond it (SD-LAN Case).

And, if meeting time will be enough, can we take MEC Use Case for consideration?
This Use Case might have significant impact for Architecture and other Use 
Cases.

Thank you,
---

Evgeniy Zhukov, Business Analysis
Netcracker Technology

+38 (044) 238-8727 | ext. 26927| office
+38 (093) 210-4266 | mobile

We are Netcracker, and we are focused forward



[https://www.netcracker.com/assets/img/netcracker-social-final.png] ƕ
From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Alla Goldner
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 9:37 AM
To: onap-usecase...@lists.onap.org
Cc: onap-disc...@lists.onap.org; onap-tsc 
>
Subject: [onap-tsc] Use case subcommittee - agenda for the upcoming meeting 
this Monday

Hi all,

Here is agenda for the upcoming meeting.
In case of any additional topics, or concrete use cases proposals for 
discussion, I kindly ask to let me know in advance, so meeting’s time can be 
managed accordingly.



  1.  Review of suggested Use case subcommittee flow of operation as documented 
here https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Usecase+subcommittee , “Use case 
subcommittee flow”
  2.  R1 use cases (vCPE and vVoLTE): Status, Open issues, required actions
  3.  R2 use cases: the initial proposals
 *   Network Function Change Management?
 *   Enterprise vCPE?
 *   More?
  4.  AOB




Note: The previous meeting minutes can be found under 
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Usecase+Subcommittee+Meeting+Minutes

Best regards,

Alla Goldner

Open Network Division
Amdocs Technology


[cid:image001.png@01D2F9BE.88D26D00]

This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and 
confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement,
you may review at https://www.amdocs.com/about/email-disclaimer
This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and 
confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement,
you may review at https://www.amdocs.com/about/email-disclaimer




The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to 
which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary and/or 
privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, 
or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or 
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this 
in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc

[onap-tsc] Updated Invitation: ONAP Architecture Subcommittee Weekly Meeting @ Weekly from 8am to 9am on Tuesday from Tue Jun 13 to Mon Jul 10 (PDT) (onap-tsc@lists.onap.org)

[kpaul]

BEGIN:VCALENDAR
PRODID:-//Google Inc//Google Calendar 70.9054//EN
VERSION:2.0
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:REQUEST
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/Los_Angeles
X-LIC-LOCATION:America/Los_Angeles
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0800
TZOFFSETTO:-0700
TZNAME:PDT
DTSTART:19700308T02
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=3;BYDAY=2SU
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0700
TZOFFSETTO:-0800
TZNAME:PST
DTSTART:19701101T02
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=11;BYDAY=1SU
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20170613T08
DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20170613T09
RRULE:FREQ=WEEKLY;UNTIL=20170711T065959Z;BYDAY=TU
DTSTAMP:20170710T181848Z
ORGANIZER;CN=ONAP Meetings and Events:mailto:linuxfoundation.org_1rmtb5tpr3
 uc8f76fmflplo...@group.calendar.google.com
UID:tm824uctkjs1p44hqmk4s2k...@google.com
ATTENDEE;CUTYPE=INDIVIDUAL;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=ACCEPTED;RSVP=TRUE
 ;CN=onap-...@lists.onap.org;X-NUM-GUESTS=0:mailto:onap-...@lists.onap.org
ATTENDEE;CUTYPE=INDIVIDUAL;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=DECLINED;RSVP=TRUE
 ;CN=onap-tsc@lists.onap.org;X-NUM-GUESTS=0:mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org
ATTENDEE;CUTYPE=INDIVIDUAL;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=
 TRUE;CN=christopher.don...@huawei.com;X-NUM-GUESTS=0:mailto:christopher.don
 l...@huawei.com
ATTENDEE;CUTYPE=INDIVIDUAL;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=ACCEPTED;RSVP=TRUE
 ;CN=mc...@linuxfoundation.org;X-NUM-GUESTS=0:mailto:mcohn@linuxfoundation.o
 rg
CLASS:PUBLIC
CREATED:20170602T005030Z
DESCRIPTION:Hi there\, \n\nONAP Meeting 4 is inviting you to a scheduled Zo
 om meeting. \n\nJoin from PC\, Mac\, Linux\, iOS or Android: https://zoom.u
 s/j/917511391\n\nOr iPhone one-tap (US Toll):  +16465588656\,917511391# or 
 +14086380968\,917511391#\n\nOr Telephone:\nDial: +1 646 558 8656 (US To
 ll) or +1 408 638 0968 (US Toll)\nMeeting ID: 917 511 391\nInternat
 ional numbers available: https://zoom.us/zoomconference?m=RldTp0lAcFewk1ZIK
 tbiUPlr_puNua4X\n\n\nView your event at https://www.google.com/calendar/eve
 nt?action=VIEW=dG04MjR1Y3RranMxcDQ0aHFtazRzMmt0cWMgb25hcC10c2NAbGlzdHMu
 b25hcC5vcmc=NzIjbGludXhmb3VuZGF0aW9uLm9yZ18xcm10YjV0cHIzdWM4Zjc2Zm1mbHB
 sb2k4OEBncm91cC5jYWxlbmRhci5nb29nbGUuY29tOTIwM2NiNTNkYTlmZWI4NWJhNmY0Njk2Mj
 RjZjZhOTdiOWY0ZThmMw=America/Los_Angeles=en.
LAST-MODIFIED:20170710T181848Z
LOCATION:https://zoom.us/j/917511391
SEQUENCE:1
STATUS:CONFIRMED
SUMMARY:ONAP Architecture Subcommittee Weekly Meeting
TRANSP:TRANSPARENT
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR


invite.ics
Description: application/ics
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc

[onap-tsc] July Virtual Developers Meeting Poll

[Kenny Paul]

All,

This is a bit of an unwieldy doodle pool, but it is the best compromise between 
for multiple days/times I could come up with given the tradeoff between 
functionality and practicality. 


Please select the one of the three day options under DAYS

-and-

The 4 hour time you would prefer daily. All three days will begin and end at 
the same time.

https://doodle.com/poll/38ca2yt66294mwmy

Thanks!


Best Regards, 
-kenny

Kenny Paul,  Technical Program Manager
kp...@linuxfoundation.org
510.766.5945

___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc

Re: [onap-tsc] [onap-discuss] Use case subcommittee - agenda for the upcoming meeting this Monday

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Lingli and team

Can we please focus on the R1 use cases and ensure that we have solid flows for 
the use cases against the integrated architecture.
This needs to be communicated with the PTLs this week.

thanks
mazin


On Jul 10, 2017, at 5:51 AM, Lingli Deng 
> wrote:

Hi Alla,

Thanks for the clarifications.
If the focus is not R1 specific and not urgent, I suppose we could keep it 
bi-weekly for now.

Thanks,
Lingli

From: Alla Goldner [mailto:alla.gold...@amdocs.com]
Sent: 2017年7月10日 15:54
To: Lingli Deng 
>; 'BEGWANI, 
VIMAL' >; 
onap-usecase...@lists.onap.org
Cc: onap-disc...@lists.onap.org; 'onap-tsc' 
>
Subject: RE: [onap-tsc] Use case subcommittee - agenda for the upcoming meeting 
this Monday

Hi Lingli,

Thanks a lot for your feedback.
I fully agree with you that R1 discussions should be prioritized.
You can see that this item (R1 use cases (vCPE and vVoLTE): Status, Open 
issues, required actions) appears before the R2 use cases discussions.
However, we should limit this discussion to Status, Open issues and required 
actions, as mentioned, during Use case subcommittee meeting, for the following 
reasons:


  1.  As agreed for R1 (there were quite a few discussions and emails shared by 
a different people in this regard), we have R1 expedited process, by which, 
upon use cases approval, responsibility on use cases coordination moved to 
Integration project. This results in a different meetings between use cases 
leaders and the respective involved projects. BTW, the feedback I am getting so 
far as that this work has been very productive, for both approved use cases.



  1.  In order to analyse different projects dependencies and affected 
functionalities, technical issues should be discussed with people working on a 
different projects. The reason is that projects’ expertise is within a project, 
not within Use case subcommittee. We can’t force all projects’ ALL 
representatives to attend Use case subcommittee, while, only if all people 
working on specific project participate in discussion, we can have full 
functional coverage and appropriate split of responsibilities.



  1.  We do need start talking about R2 use cases, in order to have our 
proposal ready for TSC review in advance before R2 starts, in order to align 
correctly and on time with R2  goals.


2 weeks ago I raised question on whether we should move to weekly use case 
subcommittee meetings. No response was received. I will raise it again today 
during the meeting, as, in my understanding, such a move is needed in order to 
allow a comprehensive coverage.

Best regards,

Alla Goldner

Open Network Division
Amdocs Technology




From: Lingli Deng [mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com]
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 9:41 AM
To: Alla Goldner >; 
'BEGWANI, VIMAL' >; 
onap-usecase...@lists.onap.org
Cc: onap-disc...@lists.onap.org; 'onap-tsc' 
>
Subject: RE: [onap-tsc] Use case subcommittee - agenda for the upcoming meeting 
this Monday

Hi Alla,

I wonder if we should prioritize the R1 usecase discussion in this time slot.

Currently, there are ad hoc meetings arranged respectively for VoLTE and CPE 
usecases, which makes people rather frustrating and not efficient because it is 
really hard to allocate a common time slot for cross project discussion, which 
I believe would be improved much if we host such discussion in this 
subcommittee, which to my understanding is the top priority.

Thanks,
Lingli

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Alla Goldner
Sent: 2017年7月8日 0:59
To: BEGWANI, VIMAL >; 
onap-usecase...@lists.onap.org
Cc: onap-disc...@lists.onap.org; onap-tsc 
>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Use case subcommittee - agenda for the upcoming meeting 
this Monday

Hi, Vimal,

Yes, of course, happy to do that.

Here is the updated agenda:


  1.  Review of suggested Use case subcommittee flow of operation as documented 
here 
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Usecase+subcommittee
 , “Use case subcommittee flow”
  2.  R1 use cases 

[onap-tsc] Call for volunteer to external standard coordination

[denghui (L)]

Hello all

I have created a page for external standard coordination, if you have resource 
to attend both ONAP and standard, and expertise in this area, please kindly 
help to volunteer
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/External+Standard+Coordination

thanks a lot for your help
Best regards,

DENG Hui
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc

Re: [onap-tsc] 答复: Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

[denghui (L)]

Current statement from LF hurts Lingli since she won only 5 votes, people will 
suspect she drove those illegal 5 votes.
Opening up that 5 illegal vote will give innocence to not only Lingli but also 
for those who didn’t ask for exceptional vote.

I also expect this open source community could do something transparent to 
protect the weak.

Thanks

DENG Hui

发件人: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] 代表 Lingli Deng
发送时间: 2017年7月10日 7:58
收件人: 'Phil Robb'; 'Ed Warnicke'
抄送: 'onap-tsc'
主题: Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

Phil and all,

I also agree that it is important to make up for the loopholes in the TSC 
charter, but I think the correction of irregularities is the key to building a 
truly trusting environment. Without this basic openness and fairness, the 
prosperity and success of the open source community is at high risk.

Since when the voting is initiated, it was made clear that the vote would be 
carried out with reference to a specific version of membership. And hence all 
the new members, which China Mobile added later, did not ask to vote, but 
planned to participate in subsequent discussions. I strongly urge the LF to 
clarify the voting results, remove five votes that did not meet the clearly 
stated qualifications in the voting initiation email therefore gained unfair 
advantage to those who obeyed the regulations, and make the necessary public 
warning to the subject (individual or company).

Firstly, it is normal and healthy that there must be different opinions in any 
open organization composed of many members. Therefore, it is necessary to agree 
as far as possible on clear and unambiguous rules to specify how to reach 
consensus when the dispute arises, including the formation of the rule itself, 
the election of officials, the resolution on a specific topic, and so on.
Second, one has to admit that any pre-established rules or statutes are not 
likely to enumerate all the possible situations in a complete reality. In other 
words, there is always a gray area where the rule cannot be covered. It is also 
a normal and inevitable phenomenon that someone has taken advantage of these 
loopholes or gray areas. When it is found that such a situation has occurred 
and that it should be stopped in the future, it is necessary but not sufficient 
to prevent the recurrence of such a phenomenon by simply amending the rule to 
make up for deficiencies in the rules.

Third, the respect for the rule itself and the faithful implementation of the 
resolution of a group formed by a process that is in accordance with the rules 
are the premises of any rule. In an organization that is composed of complex 
members, it is essential that its members, especially its leadership, in the 
process of practice, show respect the existing rules rather than disrupt the 
implementation of the rules. Especially if unacceptable violations to existing 
rules/agreement happens, if no correction is made, but blindly blame and amend 
the rule itself, even if they have the perfect rules in theory (that covers 
every situation in reality), these rules will be useless.

Fourth, In the handling of this specific case, the core of the problem cannot 
be solved and the undesirable behavior will be undoubtedly happening again, if 
we only focus on the amendments to the TSC Charter, rather than emphasizing and 
establishing the spirit of the community to really respect and defend TSC 
Charter. Who will respect and implement the rules/agreement, if the violation 
of the rules will not be subject to any necessary warning, and once there is a 
problem, in any case can modify the existing rules at any time?

Therefore, it is my firm belief that the correction of irregularities is the 
key to truly building a trust environment. Without this basic openness and 
fairness, the prosperity and success of the open source community will be at 
high risk. With this incident, I am personally involved and deeply troubled. As 
a candidate, I am under no obligation to accept unwarranted suspicion. I 
believe that all members who were voting in accordance with the rules regularly 
have the right to call for rectification of their own respect for the rules.

Therefore, I strongly call for resolute redress of those violations of the 
rules and the necessary public warnings of such behavior. We need more 
transparency and fairness in this community.
Thanks,
Lingli


From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Phil Robb
Sent: 2017年7月7日 23:47
To: Ed Warnicke >
Cc: onap-tsc >
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair 
Election

Hi Ed and Bob:

Given that the Subcommittees we are talking about are technical subcommittees 

Re: [onap-tsc] Use case subcommittee - agenda for the upcoming meeting this Monday

[Lingli Deng]

Hi Alla,

 

Thanks for the clarifications.

If the focus is not R1 specific and not urgent, I suppose we could keep it
bi-weekly for now.

 

Thanks,

Lingli

 

From: Alla Goldner [mailto:alla.gold...@amdocs.com] 
Sent: 2017年7月10日 15:54
To: Lingli Deng ; 'BEGWANI, VIMAL'
; onap-usecase...@lists.onap.org
Cc: onap-disc...@lists.onap.org; 'onap-tsc' 
Subject: RE: [onap-tsc] Use case subcommittee - agenda for the upcoming
meeting this Monday

 

Hi Lingli,

 

Thanks a lot for your feedback.

I fully agree with you that R1 discussions should be prioritized. 

You can see that this item (R1 use cases (vCPE and vVoLTE): Status, Open
issues, required actions) appears before the R2 use cases discussions. 

However, we should limit this discussion to Status, Open issues and required
actions, as mentioned, during Use case subcommittee meeting, for the
following reasons:

 

1.  As agreed for R1 (there were quite a few discussions and emails
shared by a different people in this regard), we have R1 expedited process,
by which, upon use cases approval, responsibility on use cases coordination
moved to Integration project. This results in a different meetings between
use cases leaders and the respective involved projects. BTW, the feedback I
am getting so far as that this work has been very productive, for both
approved use cases.

 

2.  In order to analyse different projects dependencies and affected
functionalities, technical issues should be discussed with people working on
a different projects. The reason is that projects’ expertise is within a
project, not within Use case subcommittee. We can’t force all projects’
ALL representatives to attend Use case subcommittee, while, only if all
people working on specific project participate in discussion, we can have
full functional coverage and appropriate split of responsibilities. 

 

3.  We do need start talking about R2 use cases, in order to have our
proposal ready for TSC review in advance before R2 starts, in order to align
correctly and on time with R2  goals.

 

2 weeks ago I raised question on whether we should move to weekly use case
subcommittee meetings. No response was received. I will raise it again today
during the meeting, as, in my understanding, such a move is needed in order
to allow a comprehensive coverage.

 

Best regards, 

 

Alla Goldner

 

Open Network Division 

Amdocs Technology

 

 



 

From: Lingli Deng [mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 9:41 AM
To: Alla Goldner 
>; 'BEGWANI, VIMAL'  >;
onap-usecase...@lists.onap.org  
Cc: onap-disc...@lists.onap.org  ;
'onap-tsc'  >
Subject: RE: [onap-tsc] Use case subcommittee - agenda for the upcoming
meeting this Monday

 

Hi Alla,

 

I wonder if we should prioritize the R1 usecase discussion in this time
slot.

 

Currently, there are ad hoc meetings arranged respectively for VoLTE and CPE
usecases, which makes people rather frustrating and not efficient because it
is really hard to allocate a common time slot for cross project discussion,
which I believe would be improved much if we host such discussion in this
subcommittee, which to my understanding is the top priority.

 

Thanks,

Lingli

 

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org

[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Alla Goldner
Sent: 2017年7月8日 0:59
To: BEGWANI, VIMAL  >;
onap-usecase...@lists.onap.org  
Cc: onap-disc...@lists.onap.org  ;
onap-tsc  >
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Use case subcommittee - agenda for the upcoming
meeting this Monday

 

Hi, Vimal,

 

Yes, of course, happy to do that.

 

Here is the updated agenda:

 

1.  Review of suggested Use case subcommittee flow of operation as
documented here https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Usecase+subcommittee
  , “Use case subcommittee flow”
2.  R1 use cases (vCPE and vVoLTE): Status, Open issues, required
actions
3.  R2 use cases: the initial proposals 

a.  Network Function Change Management?
b.  Enterprise vCPE?
c.  5G

   i.  RAN
deployment

 ii.  E2E
Network Slicing

d.  More?

3.  AOB

 

 

Best regards, 

 

Alla Goldner

 

Re: [onap-tsc] Use case subcommittee - agenda for the upcoming meeting this Monday

[Alla Goldner]

Hi Lingli,

Thanks a lot for your feedback.
I fully agree with you that R1 discussions should be prioritized.
You can see that this item (R1 use cases (vCPE and vVoLTE): Status, Open 
issues, required actions) appears before the R2 use cases discussions.
However, we should limit this discussion to Status, Open issues and required 
actions, as mentioned, during Use case subcommittee meeting, for the following 
reasons:


1.   As agreed for R1 (there were quite a few discussions and emails shared 
by a different people in this regard), we have R1 expedited process, by which, 
upon use cases approval, responsibility on use cases coordination moved to 
Integration project. This results in a different meetings between use cases 
leaders and the respective involved projects. BTW, the feedback I am getting so 
far as that this work has been very productive, for both approved use cases.



2.   In order to analyse different projects dependencies and affected 
functionalities, technical issues should be discussed with people working on a 
different projects. The reason is that projects’ expertise is within a project, 
not within Use case subcommittee. We can’t force all projects’ ALL 
representatives to attend Use case subcommittee, while, only if all people 
working on specific project participate in discussion, we can have full 
functional coverage and appropriate split of responsibilities.



3.   We do need start talking about R2 use cases, in order to have our 
proposal ready for TSC review in advance before R2 starts, in order to align 
correctly and on time with R2  goals.


2 weeks ago I raised question on whether we should move to weekly use case 
subcommittee meetings. No response was received. I will raise it again today 
during the meeting, as, in my understanding, such a move is needed in order to 
allow a comprehensive coverage.

Best regards,

Alla Goldner

Open Network Division
Amdocs Technology


[cid:image001.png@01D2F96A.D2752D70]

From: Lingli Deng [mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com]
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 9:41 AM
To: Alla Goldner ; 'BEGWANI, VIMAL' ; 
onap-usecase...@lists.onap.org
Cc: onap-disc...@lists.onap.org; 'onap-tsc' 
Subject: RE: [onap-tsc] Use case subcommittee - agenda for the upcoming meeting 
this Monday

Hi Alla,

I wonder if we should prioritize the R1 usecase discussion in this time slot.

Currently, there are ad hoc meetings arranged respectively for VoLTE and CPE 
usecases, which makes people rather frustrating and not efficient because it is 
really hard to allocate a common time slot for cross project discussion, which 
I believe would be improved much if we host such discussion in this 
subcommittee, which to my understanding is the top priority.

Thanks,
Lingli

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Alla Goldner
Sent: 2017年7月8日 0:59
To: BEGWANI, VIMAL >; 
onap-usecase...@lists.onap.org
Cc: onap-disc...@lists.onap.org; onap-tsc 
>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Use case subcommittee - agenda for the upcoming meeting 
this Monday

Hi, Vimal,

Yes, of course, happy to do that.

Here is the updated agenda:


  1.  Review of suggested Use case subcommittee flow of operation as documented 
here 
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Usecase+subcommittee
 , “Use case subcommittee flow”
  2.  R1 use cases (vCPE and vVoLTE): Status, Open issues, required actions
  3.  R2 use cases: the initial proposals
 *   Network Function Change Management?
 *   Enterprise vCPE?
 *   5G
   i.  RAN 
deployment
 ii.  E2E 
Network Slicing

 *   More?
  1.  AOB


Best regards,

Alla Goldner

Open Network Division
Amdocs Technology


[cid:image001.png@01D2F989.346CD870]

From: BEGWANI, VIMAL [mailto:vb1...@att.com]
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 7:53 PM
To: Alla Goldner >; 
onap-usecase...@lists.onap.org
Cc: onap-disc...@lists.onap.org; onap-tsc 
>
Subject: RE: [onap-tsc] Use case subcommittee - agenda for the upcoming meeting 
this Monday

Alla,
  We are still in an initial discussion, but I would like to add 5G RAN 
deployment and E2E Network Slicing support for 5G network.  Can we add it as a 
place holder?

Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

[Stephen Terrill]

Hi Mazin, Phil, All,

Please do allow at least 2 days between publication of the proposal and voting, 
I think we discussed this before.

BR,

Steve

Sent from my tablet, please forgive typos. 

> On 9 Jul 2017, at 23:58, GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)  
> wrote:
> 
> ONAP Community, 
> 
> Thank you for the healthy dialog, and thanks to Phil for outlining the key 
> issues. 
> I raised this issue to the Linux Foundation two weeks back as the 
> irregularities that led to Phil’s email
> is not healthy in growing our community. Although these irregularities are 
> not intentional, they are an indication of a lack of clear policies
> and guidelines. Addressing those will be the responsibility of the TSC. I 
> will set up a small subcommittee that will propose modifications 
> to the charter.  If you were part of the charter subcommittee and would like 
> to participate then LMK by Monday.
> 
> Phil, Kenny, 
> Please set up an hour later this week for the TSC to propose and vote on 
> those changes with respect to the election
> of PTLs and subcommittee chairs, as well as the number and diversity of 
> committers per project. 
> 
> While the TSC will provide additional more rigid language in the Charter, I 
> urge everyone to work together as a team to make
> our first release a big success.
> 
> Mazin
> 
> 
>> On Jul 5, 2017, at 5:44 PM, Phil Robb  wrote:
>> 
>> Hello ONAP TSC:
>> 
>> The Use Case Subcommittee Chairperson election has just recently completed.  
>> However, there have been several irregularities/inconsistencies in the 
>> implementation of this election that warrants your attention.  In particular:
>> 
>> 1) Inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case Subcommittee during 
>> the election time-frame.
>> There are no guidelines in the TSC Charter, nor in the call for 
>> nominations/election for this vote, indicating if individuals can add 
>> themselves to the Use Case Subcommittee during the Chairperson voting, and 
>> be allowed to vote.
>> a) 64 individuals were members of the Use Case Subcommittee when the voting 
>> began.  They were invited to vote.
>> b) Currently (at the end of the voting period), there are 83 members of the 
>> subcommittee, hence 19 people were added during the voting timeframe
>> c) Of those new 19 members, 5 asked to be added to the vote, and only those 
>> 5 were added.  The other 14 new members were not invited to vote in the 
>> election.  Hence the addition of new members was done inconsistently for 
>> this vote.
>> 
>> 2) No guidelines on company participation within a sub-committee.
>> While this subcommittees does not mandate, but rather advise the TSC on 
>> use-case selection/definition for a given release, we can expect the 
>> subcommittee to perform votes to get a clear resolve on what the advice to 
>> the TSC should be.  While we want participation to be as open as possible in 
>> this subcommittee, we also want to ensure that the advice rendered is 
>> representative of the ONAP community as a whole and is not biased toward 
>> one, or a small group of participating organizations.  Currently, the 
>> membership breakdown of Use Case Subcommittee participants looks like this:
>> amdocs.com 17
>> att.com 
>> 12
>> boco.com.cn 6
>> chinamobile.com 9
>> chinatelecom.cn
>> 1
>> ericsson.com 1
>> gigaspaces.com
>> 4
>> gmail.com
>> 1
>> huawei.com
>> 8
>> intel.com
>> 1
>> juniper.net
>> 1
>> nokia.com
>> 3
>> orange.com
>> 3
>> raisecom.com
>> 2
>> vmware.com
>> 4
>> zte.com.cn
>> 10
>> As you can see, of the 16 companies participating, the top 5 companies with 
>> the most participants (Amdocs, AT, China Mobile, Huawei and ZTE) hold 66% 
>> of the vote.  I believe the TSC may want to provide further guidelines to 
>> ensure a more equal voting distribution across subcommittee membership
>> 
>> 3) Typo/Error made on initial invitation to self-nominate for the Use Case 
>> Subcommittee Chairperson position.  This issue is relatively small, but may 
>> have caused some confusion for some potential candidates.  The original 
>> email (located here:  
>> https://lists.onap.org/mailman/private/onap-usecasesub/2017-June/12.html)
>>  calling for self-nominations stated that "Any member of the Open Lab 
>> Subcommittee may run for this position".  Some members of the Use Case 
>> Subcommittee may have been confused by that statement and chose not to 
>> self-nominate, and/or vote during this election.
>> 
>> I would like to get feedback from the TSC during the meeting tomorrow to see 
>> if members feel that refinement is needed in populating subcommittees and/or 
>> holding votes/elections.  Based on the outcome of that discussion, and the 
>> other inconsistencies documented above, we may then want to provide guidance 
>> to the Use Case Subcommittee in how to treat the outcome of this specific 
>> election.
>> 
>> Thanks in advance for your input on this matter.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Phil.
>> -- 
>>