Re: [onap-tsc] Happy New Year & Welcome Back !

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Happy NewYear to you too, Catherine.
Mazin


On Jan 6, 2020, at 6:27 AM, LEFEVRE, CATHERINE 
mailto:catherine.lefe...@intl.att.com>> wrote:

***Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT&T ***
Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more information.



Dear ONAP Community,

On behalf of the ONAP TSC, Best Wishes to You and to Your family !
I hope you all had a wonderful and enjoyable holiday, and very deserving time 
off with your family and friends.

I am looking forward to working with each of you in 2020 to move our ONAP 
Community forward to be the best in the software and technology industry, and 
to deliver impactful ONAP Releases in 2020.

I am also looking forward to meeting you F2F in Prague next week in order to 
collect your feedback, your suggestion and your new idea.
Looking at the OPNFV/ONAP/CNTT Prague Event Schedule, our ONAP Program 
Committee Members have prepared a great agenda.
Have a look at it - 
https://wiki.lfnetworking.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=25364127

Kind regards
Catherine

Catherine Lefèvre
AVP Software Development & Engineering

AT&T Labs – Network Cloud and SDN Platform Integration
SDN Platform & Systems
ECOMP/RUBY/SPP-NEAM-Appl. Servers/SIA
ONAP TSC Chair

Phone: +32 2 418 49 22
Mobile: +32 475 77 36 73
catherine.lefe...@intl.att.com

TEXTING and DRIVING… It Can Wait

AT&T
BUROGEST OFFICE PARK SA
Avenue des Dessus-de-Lives, 2
5101 Loyers (Namur)
Belgium



NOTE: This email (or its attachments) contains information belonging to the 
sender, which may be confidential. proprietary and/or legally privileged. The 
information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) 
named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified 
that any disclosure, distribution or taking of any action in reliance on the 
content of this is strictly forbidden. If you have received this e-mail in 
error please immediately notify the sender identified above.




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

View/Reply Online (#5807): https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-tsc/message/5807
Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/69462746/21656
Group Owner: onap-tsc+ow...@lists.onap.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-tsc/leave/2743226/1412191262/xyzzy  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [onap-tsc] Release Management Update

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

I would like to second that.
Gildas, you have been instrumental from the get go in getting ONAP releases 
out. You were the glue and the driver of successful releases.
We would not have done it without your leadership and teamwork. Thank you!

Mazin


On Jan 2, 2019, at 5:17 PM, Phil Robb 
mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

Dear Gildas:

Your contributions to the health and success of the ONAP community have been 
tremendous.  Thank you so very much for all that you have done for this 
community!  I hope that our paths continue to cross whenever and where-ever you 
engage in open source projects in the future.

So that the community, and in particular Catherine, do not suffer a panic 
attack with the gaping hole in the community left with Gildas' departure, I 
would like to let everyone know that starting this Friday, the LFN team has a 
new addition, Jim Baker [0].  One of Jim's main objectives will be in support 
of the ONAP's Release Management requirements.  That won't be his only role for 
LFN, but it will be a substantial one.

Jim will also be in France next week so everyone attending the event will be 
able to meet him person there.  Also, with Gildas there as well, it will be a 
great opportunity for a week of knowledge transfer to ensure continuity during 
this transition.

I hope everyone had a wonderful holiday break.  I am looking forward to seeing 
everyone next week as well.

[0] 
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mtnskiier/

Best,

Phil.

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 1:48 PM 
gildas.lani...@huawei.com 
mailto:gildas.lani...@huawei.com>> wrote:
Dear ONAP Community,

With the new year, comes the time for new resolutions and changes.
The first one is easy to articulate as I wish you all and the ones around you 
Happy New 2019 year.
For the second, it is with deep regrets and a broken heart to announce that I 
will no longer have the privilege to be the ONAP Release Manager. This was 
announced to the Community back in September 2018 and becomes effective today.
In the meantime, Catherine will be covering on Release Management and Release 
Coordinator duties until further notice.
I will be attending the ONAP-OPNFV developers conference in Paris next week for 
new endeavors with Huawei and transfer any information the community needs.
It has been an honor to help the community and working with you all.
I wish ONAP great success and a lot of deployments.

Thanks,
Gildas

Gildas Lanilis
Santa Clara CA, USA
gildas.lani...@huawei.com
Mobile: 1 415 238 6287





--
Phil Robb
VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation
(O) 970-229-5949
(M) 970-420-4292
Skype: Phil.Robb



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

View/Reply Online (#4386): https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-tsc/message/4386
Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/28917597/21656
Group Owner: onap-tsc+ow...@lists.onap.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-tsc/leave/2743226/1412191262/xyzzy  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [onap-tsc] Review Tungsten Fabric proposal (formely OpenContrail) #tac

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Chaker,

My understanding that TF is an incubation project. Remember projects have 
different  lifecycle under LFN.
TF needs to become an approved full project for it to be like ONAP.

Phil or Kenny can provide the official position here.

Mazin


On Nov 1, 2018, at 1:03 AM, Chaker Al Hakim 
mailto:chaker.al.ha...@huawei.com>> wrote:

Hi Catherine,

Srini and I briefly discussed  this request at the Montreal F2f meeting. We 
both thought that TF is already a separate project under the LFN umbrella. 
Furthermore, I have seen some TAC budget slides recently that showed TF as  a 
separate  budget line item which, I believe,  means that it is a already a 
separate project.

Can we please get additional clarifications on this request so that we’re 
working the right action item. Or perhaps we can have a quick call with the LFN 
team to better understand the scope of this request.


Thanks,
Chaker


From: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Catherine LEFEVRE
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 12:27 PM
To: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org; Casey Cain 
mailto:cc...@linuxfoundation.org>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Review Tungsten Fabric proposal (formely OpenContrail) 
#tac

Good afternoon/morning Chaker, Srini, Casey,

Thank you Chaker to take the lead on this action item.

Thank you both for your feedback.
The request from the TAC team was not to review the Tungsten Fabric proposal in 
the context of ONAP projects, but to review it as being part of LFN.

Casey – feel free to add any comment in case of I have miscaptured the TAC 
request

Many thanks & regards
Catherine

From: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Chaker Al Hakim
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 6:12 PM
To: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Review Tungsten Fabric proposal (formely OpenContrail) 
#tac

Hi Srini,

Thanks for your input..

I am actually very familiar with TF (Contrail)  from my previous life. However, 
I did volunteer my time even though I have not had a chance to review the 
proposal.
I plan to participate in the review, and I hope you will too, either as a lead 
or as a participant as I do have both an ISP view and a vendor view on this 
topic.

Regards,
Chaker


From: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Srini
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 11:59 AM
To: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Review Tungsten Fabric proposal (formely OpenContrail) 
#tac

Hi Catherine and Chaker,

My 2 cents.

There are two contexts I guess feedback is given.

Usage of TF in ONAP: TF in many ways similar to ODL in terms of role and 
capabilities. ODL is chosen by ONAP as base for CCSDK/SDNC/APPC. Is TAC asking 
to see whether TF can be leveraged by ONAP in place of ODL?

Using TF in sites as site level SDN controller : In case of Openstack based 
sites, it is really up to the site administrator and from ONAP perspective it 
is  transparent as ONAP leverages Neutron API.  In case of K8S based sites, 
there is some support required in ONAP (Multi-Cloud) based on SDN controller 
chosen at the site. K8S Multi-Cloud intend to support OVN, flannel, SRIOV-NIC 
based networks initially (R4) and get community feedback on other networking 
controllers (Yes, we see requests coming to us to support Contiv and TF, but 
the decision to be made at right time based on interest from SPs on the site 
level SDN controllers).

Thanks
Srini


From: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Chaker Al Hakim
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 8:41 AM
To: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Review Tungsten Fabric proposal (formely OpenContrail) 
#tac

Hi Catherine,

Please count me unless you have found a lead already.

Thanks,
Chaker


From: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Catherine LEFEVRE
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 5:07 AM
To: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org
Subject: [onap-tsc] Review Tungsten Fabric proposal (formely OpenContrail) #tac
Importance: High

Dear TSC (or proxy),

We have been requested by the TAC to review the Tungsten Fabric proposal.
I have added the links related to this proposal to the JIRA TSC-41 task.

I need somebody to take the lead regarding this activity.
Can one of you assign this task to herself/himself while the others can post 
any feedback to the JIRA ticket? thanks
Due Date: Nov 5th, 2018 End of your Day?
https://jira.onap.org/browse/TSC-41

Re: [onap-tsc] 2019 ONAP Budget proposal - Please Review #tsc

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

As background, the board was fine to approve something like 25K for smaller and 
discretionary expenses, awards, etc.
If ONAP is requesting 100-200K, then you need to be very precise on the ask. 
Why and what for. What will happen if we don’t get it.
Is this BAU or expansion of the project.

Not sure where the latest update is.

Mazin


On Oct 15, 2018, at 12:00 PM, Frank Brockners via 
Lists.Onap.Org 
mailto:fbrockne=cisco@lists.onap.org>> 
wrote:


One quick FYI in this context: In order to transform the list of items into a 
proper number (which is important for the roll up to the board), we could 
leverage the ballpark numbers from
slide 5 on 
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1yrPIHZizkOfMe88JCLt-t_yovzmKgZF8kqqsmNn4wkQ/edit#slide=id.g439566dac5_0_12
Those numbers are taken from past events - hence are pretty realistic.

Frank

From: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org 
mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>> On Behalf Of 
Catherine LEFEVRE
Sent: Mittwoch, 10. Oktober 2018 21:53
To: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org
Subject: [onap-tsc] 2019 ONAP Budget proposal - Please Review #tsc
Importance: High

Dear TSC members,

As you know we need to submit our 2019 ONAP Budget proposal to the Board no 
later than Oct 17th, 2018.
I would like to ask you to review the current proposal and to provide your 
feedback directly under the following JIRA Task.
https://jira.onap.org/browse/TSC-8

I have also planned a slot during our ONAP TSC Call tomorrow (Oct 11th) to 
present it and to answer any of your question.
Please come prepare ... Thank you.

Here is the link to the 2019 ONAP Budget proposal:
https://jira.onap.org/secure/attachment/12540/2019%20ONAP%20Budget%20Request_V1.xlsx

Many thanks and regards
Catherine

Catherine Lefèvre
AVP Software Development & Engineering

AT&T Labs – Network Cloud & Infrastructure
D2 Platform & Systems Development
ECOMP/RUBY/SPP-NEAM-Appl. Servers/SIA
ONAP TSC Chair


Phone: +32 2 418 49 22
Mobile: +32 475 77 36 73
catherine.lefe...@intl.att.com

TEXTING and DRIVING… It Can Wait

AT&T
BUROGEST OFFICE PARK SA
Avenue des Dessus-de-Lives, 2
5101 Loyers (Namur)
Belgium



NOTE: This email (or its attachments) contains information belonging to the 
sender, which may be confidential. proprietary and/or legally privileged. The 
information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) 
named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified 
that any disclosure, distribution or taking of any action in reliance on the 
content of this is strictly forbidden. If you have received this e-mail in 
error please immediately notify the sender identified above




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

View/Reply Online (#3911): https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-tsc/message/3911
Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/27211418/21656
Mute #tsc: https://lists.onap.org/mk?hashtag=tsc&subid=2743226
Group Owner: onap-tsc+ow...@lists.onap.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-tsc/leave/2743226/1412191262/xyzzy  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Seat Vanacy

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

I do support Steve’s proposal for changing the charter.
Having a special election, per Chris’s recommendation, makes the most sense. 
No-one from a company that has a rep already should be allowed to run.
Good luck Chris, and best of luck.

Mazin


On Sep 23, 2018, at 9:02 PM, Christopher Donley 
mailto:christopher.don...@huawei.com>> wrote:

Thanks for kicking off this discussion.

A few thoughts:

  *   Technically, an individual is elected to a seat, not a company.  If the 
individual were to move to another company and still participate in ONAP, that 
individual would still remain on the TSC (subject to the per-company maximum).  
Mine is a special case, since I don't expect to be active in ONAP after this 
week.
  *   Another option offered to all TSC members is to appoint a proxy in the 
event that someone is unavailable to participate for a period of time.  
Previous TSC members have had long-term proxies extending several months.  
Technically, I could not resign and appoint a long-term proxy.  That proxy 
would remain valid as long as he or she doesn't miss 3 consecutive meetings (at 
least until the next election).  However, I remain steadfastly committed to 
elections, and would like to see a special election to replace me.  My decision 
to leave is a personal one, and should in no way disadvantage Huawei.  Huawei 
remains committed to ONAP, has many people who qualify as "active", and is 
still the #2 contributor to ONAP.  Huawei deserves fair consideration through 
the election process, just like everyone else.

So, in the case of a TSC member resigning, I believe the TSC should initiate a 
special election to fill the seat at the earliest possible opportunity.  
Because we instituted a one-rep-per-company rule, every company only nominated 
one person.  It's not fair to go back to the previous election results, since 
no back-ups were considered.  I support Kenny's and Steve's suggestions.

As I mentioned last week, I will remain active in ONAP through the end of the 
week.  I will resign my seat as soon as my successor is selected.  In the event 
that this is not resolved before Friday, I officially appoint Chaker Al Hakim 
as my proxy until such time as my seat is filled by special election.

Chris
From: mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>> on behalf of 
Srini mailto:srinivasa.r.addepa...@intel.com>>
Reply-To: "ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org" 
mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>>
Date: Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 3:16 PM
To: "ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org" 
mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Seat Vanacy

We also need to consider two cases

1.  Where a  TSC member moves from one company to another company that has 
TSC representative already.
2.  Where a TSC member moves from one company to another that does not have 
TSC representative.

1st case is simple and it can be considered as TSC member resigning.
2nd case is complex. Would there be an election? Or would that member continues 
to be in TSC.  Since we have 1 member per company limitation, it is fair to 
consider this also as a resignation.

Thanks
Srini



From: ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Terrill
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2018 2:59 PM
To: ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Seat Vanacy

Hi,

To this effect.  An appointed size was agreed.  I think it makes sense to run a 
new election for that seat – continuing with the previous voting list does not 
take into account the current situation, as the voting was in the context of an 
earlier situation:

We need to take into account two situations as I see it:
-Any TSC member is no longer able to support the role
-The TSC member that can no longer support the role is a chair or vice 
chair.
-We need to cater for the appointed positions as well.

To this effect, can we amend the community charter as follows:
-Add to section 4.2.3:
o   4.2.3.3 TSC member abdication
•  In the event of a TSC member no longer being able to continue being a member 
of the TSC:
·If the TSC position was from an operator, the operator may appoint a 
member that fulfils the criteria of being an active member; if that is not 
feasible then the operator may appoint any member.  If this is not done, then 
the seat is considered vacant.  (Additional amendment to consider: If the TSC 
member that abdicated continues as an active member from the same company, then 
the TSC seat is considered vacant (I am not stronge on this, it just to avoid 
using this clause as a means to replace TSC members).
·If the TSC position is from one of the elected positions, an election 
for that single position is held.  The conditions of the election are the same 
as for any TSC election.
•  If the said position was of that of a TSC chair or vice-chair, then the TSC 
chair or vice chai

[onap-tsc] Thank you to departing TSC members

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Dear departing TSC members, 

I wanted to extend my thanks to all TSC members who are departing the TSC. Your 
contributions and engagements to ONAP has led to two successful releases, and 
the formation of a diverse and thriving community. 
I hope you will continue to be engaged as contributing members in ONAP.

For those new TSC members, I would like to extend my congratulations for being 
elected to serve. Your responsibility is significant to ensure that ONAP is 
deployed broadly by operators and enterprise businesses. 
Although I am stepping down as a Chair, my team will continue to be actively 
engaged in contributions to ONAP. It is my wish to continue to support the TSC 
until a new Chair is elected.

Regards, 
Mazin



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

View/Reply Online (#3681): https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/message/3681
Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/25216779/21656
Group Owner: onap-tsc+ow...@lists.onap.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/leave/2743226/1412191262/xyzzy  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [onap-tsc] 2018 TSC Election Results

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Congratulations to the winners, and especially the new comers.

Mazin



On Aug 30, 2018, at 3:59 PM, Kenny Paul 
mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

Congrats to the winners!

Actual votes cast: 238
Reserved seats in BOLD
New Representatives in Green

 1. Catherine Lefevre (AT&T)
  2. Alla Goldner (Amdocs)
  3. Stephen Terrill (Ericsson)
  4. Chris Donley (Huawei)
  5. Srini Addepalli (Intel)
  6. Jason Hunt (IBM)
  7. Eric Debeau (Orange)
  8. Andreas Geissler (Deutsche Telekom)
  9. Ranny Haiby (Nokia)
10. David Sauvageau (Bell Canada)
11. Viswanath Kumar Skand Priya (Verizon)
12. Susana Sabater (Vodafone)
13. Lingli Deng (China Mobile)
14. Bin Yang (Wind River)
15. Murat Turpcu (Turk Telekom)
16. Milind Jalwadi (Tech Mahindra)
17. Chen Yan (China Telecom)
18. Ning So (Reliance Jio)

Results  
https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_709f2aa112974a02

Best Regards,
-kenny

Kenny Paul, Technical Program Manager, The Linux Foundation
kp...@linuxfoundation.org, 510.766.5945
San Francisco Bay Area, Pacific Time Zone





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

View/Reply Online (#3672): https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/message/3672
Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/25133733/21656
Group Owner: onap-tsc+ow...@lists.onap.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/leave/2743226/1412191262/xyzzy  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [onap-tsc] Definition of Subcommittee Membership

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Kenny,

Thank you for keeping us straight. Good feedback from the TSC, and we seem to 
have a direction.
Let’s close this in the Thursday TSC call, before you send the ballots.

Mazin

On Aug 27, 2018, at 1:05 PM, Kenny Paul 
mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

To be clear I'm the one that is supposed to ensure "finger-guards" on project 
process and governance are in place.  The TSC knowingly or unknowingly removed 
a great many finger-guards in the original effort to get this project launched 
and now I am spending a lot of time trying to bandage cut fingers.
(Apologies if the above does not translate well to non-native English speakers. 
Simplified, it is my job to point out potential problems and recently I'm 
dealing with a lot of problems caused by prior decisions.)

I'm simply raising what I see as an issue, which is the current membership 
definition of, "just add your name to the list" seems too broad to me.

I'm asking questions of the TSC so that there is a dialogue in that regard.  
This is an issue for the TSC to decide. I have not set nor defined anything.  I 
did not take any action other than not sending the ballots to anyone yet .

Thanks!
-kenny





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

View/Reply Online (#3647): https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/message/3647
Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/24966937/21656
Group Owner: onap-tsc+ow...@lists.onap.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/leave/2743226/1412191262/xyzzy  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [onap-tsc] List of new elected PTLs

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Let me second that. Congratulations to our new PTLs.

Mazin

Sent through AT&T's fastest network

On Aug 20, 2018, at 7:12 PM, 
"gildas.lani...@huawei.com" 
mailto:gildas.lani...@huawei.com>> wrote:

Hi TSC Members,

I realized it was never officially announced the names of the new PTLs that 
were elected and took over in Casablanca release.
So the new PTLs are:

1.Jonathan 
Gathman(replacing
 Ram Koya) for AAF

2.Takamune 
Cho
 (replacing Randa 
Maher)
 for APPC

3.Vijay Venkatesh 
Kumar(replacing
 Lusheng 
Ji)
 for DCAE

4.Rich 
Bennett
 Interim (replacing Gregory 
Glover)
 for Documentation (interim position)

5.Matthieu 
Geerebaert(replacing
 Andy 
Mayer)for
 Ext API

6.Bin 
Yang
 (replacing 
lixinhui)
 for Multi Vim

7.   Mike 
Elliott
 (replacing David 
Sauvageau)
 for OOM

Congratulations to the new PTLs and thanks a lot for the hard work the 
departing PTLs have made to the ONAP community.

The Contact 
info
 has been updated accordingly in wiki.

Thanks,
Gildas


Gildas Lanilis
ONAP Release Manager
Santa Clara CA, USA
gildas.lani...@huawei.com
Mobile: 1 415 238 6287



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

View/Reply Online (#3624): https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/message/3624
Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/24830491/21656
Group Owner: onap-tsc+ow...@lists.onap.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/leave/2743226/1412191262/xyzzy  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[onap-tsc] SurveyMonkey Powered Online Survey

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Friends
I saw this non LF survey that seem to mention ONAP for 5G. It is an openstack 
survey. I thought I will pass it along given the importance of 5G to ONAP.  
Take the survey if you would like.
Thanks
Mazin
https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/OpenStackTTVSurvey

TelecomTV OpenStack Survey 2018: OpenStack for Telco - Where to now?

Nobody can doubt the rising profile of OpenStack in the telecoms community. Its 
all-conquering goal - to produce a ubiquitous Open Source cloud platform that 
is interoperable, easy to implement and use, works well at all scales, and 
meets the needs of all its users in all contexts - seems to have gained it many 
adherents over a relatively short space of time. But, as always, it has its 
detractors. We’d like to find out what the community REALLY thinks about 
OpenStack and why. What is the good, the bad and the ugly of this open source 
cloud platform?


Sent through AT&T's fastest network

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

View/Reply Online (#3578): https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/message/3578
Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/24156646/21656
Group Owner: onap-tsc+ow...@lists.onap.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/unsub  [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [onap-tsc] #lfn IMPORTANT- Proposed TSC Composition Language

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Ranny

We have spent 6 months as a community and TSC debating the formation of a new 
TSC including shifting decisions to Casablanca. If you recall it was important 
to ensure that operators remain in active engagement and leadership role to 
ensure global ONAP adoption, and the community voted just that.

Right now I see 17 nominations with 8 operators and 9 vendors/suppliers. Let me 
suggest that we align with the community plan unless we end up with 
insufficient nominations. I expected leaders and key contributors from the top 
20 contributing companies to nominate and we are seeing just that.

Thanks
Mazin



Sent through AT&T's fastest network

On Jul 31, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Haiby, Ranny (Nokia - US/San Jose USA) 
mailto:ranny.ha...@nokia.com>> wrote:

+1

Alla raises important issues that are not covered by the current ONAP community 
document.
Although I am “guilty” of voting for the current language, I am literally 
losing sleep lately with concerns over this hybrid meritocratic/appointed model 
we have created. I believe our intentions were pure, but we kind of created a 
monster. Having just 15 candidates for the 18 available seats is not a good 
indicator as well.

I realize we are in the eleventh hour of this process, but perhaps it is better 
to consider another alternative now, rather than live with the consequences of 
the current proposal. One possible approach may be having a fully meritocratic 
TSC, and counting on the LFN EUAG to provide the voice of operators.

Regards,

Ranny.

From: ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org 
mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>> On Behalf Of Alla 
Goldner
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 10:03 PM
To: Kenny Paul mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>>; 
onap-tsc mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>>; Alex Vul 
mailto:alex@intel.com>>; 
john.qui...@ericsson.com; Giles Heron 
(giheron) mailto:gihe...@cisco.com>>; 
zygmunt_lozin...@uk.ibm.com
Cc: Phil Robb mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] #lfn IMPORTANT- Proposed TSC Composition Language

Hi Kenny, all,

The new language, I guess, would be required anyway.
We haven’t covered too many important points e.g.

What happens if new Platinum Service Provider joins
What happens if one of the elected vendor representatives leaves
Wat happens if one of the defined Service Providers doesn’t have a desire to 
self-nominate for a seat (from the perspective of overall number of seats etc.)
What happens if elected/appointed SP representative leaves

And more, I believe.

But I fully agree with Mazin that at this point we should rather wait and see 
the results of this round, before moving to additional rounds of discussions.

(and, btw, though I voted for postponing by 1 week eventually, I don’t think 
vacations play a major role in this process right now. My opinion was and still 
is that we were not ready, as a community, to move to the “elected TSC” and 
this is what we face right now, after spending so much time and effort…)

Best regards,

Alla Goldner

Open Network Division
Amdocs Technology




From: ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Kenny Paul
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 12:52 AM
To: onap-tsc mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>>; Alex 
Vul mailto:alex@intel.com>>; 
john.qui...@ericsson.com; Giles Heron 
(giheron) mailto:gihe...@cisco.com>>; 
zygmunt_lozin...@uk.ibm.com
Cc: Phil Robb mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] #lfn IMPORTANT- Proposed TSC Composition Language

All

I know that I have mentioned this on a number of occasions, but I want to be 
very clear when I see/hear membership characterizations discussed 
interchangeably…

There are 23 LFN members that qualify as "operators" in a traditional telecom 
sense. Is the discussion one of seats for "operators", is it one of seats for 
Platinum LFN Members, or is it one of seats for "operators" whom also happen to 
be LFN Platinum Members?
·The ONAP Project originally had two separate and distinct platinum 
membership categories; "Platinum" and "Platinum Service Provider".  The 9 
operators explicitly defined in 4.1.1.1 TSC Membership 
Definitions
 as having reserved seats were exclusively those that joined the ONAP Project 
as "Platinum Service Provider" Members.  There were also other operators that 
joined ONAP last year, but not as "Platinum" or "Platinum Service Provider" 
members.
By contrast, in LFN platinum level membership is binary: You ar

Re: [onap-tsc] #lfn IMPORTANT- Proposed TSC Composition Language

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Frank,

Right now, we expect all 9 operators to be involved and active moving forward. 
DT is eager to participating as well. The TSC can discuss whether to add two 
more seats; one for DT and another for vendor/supplier, or stick to the 
approved 18. The TSC can also review the possibility if DT can replace an 
operator that decides not to participate.

Let’s review the nominations first and begin that discussion.

Thanks for raising the issue. Good point.

Mazin
On Jul 30, 2018, at 10:11 PM, Frank Brockners via 
Lists.Onap.Org 
mailto:fbrockne=cisco@lists.onap.org>> 
wrote:

Any thoughts/opinions? Given that the question came up in the last TSC meeting 
as well – and the fact that we now have 10 operators in LFN, IMHO we need to 
start tackling the question.

Thanks, Frank

From: Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
Sent: Montag, 16. Juli 2018 19:01
To: 'Kenny Paul' mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>>; 
onap-tsc mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>>; Alex Vul 
mailto:alex@intel.com>>; 
john.qui...@ericsson.com; Giles Heron 
(giheron) mailto:gihe...@cisco.com>>; 
zygmunt_lozin...@uk.ibm.com
Cc: Phil Robb mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>>
Subject: RE: #lfn IMPORTANT- Proposed TSC Composition Language

Question:
Based on the text below, “operator” is defined as a set of exactly nine 
specific elements, i.e. {AT&T, Bell, CMCC, China Telecom, Orange, Reliance Jio, 
Turk Telecom, Verizon, Vodafone}.
9 seats are reserved for operators, with only one person of a company can be a 
member.
This works fine with the current LFN membership, but what would happen, if any 
of these 9 operators would decide to stop participating in LFN?

Thanks, Frank


From: ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org 
mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>> On Behalf Of Kenny 
Paul
Sent: Samstag, 7. Juli 2018 01:10
To: onap-tsc mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>>; Alex 
Vul mailto:alex@intel.com>>; 
john.qui...@ericsson.com; Giles Heron 
(giheron) mailto:gihe...@cisco.com>>; 
zygmunt_lozin...@uk.ibm.com
Cc: Phil Robb mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>>
Subject: [onap-tsc] #lfn IMPORTANT- Proposed TSC Composition Language


TSC Members and assigned proxies for the July 12th meeting,

Please look this over and provide feedback on the language if you feel 
something needs to be changed.
I am hoping for an email a vote on this prior to the TSC meeting if there are 
no issues.
I have created a new (post-LFN) indexed ONAP Technical Community 
Document
which includes the proposed new sections below. These also show up in blue font 
on the wiki page.
Sub sections were added to 4.1.1 and to 4.2

Section Modified: 4.1.1 TSC Members
Was: [Reserved for future updating after ONAP transitions to “Steady State” as 
described in the technical charter.]
Now:
4.1.1.1 TSC Membership Definitions
·

  *   Active Community Members:   Anyone from the ONAP community with twenty 
(20) or more measurable contributions during the previous 12-month period, 
inclusive of code merged, code reviews performed, wiki page edits, or JIRA 
activities
  *   Operator: Any of the original 9 Platinum Service Providers participating 
in ONAP at the beginning of 2018. (Specifically: AT&T, Bell, CMCC, China 
Telecom, Orange, Reliance Jio, Turk Telecom, Verizon and Vodafone)

4.1.1.2 Size and Structure

  *   The TSC shall consist of eighteen (18) seats
  *   Nine (9) seats on the TSC are to be reserved for Operators
  *   Only one (1) person from any company, or group of related companies (as 
defined in section 4.4.4.1) may be a member at any given time.

4.1.1.2 TSC Member Requirements
·

  *   Excluding the reserved seats provision of section 4.1.1.2, TSC membership 
is not limited to LFN member companies
  *   TSC members shall be Active Community Members, notwithstanding the 
exception granted in section 4.2.3.2

Section Modified: 4.2 TSC Operations
The entire 4.2.3 section is newly added
4.2.3 TSC Member Elections
4.2.3.1 Candidate and Voter Eligibility
·   Any Active Community Member (regardless of LFN membership), is eligible 
to run for a TSC seat, except as provided for in section 4.2.3.2
·   Any Active Community Member (regardless of LFN membership), is eligible 
to vote in a TSC election
·   Eligibility is effective as of the date and time the nomination process 
starts,
4.2.3.2 TSC Member Candidates
·
·   There are no limitations on the number of candidates that can run for a 
TSC seat, nor is there a limit to the number of candidates from any company, or 
group of related companies that can run in a TSC election
·   Can

Re: [onap-tsc] [ptl]

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Colleagues, 

Happy Friday!

On behalf of the TSC, I would like to congratulate all the new PTLs and 
committers.
Your leadership and contributions are essential for the success of Casablanca 
and ONAP in general.
We look forward to working with you.

I want to take the opportunity to also remind all remaining projects and 
subcommittees to initiate nominations for 
PTLs and Chairs before end of August. I also want to remind the community that 
the deadline for the nominations for 
TSC members is July 31st. If we do not receive enough nominations from 
qualified individuals then the TSC will exercise a limited time extension. 

Thanks
mazin




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

View/Reply Online (#3518): https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/message/3518
Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/23831961/21656
Group Owner: onap-tsc+ow...@lists.onap.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/unsub  [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [onap-tsc] committer promotion request from DCAE

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

I don’t believe you need TSC approval. It is just FYI for TSC

Sent through AT&T's fastest network

On Jul 18, 2018, at 10:24 AM, JI, LUSHENG (LUSHENG) 
mailto:l...@research.att.com>> wrote:

***Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT&T ***
Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more information.

Dear TSC,

Please consider the following two requests for committer promotion for the DACE 
project:
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Committer+Promotion+Request+for+%5BDCAE%5D%3A+Jack+Lucas
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Committer+Promotion+Request+for+%5BDCAE%5D%3A+Przemyslaw+Wasala

Current committers have all provided positive (+1) feedbacks for both 
candidates on the onap-discuss mailing list.

Thanks,

Lusheng
DCAE PTL


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

View/Reply Online (#3408): https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/message/3408
Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/23671390/21656
Group Owner: onap-tsc+ow...@lists.onap.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/unsub  [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[onap-tsc] #PTLs New chairs and PTLs

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Kenny

Is there a tracking site on our wiki that shows which project/subcommittee has 
completed their election and who the new lead is?

Thanks
Mazin 

Sent through AT&T's fastest network 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#3400): https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/message/3400
Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/23670024/21656
Mute #ptls: https://lists.onap.org/mk?hashtag=ptls&subid=2743226
Group Owner: onap-tsc+ow...@lists.onap.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/unsub  [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [onap-tsc] #lfn IMPORTANT- Proposed TSC Composition Language

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

You captured the main points. Thank you!
Mazin




On Jul 6, 2018, at 7:10 PM, Kenny Paul 
mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:


TSC Members and assigned proxies for the July 12th meeting,

Please look this over and provide feedback on the language if you feel 
something needs to be changed.
I am hoping for an email a vote on this prior to the TSC meeting if there are 
no issues.
I have created a new (post-LFN) indexed ONAP Technical Community 
Document
which includes the proposed new sections below. These also show up in blue font 
on the wiki page.
Sub sections were added to 4.1.1 and to 4.2

Section Modified: 4.1.1 TSC Members
Was: [Reserved for future updating after ONAP transitions to “Steady State” as 
described in the technical charter.]
Now:
4.1.1.1 TSC Membership Definitions
•

  *   Active Community Members:   Anyone from the ONAP community with twenty 
(20) or more measurable contributions during the previous 12-month period, 
inclusive of code merged, code reviews performed, wiki page edits, or JIRA 
activities
  *   Operator: Any of the original 9 Platinum Service Providers participating 
in ONAP at the beginning of 2018. (Specifically: AT&T, Bell, CMCC, China 
Telecom, Orange, Reliance Jio, Turk Telecom, Verizon and Vodafone)

4.1.1.2 Size and Structure

  *   The TSC shall consist of eighteen (18) seats
  *   Nine (9) seats on the TSC are to be reserved for Operators
  *   Only one (1) person from any company, or group of related companies (as 
defined in section 4.4.4.1) may be a member at any given time.

4.1.1.2 TSC Member Requirements
•

  *   Excluding the reserved seats provision of section 4.1.1.2, TSC membership 
is not limited to LFN member companies
  *   TSC members shall be Active Community Members, notwithstanding the 
exception granted in section 4.2.3.2


Section Modified: 4.2 TSC Operations
The entire 4.2.3 section is newly added
4.2.3 TSC Member Elections
4.2.3.1 Candidate and Voter Eligibility

  *   Any Active Community Member (regardless of LFN membership), is eligible 
to run for a TSC seat, except as provided for in section 4.2.3.2
  *   Any Active Community Member (regardless of LFN membership), is eligible 
to vote in a TSC election
  *   Eligibility is effective as of the date and time the nomination process 
starts,

4.2.3.2 TSC Member Candidates
•

  *   There are no limitations on the number of candidates that can run for a 
TSC seat, nor is there a limit to the number of candidates from any company, or 
group of related companies that can run in a TSC election
  *   Candidates must self nominate
  *   At least one person from each Operator must run for that Operator's 
reserved seat
  *   A provision is granted for an Operator to appoint a person to run for 
their seat, only in the event that the Operator does not have any eligible 
Active Community Members at the time of nomination process.

4.2.3.2 TSC Member Election Mechanics
•

  *   The election of a TSC Member shall consist of a single stack ranked vote 
of all candidates via CIVS ( Condorcet: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method);
  *   The top ranked candidate from each Operator will be selected, for a total 
of nine members, one member from each Operator
  *   The top ranked non-Operator candidates (whether affiliated with a company 
or an individual contributor), will be selected for the remaining nine seats, 
with no more than one member per company or group of related companies being 
selected.



Best Regards,
-kenny

Kenny Paul, Technical Program Manager, The Linux Foundation
kp...@linuxfoundation.org, 510.766.5945
San Francisco Bay Area, Pacific Time Zone





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

View/Reply Online (#3317): https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/message/3317
Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/23178568/21656
Mute #lfn: https://lists.onap.org/mk?hashtag=lfn&subid=2743226
Group Owner: onap-tsc+ow...@lists.onap.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/unsub  [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [onap-discuss] [onap-tsc] PTL Election announcement for ONAP modeling project

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Thanks Deng.

Still need more clarification.

1. Are you running the Chair election for the Modeling subcommittee as well.
If so, please make a clear distinction between that and the project PTL 
election.

2. I am concerned that the definition of committers is cloudy here.
You have docs and you have code. Committers who write codes
are not necessarily qualified to review and write code.
Therefore, it is important that you have a PTL who is qualified to commit
and understand code as well.

Appreciate the clarification.
Mazin






On Jul 5, 2018, at 9:48 AM, denghui (L) 
mailto:denghu...@huawei.com>> wrote:

Hi Mazin

I guess that you know that PTL couldn’t remove the committer, I sent email to 
every committer after Release 1,
two of them email’s are not reachable, one agree to step down, so that’s the 
reason we removed 3 of them after the vote of all committers.
Others replied and said that they would like to continue.

Current committers are not only for tosca parser , but also for modelspec.

Thanks a lot

DENG Hui

From: GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E) [mailto:ma...@research.att.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 9:20 PM
To: denghui (L) mailto:denghu...@huawei.com>>
Cc: onap-disc...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-disc...@lists.onap.org>; 
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>
Subject: Re: [onap-discuss] [onap-tsc] PTL Election announcement for ONAP 
modeling project

Thanks. I am assuming the project is based on the repo that is supporting the 
Tosca Parsers,
and you are tracking active committers.

Are you holding an election at the same time for the Chair subcommittee?

Mazin


On Jul 5, 2018, at 8:21 AM, denghui (L) 
mailto:denghu...@huawei.com>> wrote:

Mazin

Yes it is modeling project PTL election other than modeling subcommittee.

You may have missed below email which does have the link to repositories
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Resources+and+Repositories#ResourcesandRepositories-Modeling<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.onap.org_display_DW_Resources-2Band-2BRepositories-23ResourcesandRepositories-2DModeling&d=DwQFAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=h336thy4AQC9X1JMXCsyYKGnG9RZQiRvWQY-u54zaMI&s=ffAQ4YaMD5X0xX09fOLdQR9a4020jv33Vw3hzajOwBA&e=>
the committers in modeling project are:
Hui Deng
Shitao Li
Rittwik Jana
Bruce Thompson
Maopeng Zhang
Zhaoxing Meng
Amir Levy
Arthur Berezin
Sandeep Shah
Ling Li
Liuhe Zhong
Yannan Han
Hu Dong
Serban Jora
Lingli Deng

I did send email to helpdesk to remove 3 of them from the list before based on 
the confirmation of project:
Bruce Thompson
Arthur Berezin
Ling Li

It seems that they are still here, I will send again to helpdesk
So the final qualified committers are:
Hui Deng
Shitao Li
Rittwik Jana
Maopeng Zhang
Zhaoxing Meng
Amir Levy
Sandeep Shah
Liuhe Zhong
Yannan Han
Hu Dong
Serban Jora
Lingli Deng

Thanks for your checking
Best regards,

DENG Hui


From: GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E) [mailto:ma...@research.att.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 7:35 PM
To: denghui (L) mailto:denghu...@huawei.com>>
Cc: onap-disc...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-disc...@lists.onap.org>; 
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>
Subject: Re: [onap-discuss] [onap-tsc] PTL Election announcement for ONAP 
modeling project

Deng,

I appreciate you holding an election for the PTL.

For the modeling project PTL election, we need each Chair to ensure they have 
vetted all
active committers before any election is taking place. Can you share the list of
active committers.

As outlined in the website the issue is different for the subcommittee modeling 
Chair.

It seems that you are initiating a PTL election and not a subcommittee modeling 
Chair election.
Please confirm, and share the list of active Committers who will be voting for 
the new PTL.

thanks
mazin








On Jul 4, 2018, at 2:14 AM, denghui (L) 
mailto:denghu...@huawei.com>> wrote:

Dear ONAP Community and ONAP TSC,

As mandated by ONAP process, PTL elections must be held at least once a year.
You can read more details here: 
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Annual+Community+Elections<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.onap.org_display_DW_Annual-2BCommunity-2BElections&d=DwMFAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=Oej6QUk5p2KdqNEWySpOHA&m=aqtE2C1ZdfxIEpvFpsi-ywKvepAjMEEvXvpyXwKvr7o&s=1VOSZREkf7OvEcmx6COn9S0Mz80ACCfrmsVXjmhZwZs&e=>

if you are interested in this position, I invite you to submit your 
self-nomination for ONAP modeling project.

Important dates:
---
You have 2 days to submit your self-nomination from receipt of this email. (End 
by July 6th 2018 10:00 IST)

Election duration: July 6th 2018 12:00 IST -  July 11th 2018 12:00 IST
(from CVIS system, private email will be sent to all committers email id 
mentioned 
athttps://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Resources+and+Repositories<https:/

Re: [onap-discuss] [onap-tsc] PTL Election announcement for ONAP modeling project

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Thanks. I am assuming the project is based on the repo that is supporting the 
Tosca Parsers,
and you are tracking active committers.

Are you holding an election at the same time for the Chair subcommittee?

Mazin


On Jul 5, 2018, at 8:21 AM, denghui (L) 
mailto:denghu...@huawei.com>> wrote:

Mazin

Yes it is modeling project PTL election other than modeling subcommittee.

You may have missed below email which does have the link to repositories
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Resources+and+Repositories#ResourcesandRepositories-Modeling<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.onap.org_display_DW_Resources-2Band-2BRepositories-23ResourcesandRepositories-2DModeling&d=DwQFAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=h336thy4AQC9X1JMXCsyYKGnG9RZQiRvWQY-u54zaMI&s=ffAQ4YaMD5X0xX09fOLdQR9a4020jv33Vw3hzajOwBA&e=>
the committers in modeling project are:
Hui Deng
Shitao Li
Rittwik Jana
Bruce Thompson
Maopeng Zhang
Zhaoxing Meng
Amir Levy
Arthur Berezin
Sandeep Shah
Ling Li
Liuhe Zhong
Yannan Han
Hu Dong
Serban Jora
Lingli Deng

I did send email to helpdesk to remove 3 of them from the list before based on 
the confirmation of project:
Bruce Thompson
Arthur Berezin
Ling Li

It seems that they are still here, I will send again to helpdesk
So the final qualified committers are:
Hui Deng
Shitao Li
Rittwik Jana
Maopeng Zhang
Zhaoxing Meng
Amir Levy
Sandeep Shah
Liuhe Zhong
Yannan Han
Hu Dong
Serban Jora
Lingli Deng

Thanks for your checking
Best regards,

DENG Hui


From: GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E) [mailto:ma...@research.att.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 7:35 PM
To: denghui (L) mailto:denghu...@huawei.com>>
Cc: onap-disc...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-disc...@lists.onap.org>; 
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>
Subject: Re: [onap-discuss] [onap-tsc] PTL Election announcement for ONAP 
modeling project

Deng,

I appreciate you holding an election for the PTL.

For the modeling project PTL election, we need each Chair to ensure they have 
vetted all
active committers before any election is taking place. Can you share the list of
active committers.

As outlined in the website the issue is different for the subcommittee modeling 
Chair.

It seems that you are initiating a PTL election and not a subcommittee modeling 
Chair election.
Please confirm, and share the list of active Committers who will be voting for 
the new PTL.

thanks
mazin







On Jul 4, 2018, at 2:14 AM, denghui (L) 
mailto:denghu...@huawei.com>> wrote:

Dear ONAP Community and ONAP TSC,

As mandated by ONAP process, PTL elections must be held at least once a year.
You can read more details here: 
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Annual+Community+Elections<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.onap.org_display_DW_Annual-2BCommunity-2BElections&d=DwMFAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=Oej6QUk5p2KdqNEWySpOHA&m=aqtE2C1ZdfxIEpvFpsi-ywKvepAjMEEvXvpyXwKvr7o&s=1VOSZREkf7OvEcmx6COn9S0Mz80ACCfrmsVXjmhZwZs&e=>

if you are interested in this position, I invite you to submit your 
self-nomination for ONAP modeling project.

Important dates:
---
You have 2 days to submit your self-nomination from receipt of this email. (End 
by July 6th 2018 10:00 IST)

Election duration: July 6th 2018 12:00 IST -  July 11th 2018 12:00 IST
(from CVIS system, private email will be sent to all committers email id 
mentioned 
athttps://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Resources+and+Repositories<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.onap.org_display_DW_Resources-2Band-2BRepositories&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=XBYNhzlk2jx6nSVGWpJjJUhpTLxHynkr7bh6Vp5VOXU&s=odKqVMZCdJUsygPKUpW7Gk3KS-ALAv3Pe3CO5I_82Ls&e=>
 )

Election result: July 11th 2018 (will be announced in onap-discuss and onap-tsc 
mailing lists)




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

View/Reply Online (#3282): https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/message/3282
Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/23163968/21656
Group Owner: onap-tsc+ow...@lists.onap.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/unsub  [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [onap-discuss] [onap-tsc] PTL Election announcement for ONAP modeling project

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Deng,

I appreciate you holding an election for the PTL.

For the modeling project PTL election, we need each Chair to ensure they have 
vetted all
active committers before any election is taking place. Can you share the list of
active committers.

As outlined in the website the issue is different for the subcommittee modeling 
Chair.

It seems that you are initiating a PTL election and not a subcommittee modeling 
Chair election.
Please confirm, and share the list of active Committers who will be voting for 
the new PTL.

thanks
mazin








On Jul 4, 2018, at 2:14 AM, denghui (L) 
mailto:denghu...@huawei.com>> wrote:

Dear ONAP Community and ONAP TSC,

As mandated by ONAP process, PTL elections must be held at least once a year.
You can read more details here: 
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Annual+Community+Elections

if you are interested in this position, I invite you to submit your 
self-nomination for ONAP modeling project.

Important dates:
---
You have 2 days to submit your self-nomination from receipt of this email. (End 
by July 6th 2018 10:00 IST)

Election duration: July 6th 2018 12:00 IST -  July 11th 2018 12:00 IST
(from CVIS system, private email will be sent to all committers email id 
mentioned 
athttps://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Resources+and+Repositories
 )

Election result: July 11th 2018 (will be announced in onap-discuss and onap-tsc 
mailing lists)



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

View/Reply Online (#3277): https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/message/3277
Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/23163968/21656
Group Owner: onap-tsc+ow...@lists.onap.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/unsub  [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Attendance requirements - discussion

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Jason/Steve,

I do like your modified first response as it can be applied without a specified 
time interval.
The key mission of a TSC member goes beyond just a vote. It is about active 
participation
in committees, forums, community discussions, etc. These characteristics are 
important as
we embark towards nominations of new members. Voting is key to allow us to 
conduct our
business timely given the tight deadlines Gildas is always imposing on us:-)

Lingli,
I saw your note, and I completely understand that there are rare situations 
that could
drive an exception when proxy is unavailable. Would you agree that the current 
proposal does allow for exceptions
indirectly. A member will have their complete power after two consecutive 
meetings, i.e., 2 weeks.

thanks.
Mazin




On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:32 AM, Stephen Terrill 
mailto:stephen.terr...@ericsson.com>> wrote:

Hi Jason, All,

Thank-you for the proposal.  It is rather inline with my thinking (even though 
I had proposed 3 meetings, my proposal on the consequence was also harsher and 
the return also harsher).  I have a few suggestions.

"Any TSC member that misses two (2) consecutive meetings (add and/or email 
votes)without a named proxy will be automatically suspended from TSC membership 
for purposes of voting and quorum until having attended two meetings 
consecutively. For avoidance of doubt, the suspended TSC member will be 
eligible to vote and will be counted for quorum purposes at the (remove second 
replace with third) consecutive attended meeting."

Motivation: The original text allows that a TSC member, after suspension, can 
be voting again after attending only one meeting in reality, on the second 
meeting which seems a little short to me.

I would like to air an alternative, as the above approach allows that each TSC 
member to attend every second meeting which can risk business continuity (even 
if I can’t imagine anyone taking that approach).

"Any TSC member that misses two (2) meetings (and/or email votes) without a 
named proxy within a 3 month period will be automatically suspended from TSC 
membership for purposes of voting and quorum until having attended two meetings 
consecutively. For avoidance of doubt, the suspended TSC member will be 
eligible to vote and will be counted for quorum purposes at the third 
consecutive attended meeting."

Best Regards,

Steve.

From: ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org 
mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>> On Behalf Of Jason 
Hunt
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 6:31 PM
To: onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: [onap-tsc] TSC Attendance requirements - discussion

Hi Everyone,

To follow-up on today's discussion around TSC requirements, I wanted to share 
the survey results, examples from other communities, other considerations, and 
a strawman proposal.

Survey Results

The survey results on this topic can be found on slides 3-7 of this 
presentation:

https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/TSC+Meritocratic+Election+Process?preview=/25428910/33066973/TSC-Composition-Survey-Community.pdf

In summary:

- Proxies:  Nearly everyone supported proxies with voting privileges

- # of consecutive missed TSC meetings before being dropped from quorum 
requirements:  For both elected and appointed representatives, the majority of 
community responses said 2 consecutive missed meetings; the plurality of TSC 
responses said 2 consecutive missed meeting, while the majority said 2 or 3 
consecutive missed meetings.

-  appointed TSC members forfeiting seats if removed from quorum: results were 
mixed, with the community favoring removal, and the TSC not favoring removal


Other Communities

CNCF (Cloud Native Computing Foundation):
"Any TOC member that misses three (3) consecutive meetings shall be 
automatically suspended from eligibility to vote until having attended two 
meetings consecutively. For avoidance of doubt, the suspended TOC member shall 
be eligible to vote in the second consecutive meeting."
https://www.cncf.io/about/charter/

Acumos (proposal only):
"Any TSC member that misses three (3) consecutive meetings will be 
automatically suspended from TSC membership for purposes of voting and quorum 
until having attended two meetings consecutively. For avoidance of doubt, the 
suspended TSC member will be eligible to vote and will be counted for quorum 
purposes a

[onap-tsc] PTLs and chairs of subcommittees

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Friends, 

It was great seeing you last week in Beijing. I want to thank our China Telecom 
for being a great host.

I spoke to several TSC members regarding PTL and subcommittee chair positions. 
The take away was the following

(this is a proposal for the TSC that we need direction by Thursday).

1. Projects have until Nov 30th 2018 to hold a PTL election. Inactive 
committers per our definition last week 
should be removed as early as possible. This is needed so that not to disrupt 
delivery of Casablanca, yet
give the PTL and project an empowerment. 

2. Subcommittee chair election should take place no later than August 30th, 
2018. Subcommittee lists
should be active attendees.


Please exchange your views as I would like to propose that we provide the 
community a direction 
this Thursday. The charter dictated that we should be doing this one year post 
project creation.

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

View/Reply Online (#3210): https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/message/3210
Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/22684131/21656
Group Owner: onap-tsc+ow...@lists.onap.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/unsub  [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Hmm.. What am I missing? Here is Option 1 in original email.
If I missed something then please update and let’s share at the TSC meeting.

Mazin
Option 1:

  *   Base TSC Size: 17
  *   Base TSC selection is  performed through​ ​one big ranked vote conducted 
via CIVS
  *   ​Eligibility ​to apply/run​: Active contributors
  *   ​Eligibility​ to Vote: Active contributors
  *   Base Company Cap: 1 ​TSC Member ​per company

  *   The following is valid for the year of 2018
 *   If a service provider (defined above) ​does not have any staff member 
who is eligible to run for the​ election under the criteria above, that service 
provider may appoint a person to the TSC .
 *   If a service provider has one or more staff members that are eligible 
to run for the election, they are encouraged to do so.  If no eligible person 
wins a TSC spot in the election, then the company may appoint the highest 
relatively ranked staff member from the election to the TSC.
 *   If a service provider does have one or more staff members that are 
eligible to run but choose not to, then that service provider​ may not appoint 
a person to the TSC.

  *   If a TSC member is absent​ (​and does not ​provide a proxy) for 3 
consecutive meetings, that person is removed from the TSC.  The person may 
request to be reinstated by the TSC​.  In such an event the TSC may approve the 
reinstatement by a simple majority vote.​
On Jun 21, 2018, at 12:37 PM, Jason Hunt 
mailto:djh...@us.ibm.com>> wrote:


Mazin,

I’m not sure I understand the comment that option 1 doesn’t support 8 operator 
seats. Actually it’s set up to support 9 service provider seats either via 
direct election or appointment. I believe this is aligned with the survey 
results which was in favor of a one year exception for platinum service 
providers.

Regards,
Jason Hunt
Distinguished Engineer, IBM

Phone: 314-749-7422
Email: djh...@us.ibm.com<mailto:djh...@us.ibm.com>
Twitter: @DJHunt
On Jun 21, 2018, at 12:21 PM, GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E) 
mailto:ma...@research.att.com>> wrote:

The discussion and options we discuss today should be primarily based on the 
survey. We should avoid creating new options or variations not supported by the 
survey.

The survey also articulated support to have 8 seats for operators. I don’t see 
that in Option 1. I will not support an option that does not have that as 
reflected by the survey feedback.

Any alternative options we decide to select from beyond Option 1 should be 
based on the survey data. This data comes from the community and we need to 
reflect their feedback.

My suggestion is to have the TSC members review the survey data before 
attending the TSC meeting today.

Thanks

Mazin


On Jun 21, 2018, at 11:41 AM, Stephen Terrill 
mailto:stephen.terr...@ericsson.com>> wrote:

Hi,

The idea was that we perform the election without considering extra 
considerations (called base to have a term) then add to it and supplement the 
TSC for the requested consideration for the service providers.

BR,

Steve

Sent from my Phone, please forgive typos

On 21 Jun 2018, at 09:47, Phil Robb 
mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

Hi Srinivasa:

Let me ask Chris or Stephen to chime in on their intention regarding the size 
of the TSC.

Regarding waiting until August, I think we should ask the TSC this question.  
My personal opinion is that as long as we have quorum, we should continue to do 
business.   Vacations happen but that's why the organization allows proxies.

Best,

Phil.

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Addepalli, Srinivasa R 
mailto:srinivasa.r.addepa...@intel.com>> wrote:
Hi,

I also had similar question for option 1:  Are the operator appointed TSC 
members are over and beyond base TSC size mentioned?

On TSC voting timeline: Can this be conducted in August time frame to give 
chance for current TSC members (who are on summer vacation) to contest?

Thanks
Srini


From:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org> 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>]
 On Behalf Of Jason Hunt
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 5:11 PM
To: Phil Robb mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>>
Cc: onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>

Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your 
input

Thanks, Phil, for the writeup.  I think this addresses some of the concerns on 
our two previous proposals.

Just for clarity:

- Under option 1, in the 2018 exception, are any "appointments" in addition to 
the 17 base TSC member size?  If so, please clarify.

- Under option 2, is the second election done before or after the base TSC 
election?  Are those two at-large seats in addition to the 17 base seats?  Is 
there any difference in separate elections vs. just looking at the base 
election and taking the top 2 vote-getters that were excluded because of the 1 
per company cap?

Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

The discussion and options we discuss today should be primarily based on the 
survey. We should avoid creating new options or variations not supported by the 
survey.

The survey also articulated support to have 8 seats for operators. I don’t see 
that in Option 1. I will not support an option that does not have that as 
reflected by the survey feedback.

Any alternative options we decide to select from beyond Option 1 should be 
based on the survey data. This data comes from the community and we need to 
reflect their feedback.

My suggestion is to have the TSC members review the survey data before 
attending the TSC meeting today.

Thanks

Mazin
On Jun 21, 2018, at 11:41 AM, Stephen Terrill 
mailto:stephen.terr...@ericsson.com>> wrote:

Hi,

The idea was that we perform the election without considering extra 
considerations (called base to have a term) then add to it and supplement the 
TSC for the requested consideration for the service providers.

BR,

Steve

Sent from my Phone, please forgive typos

On 21 Jun 2018, at 09:47, Phil Robb 
mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

Hi Srinivasa:

Let me ask Chris or Stephen to chime in on their intention regarding the size 
of the TSC.

Regarding waiting until August, I think we should ask the TSC this question.  
My personal opinion is that as long as we have quorum, we should continue to do 
business.   Vacations happen but that's why the organization allows proxies.

Best,

Phil.

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Addepalli, Srinivasa R 
mailto:srinivasa.r.addepa...@intel.com>> wrote:
Hi,

I also had similar question for option 1:  Are the operator appointed TSC 
members are over and beyond base TSC size mentioned?

On TSC voting timeline: Can this be conducted in August time frame to give 
chance for current TSC members (who are on summer vacation) to contest?

Thanks
Srini


From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org]
 On Behalf Of Jason Hunt
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 5:11 PM
To: Phil Robb mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>>
Cc: onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>

Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your 
input

Thanks, Phil, for the writeup.  I think this addresses some of the concerns on 
our two previous proposals.

Just for clarity:

- Under option 1, in the 2018 exception, are any "appointments" in addition to 
the 17 base TSC member size?  If so, please clarify.

- Under option 2, is the second election done before or after the base TSC 
election?  Are those two at-large seats in addition to the 17 base seats?  Is 
there any difference in separate elections vs. just looking at the base 
election and taking the top 2 vote-getters that were excluded because of the 1 
per company cap?


Regards,
Jason Hunt
Distinguished Engineer, IBM

Phone: 314-749-7422
Email: djh...@us.ibm.com
Twitter: @DJHunt




From:Phil Robb 
mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>>
To:Jason Hunt mailto:djh...@us.ibm.com>>
Cc:onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Date:06/20/2018 04:46 PM
Subject:Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please 
provide your input




Hello TSC Members:

We had a discussion on TSC Composition during the Casablanca Developer Forum on 
Tuesday.  During that discussion Stephen Terrill and Chris Donley elaborated on 
the proposal provided by Jason in this email thread.  During the discussion, 
this approach was received relatively well by those in the room.  I asked 
Stephen and Chris to write up the proposal so that we could add it to this 
thread.  The proposal follows:
=
Definitions:

Service Provider: AT&T, Bell, CMCC, China Telecom, Orange, Reliance Jio, Turk 
Telecom, Verizon, Vodafone

Active Contributor: Active contributors are determined based on contributions 
to Git, Gerrit, Jira, and Confluence Require 20 contributions in total over a 
12-month period, counting any of patches merged, reviews made, Wiki page edits, 
and JIRA activities:

Option 1:

  *   Base TSC Size: 17
  *   Base TSC selection is  performed through​ ​one big ranked vote conducted 
via CIVS
  *   ​Eligibility ​to apply/run​: Active contributors
  *   ​Eligibility​ to Vote: Active contributors
  *   Base Company Cap: 1 ​TSC Member ​per company

  *   The following is valid for the year of 2018
 *   If a service provider (defined above) ​does not have any staff member 
who is eligible to run for the​ election under the criteria above, that service 
provider may appoint a person to the TSC .
 *   If a service provider has one or more staff members that are eligible 
to run for the election, they are encouraged to do so.  If no eligible person 
wins a TSC spot in the election, then the company may appoint the highest 
relatively ranked staff member from the election to the TSC.
 *   If a se

Re: [onap-tsc] Modeling

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Thanks you. Also please share with the TSC what requirements your subcommittee 
generated so the TSC can assess the different views.

Mazin
On Jun 20, 2018, at 12:08 PM, denghui (L) 
mailto:denghu...@huawei.com>> wrote:

Hi Mazin

We will try to summarize the major disagreements and bring it to TSC in next 2 
weeks.

Thanks a lot

DENG Hui



From: GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E) [mailto:ma...@research.att.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 11:33 AM
To: denghui (L) mailto:denghu...@huawei.com>>
Cc: onap-disc...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-disc...@lists.onap.org>; onap-tsc 
mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: Modeling

Deng Hui,

Thanks for your presentation today, and I really appreciate the modeling 
committee working together. Lots has been accomplished since R1.

I just wanted to articulate the conversation main points.

1. Modeling approaches for ONAP releases should be approved by the TSC. This 
should be documented and approved no later than M2.

2. If the modeling committee is unable to interlock on a common approach for 
offline, documentation or runtime, then different options should be brought to 
the TSC for review and making a decision.

Modeling directly impacts deployability. Disagreements impacting R3 should be 
documented and brought to the TSC over the next 2 weeks.

Thanks!
Mazin

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

View/Reply Online (#3192): https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/message/3192
Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/22463410/21656
Group Owner: onap-tsc+ow...@lists.onap.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/unsub  [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Can you put those options on slides for the TSC meeting today.
I want to call out which option was mostly supported by community.

Mazin
On Jun 21, 2018, at 9:14 AM, Phil Robb 
mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

Hi Alla:

You are correct.  The second option provided by Stephen and Chris does go 
against the survey results regarding a company cap of one person for company.  
TSC members, please keep this in mind.

Regarding the number of options present, I think the TSC can consider any of 
the options provided on this thread thus far.  There have been three options 
presented by me, one by Jason, and one by Chris and Stephen.

During the discussion at today's TSC, I think it would be good to get the 
selection down to 3 or less then we can do an email vote on those.  From there, 
we will take the winning proposal and derive the wording for how we want to 
change the technical charter in accordance with that proposal and then we'll 
vote to put that into place.  Also at today's TSC we will go  through the 
survey results for the timing of the of the change in TSC composition.  Once 
the email vote for the charter change is complete we'll do an email vote for 
the timing of the TSC composition change.

Please let me know if that sounds reasonable and if there are any alternate 
suggestions.

Best,

Phil.

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Alla Goldner 
mailto:alla.gold...@amdocs.com>> wrote:
Hi Phil, all,

I fail to understand where Option 2 comes from.
Yesterday we had 3 options on the table, here we see only the first one and 
some variant of the same first one, which is not connected to survey results by 
any means

At least, 3 options we had yesterday resulted from the survey.
And we actually discussed yesterday that on this particular aspect (having cap 
of 1 per company) there was survey consensus thus this should be enforced.

Now, there is absolutely no connection between the survey we did and the option 
2, while “yesterday’s” options 2 and 3 are not reflected at all.

You said yesterday, when we finished discussion, that we will firstly vote for 
some variants of 3 options which were yesterday on the table, then will pick up 
2 winning and vote for 1.
Let’s be consistent with the survey results and the actual proposals, at least.

Best regards,

Alla Goldner

Open Network Division
Amdocs Technology


[cid:image001.png@01D40890.1CCB37E0]

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org]
 On Behalf Of Phil Robb
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 11:46 AM
To: Jason Hunt mailto:djh...@us.ibm.com>>
Cc: onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your 
input

Hello TSC Members:

We had a discussion on TSC Composition during the Casablanca Developer Forum on 
Tuesday.  During that discussion Stephen Terrill and Chris Donley elaborated on 
the proposal provided by Jason in this email thread.  During the discussion, 
this approach was received relatively well by those in the room.  I asked 
Stephen and Chris to write up the proposal so that we could add it to this 
thread.  The proposal follows:
=
Definitions:

Service Provider: AT&T, Bell, CMCC, China Telecom, Orange, Reliance Jio, Turk 
Telecom, Verizon, Vodafone

Active Contributor: Active contributors are determined based on contributions 
to Git, Gerrit, Jira, and Confluence Require 20 contributions in total over a 
12-month period, counting any of patches merged, reviews made, Wiki page edits, 
and JIRA activities:

Option 1:

  *   Base TSC Size: 17
  *   Base TSC selection is  performed through​ ​one big ranked vote conducted 
via CIVS
  *   ​Eligibility ​to apply/run​: Active contributors
  *   ​Eligibility​ to Vote: Active contributors
  *   Base Company Cap: 1 ​TSC Member ​per company


  *   The following is valid for the year of 2018

 *   If a service provider (defined above) ​does not have any staff member 
who is eligible to run for the​ election under the criteria above, that service 
provider may appoint a person to the TSC .
 *   If a service provider has one or more staff members that are eligible 
to run for the election, they are encouraged to do so.  If no eligible person 
wins a TSC spot in the election, then the company may appoint the highest 
relatively ranked staff member from the election to the TSC.
 *   If a service provider does have one or more staff members that are 
eligible to run but choose not to, then that service provider​ may not appoint 
a person to the TSC.


  *   If a TSC member is absent​ (​and does not ​provide a proxy) for 3 
consecutive meetings, that person is removed from the TSC.  The person may 
request to be reinstated by the TSC​.  In such an event the TSC may approve the 
reinstatement by a simple majority vote.​
 Option 2:

Option 1 with the following modifications
A separate election is proposed for 2

[onap-tsc] Modeling

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Deng Hui,

Thanks for your presentation today, and I really appreciate the modeling 
committee working together. Lots has been accomplished since R1.

I just wanted to articulate the conversation main points.

1. Modeling approaches for ONAP releases should be approved by the TSC. This 
should be documented and approved no later than M2.

2. If the modeling committee is unable to interlock on a common approach for 
offline, documentation or runtime, then different options should be brought to 
the TSC for review and making a decision.

Modeling directly impacts deployability. Disagreements impacting R3 should be 
documented and brought to the TSC over the next 2 weeks.

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

Re: [onap-tsc] TSC follow up: Project intent to participate in Casablanca Release

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Thanks Gildas for putting it together.
VF-C, Holmes, MSB and Usecase UI need to send a note if they wish to continue 
forward.

Would like to add a clarification on new projects.

It is important that each new project gets reviewed by the architecture 
committee before the F2F Casablanca meeting presentation.
To ensure diversity, we strongly encourage each new project to have a min of 3 
companies committed to code contribution/participation.
That was the approach we employed for Amsterdam, and we will follow it here too.

Mazin





On Jun 7, 2018, at 8:10 PM, Gildas Lanilis 
mailto:gildas.lani...@huawei.com>> wrote:

Hi,

This is to follow up on an action item from the TSC meeting on June 7, 2018 
regarding Projects intent to participate into Casablanca Release.

2 dimensions:
1)  Existing Beijing Projects: have up to June 14 to formulate their 
intention. Current list is posted in 
wiki.
2)  Proposed Projects: current list is posted in 
wiki.
 For those who have not scheduled a placeholder for Architecture review, please 
contact Christopher 
Donley
 asap.

Let me know if you have any questions, I will be glad to help.

Thanks,
Gildas


Gildas Lanilis
ONAP Release Manager
Santa Clara CA, USA
gildas.lani...@huawei.com
Mobile: 1 415 238 6287

___
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&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=Is1YmtrYBjtAoZVUvINsh31HFxxXp6Etu6Y8HPsRwuo&s=clw3ihkCKPpEL-3kAsMYHqSi7tX1o2ewF2mcJ5bH-Ig&e=

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

Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Members Composition Survey RFC - Respond by 18:00 Pacific time, May 7

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Kenny,

Can you send out an updated copy post all the comments.

Thank you for taking the lead.
Mazin


On May 8, 2018, at 2:29 AM, Stephen Terrill 
mailto:stephen.terr...@ericsson.com>> wrote:

Hi Kenny,

This reads that there should be an update, is that the case?

BR,

Steve

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Kenny Paul
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2018 12:53 AM
To: Christopher Donley (Chris) 
mailto:christopher.don...@huawei.com>>; onap-tsc 
mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Members Composition Survey RFC - Respond by 18:00 
Pacific time, May 7

Hi Chris,
Comments inline >>>

Thanks!
-kenny

From: "Christopher Donley (Chris)" 
mailto:christopher.don...@huawei.com>>
Date: Friday, May 4, 2018 at 11:21 AM
To: Kenny Paul mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>>, 
onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Members Composition Survey RFC - Respond by 18:00 
Pacific time, May 7

Kenny,

Thanks for starting this. Three things:

  1.  I have some comments/suggestions on the wording of the questions. In 
particular, aspects of the proposal Steve and I submitted are not included (I'm 
attaching it for your reference). Please see in-line in red.
>>> My apologies. Extremely embarrassed about that. Thank You!
  2.  Some of these items are closely related.  Depending on the results of the 
survey, the options might not make sense as a standalone proposal, but might 
represent two (or more) separate proposals that need to be voted on in their 
entirety. I thought this was Mazin's point from yesterday.
>>> Indeed this is the case. If so we will put together the appropriate 
>>> conflicting/contrasting votes.
  3.  I thought our agreement on yesterday's call was that we would separate 
the "what" of the TSC composition from the "when", and that this survey would 
only address the "what".  We were going to address the "when" after we voted on 
the "what".
>>> The results of "When" will not be shared until the "What" decisions are 
>>> made. Having that data a quick transition to a timing discussion when 
>>> appropriate.


Thanks,
Chris

From: mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>> 
on behalf of Kenny Paul 
mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>>
Date: Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 5:35 PM
To: onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: [onap-tsc] TSC Members Composition Survey RFC - Respond by 18:00 
Pacific time, May 7

As per today's TSC meeting, here is the list of questions proposed for the TSC 
Composition Survey
THIS IS NOT THE SURVEY – SOLICITING INPUT ONLY - DO NOT VOTE -

Timing:
Mon. May 7, 18:00 Pacific: provide comments to Kenny & Phil
Wed. May 9: Survey to be published using Surveymonkey
Wed. May 16: Survey closes
Thur. May 17: Survey results presented and voting on highest ranked survey 
responses at the TSC meeting



  1.  When should the ONAP TSC move from “Startup” to “Steady” state operations 
at which point the TSC should be populated, not by Platinum Member designates, 
but instead by some other means, for which the TSC is responsible for defining?

1.  As soon as the new method for populating the TSC is defined
2.  After the Beijing Release
3.  After the Casablanca Release
4.  Other [Please specify time]
What's the difference between 1 and 2?
>>> #1 doesn't imply a specific release aligned date target, but would still 
>>> require some change in the ONAP Technical Charter if the composition and 
>>> qualification criteria are not in place by June 30.

Questions 2 through 7 relate to the composition of the TSC during Steady State 
operations

2.  How large should the TSC be?

 *   10 or less
 *   13
 *   15
 *   21
 *   Other [Please specify a number or other quantitative measure]

According to Bitergia, there are 19 independent companies contributing to ONAP. 
 Can we set the upper bound to 19 so that we're not reserving open slots for 
companies who aren't participating?
>>> and those 19 independent companies != all the 19 existing companies 
>>> currently represented on the TSC. I will add 19 to the list. I've also 
>>> received private input saying that "30" had been discussed and therefore 
>>> should be included.

 *


Company Cap - How many members of the same company (or related companies as 
defined in the Charter) should be allowed on the TSC at the same time?

 *   There should be no company-cap
 *   2 per company
 *   1 per company
 *   Other [Please specify a number or other quantitative measure]

 Perhaps choice 1 should be "3" which was the number in our original charter?  
I don't think anyone is arguing for "no cap"
>>> Also embarrassed to have missed including that specific language. Added.

Should we try to ensure a mix of operators and vendors on the TSC?

 *   Yes
 *   No

The issue isn't whether there should be a mix of operators and vendors (I think 
everyone 

Re: [onap-tsc] TSC MEMBERS Approval/Acknowledgment Needed- Requesting Nexus3 downtime

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

+1



On May 1, 2018, at 7:46 PM, Kenny Paul 
mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

(bcc'd to onap-release to avoid cross posting)

When: Requesting May 2nd, 6:00 am to 7:00 am Pacific, Alternative: May 3, 6:00 
am to 7:00 am Pacific

What:  Increasing ONAP's Nexus3 server's heap size to 6 gig and enable 
additional logging

Why: Based upon a meeting today between the Community and LFIT - Part of 
ongoing work to address performance issues pulling docker images

Impact: Jenkins and Nexus3 will be unavailable during this time

Risk: Low

Background: Docker image pulls are subject to hanging in mid-stream for minutes 
at a time.  A recent network fix on the part of our service provider has 
addressed bandwidth issues which were contributing to this behavior, however 
with one bottleneck removed a new issue has been identified.   It is believed 
that the jobs are pausing whenever normal garbage collection tasks are 
triggered. The most likely cause of this is the result of the heap size being 
set to default values which is not taking full advantage of the memory 
available. This change will set the heap size to match what is currently in 
place for ONAP's Nexus2 server.  During this down time logging will also be 
enabled to track additional system information in the event that the planned 
fix does not correct the problem.

Alternative:  Leave system as-is until after the release



Best Regards,
-kenny

Kenny Paul, Technical Program Manager, The Linux Foundation
kp...@linuxfoundation.org, 510.766.5945
San Francisco Bay Area, Pacific Time Zone


___
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&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=2dwD7a5k4V9cZl09O7uTpejnZMF8aa01W3yMqrrZC5Y&m=AfpQu94Sxtex1Agll7RuC2VAoK44OhbcGtlTUJ6OlFI&s=ol458fKXMtpYMeqAn0CS5wr3-OQxBzqxzkXLmIf-qaE&e=

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

Re: [onap-tsc] [onap-discuss] [modeling] Help on ONAP R2 Data Modeling verification

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Thanks Deng
That is surprising. Can each company with strong interest in this offer one 
coder please.  This is a key activity and can’t be coded by 2 coders. This will 
impact our Casablanca release.

Thank you all!!

Mazin

Sent through AT&T's fastest network

On May 2, 2018, at 6:08 AM, denghui (L) 
mailto:denghu...@huawei.com>> wrote:

Hello all

We have more than 10-20 companies regularly to talk about ONAP modeling , but 
unfortunately we have only 2 coders contributing ONAP R2 modeling code 
contribution.
Victor has worked on this more than 1 week, and felt that he can’t do such huge 
work just by himself, so he has create below jira to invite more contributors

I create JIRA tickets to track the status for R2 DM 
Verification：

1.  
https://jira.onap.org/browse/SDC-1291

2.  
https://jira.onap.org/browse/SDC-1290

3.  
https://jira.onap.org/browse/SDC-1289

4.  
https://jira.onap.org/browse/SDC-1288
  Owner: Dejan from ericsson

5.  
https://jira.onap.org/browse/SDC-1287
  Owner: Dejan from ericsson

6.  
https://jira.onap.org/browse/SDC-1286
  Owner: Victor Gao

If you could help, please come and help on first 3 bullets.
Many thanks for your help

Best regards,

DENG Hui
___
onap-discuss mailing list
onap-disc...@lists.onap.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.onap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Ddiscuss&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=7osx5auWQIBPX6fsZAYS6n7rKCLzv2nUaoahw5ZGS40&s=TOh2rQvHE5Kdn2xb2WMuTVnLoZK2KOA5MsIoGB1O-zw&e=
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc

Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Composition Proposal

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Colleagues,

We are in a transition stage in ONAP and not target state.

ONAP is not widely or mildly deployed yet by most operators. If operators do 
not commit and are engaged in the technical decision making, then
this will impact the business for vendors and suppliers, and the future of 
ONAP. ONAP was created to drive harmonization among operators
for orchestration and management of network functions, and expedite the ability 
for suppliers to develop and support solutions for operators.
This is win-win for everyone.

We now have 100 members in ONAP in just a year. Having a diverse community; 1 
per company, and 50% rep by vendors and 50% by operators
ensures we get faster adoption and deployment of ONAP over the next 12 months. 
This should be our primary goal in open source - adoption.

Mazin


On Apr 26, 2018, at 3:39 AM, Stephen Terrill 
mailto:stephen.terr...@ericsson.com>> wrote:

Hi,

Just adding onto the end of this thread 😊.

Since the proposal from Chris and I was distributed there have been a few good 
suggestions.  One that I like that supports diversity of representation and can 
help with a healthy governance is a cap of 1 per company (and associated 
companies, for which there is a good definition of available).  Maybe this is a 
topic of a separate vote itself.

I’m a little confused as to the topic of “end-user” and “service provider” and 
“operator” in terms of what we are trying to achieve with this and if we have 
it as a criteria what the definition would be.  When it comes to the purpose, I 
am lead to believe by the discussion to capture the requirements of those who 
do or intend to operate a solution based on ONAP, with the example raised by 
Ranny.  Its easy to argue that this is a good aim, however are such 
requirements to be injected via the TSC – or via mechanisms such as Use-Cases 
and S3P?  Furthermore we know that with opensource there are many channels that 
opensource based products go to market – a its likely that company that 
provides a service based on ONAP and takes the community edition will be 
putting significant resources behind doing so and is likely active in the 
community as well; equally an operator that takes an approach on getting 
support from another company has those channels for input requirements.  One 
option is to have representation from the newly formed End-User advisory 
committee, where the definition is an elected member from the defined members 
of that end-user advisory committee.  The risk I see of reserving significant 
seats for any defined representation is members who may not have sufficient 
time or priority to support with the necessary governance.

To the point that phil raised of retaining representation of the companies 
there were eligible under the setup when we had the ONAP governing board, 
however joined after the establishment, that sounds fair if we were to proceed 
with the change now.  I should note that there is a clear definition of that by 
decision.

To the point of the size – that can always be debated. Aiming to have an odd 
number is usually good for voting purposes.  15 seemed a good number, it kinds 
of comes out as a number of 1 governing representative for each 2 projects 
(just looking at it from a scale perspective).  It could be argued (and I see 
it is)  that it should be a little higher, however making it too large hits the 
law of limiting returns and increases the risk of non attendance and non quorum 
reaching meetings.  Note here, I believe that it would be useful to add a 
clause that if a member (or a proxy) is not attending for 2 meetings in a 
defined (say 2 month period) the seat is fortuited.

BR,

Steve

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Haiby, Ranny (Nokia - 
US/San Jose)
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 8:27 PM
To: Christopher Donley (Chris) 
mailto:christopher.don...@huawei.com>>; Kenny 
Paul mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>>; Phil Robb 
mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>>; 
onap-tsc@lists.onap.org
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Composition Proposal


Chris,



I completely agree with your point of having the TSC represent the needs of the 
community. However, I think I see the term "community" a bit different than 
you. Having the TSC strongly represent the "developer community" creates the 
risk of it becoming an echo chamber for the views and concepts of the people 
already involved in development. To me, "the community" includes not only the 
developers but also the NOC engineer on the graveyard shift who has to use the 
ONAP VID portal to scale out some service at 4AM. The proposal to reserve seats 
in the TSC for the not-so-active operators addresses just that.



Ranny.


From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org 
mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>> on 
behalf of Christopher Donley (Chris)

Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Composition Proposal

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

I am supportive of the proposals I have seen so far. The two constraints I will 
continue to emphasize are success of ONAP deployment and diversity

1. 50% operator participation. Operators are the customers of ONAP.

2. One rep per company


Mazin

Sent through AT&T's fastest network

On Apr 12, 2018, at 9:41 AM, Phil Robb 
mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

Thanks Chris.

I added the suggestion of "end users who are not otherwise represented on the 
TSC through the election process are allowed to appoint a TSC representative" 
as a way of ensuring that the end users have representation in the event that 
the statistics don't work out.  I agree that the likely distribution between 
vendors and users via the election process is something similar to what you 
suggest.

Best,

Phil.

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Christopher Donley (Chris) 
mailto:christopher.don...@huawei.com>> wrote:
Thanks Phil.

I'd just like to mention that under the election system we proposed, operators 
should have pretty good representation even without two-year appointments.  If 
we use the statistics on the Bitergia overview page as a proxy for a company's 
voting power in ONAP, 5 operators are in the top 15 companies just on code 
commits. Using the voting criteria we proposed that measures other 
participation, their eligible voters and overall voting power would be 
increased. From the data, I would estimate operators would earn at least 5 
elected seats (likely 6-7) plus another 3 appointed seats for newly joined 
operators.  This puts operators and vendors roughly at parity without having to 
call out different classes of members (since it's an elected system, there will 
be some variation based on the nominees involved).  Based on the data, the 
operator representation should be the same regardless of whether the 
per-company cap is one or two.

Chris
From: Phil Robb mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>>
Date: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 3:59 PM
To: Chris Donley 
mailto:christopher.don...@huawei.com>>
Cc: "Vul, Alex" mailto:alex@intel.com>>, "Haiby, Ranny 
(Nokia - US/San Jose)" mailto:ranny.ha...@nokia.com>>, 
"onap-tsc@lists.onap.org" 
mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>

Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Composition Proposal

Hello ONAP TSC:

I would like to keep the discussion moving regarding how and when we might 
choose to change the method of populating the TSC.

>From the discussions thus far, I do not believe I heard much pushback on the 
>population method suggested by Chris D. and Stephen T. at last week's TSC 
>meeting.  In general, it called for a TSC where anyone can self-nominate to 
>run for a TSC seat, and those that are allowed to vote must have demonstrated 
>some form of previous participation in the project including code 
>contributions, wiki contributions, subcommittee participation/leadership, etc.

If we were to do something like that, the one significant concern is end user 
representation, in particular since several of our end users have just joined 
the project recently and are ramping up their plans, and developer capabilities 
to directly participate in the project.  Mazin has called for 50% end-user 
participation in the TSC, others have just expressed the general concern that 
the end users should still be represented "well" in the new structure.

We have also heard from several of the TSC members that now is not the right 
time to change the makeup of the TSC and we should leave it the same at least 
until Casablanca (Nov. 2018).  A vote was held on this with a significant 
number of voters indicating that they would like the TSC to remain the same 
until Casablanca.  The vote did not pass however because such a change (which 
affects the ONAP Charter) must pass with a super-majority of 2/3s of the votes.

We have agreed to vote on this postponement again to see if it will pass the 
super-majority.  However, several TSC members have requested that such a vote 
not occur in a vacuum and instead be voted on along side other proposal(s) to 
populate the TSC differently than it is done today.

In the spirit of compromise, there are two ways in which we might ensure 
end-user representation on the TSC.  One of the ways was suggested by Chris and 
Stephen during their presentation last week, whereby:
   In addition to 15 elected TSC members, each end-user Platinum Member of LFN 
that had been a part of ONAP and/or LFN for less than 12 months from the time 
of the election, would be allowed to appoint a representative to the TSC.  If 
we were to put this in place, then Turk Telecom, Verizon, and Vodafone would be 
allowed to appoint a TSC representative while China Mobile, China Telecom, 
AT&T, Bell Canada, Orange, and Reliance Jio would not get an appointment 
because they have been members of ONAP/LFN for more than 12 months.  If we were 
to change this appointment time period from 12 months to 24 months, then all 
current LFN Platinum members who are end user

Re: [onap-tsc] [Onap-lf-announce] Jenkins and Nexus downtime

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Yes please. Let’s move forward so not to impact the release assuming it is 90 
minutes only.
Unless anyone in the TSC has reservation, please assume you will move forward 
by the set time.

Mazin


On Apr 17, 2018, at 9:20 PM, Kenny Paul 
mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

Given where we are in the release cycle, I've asked IT to hang off on this 
pending input form the TSC. This down time has been requested as the result of 
a call this morning discussing extremely long durations to pull docker images. 
The expectation is this will improve that issue.

Basically, I'm looking for a thumbs-up from the TSC Members before proceeding 
with scheduling down time.

Best Regards,
-kenny

Kenny Paul, Technical Program Manager, The Linux Foundation
kp...@linuxfoundation.org, 510.766.5945
San Francisco Bay Area, Pacific Time Zone


From: 
mailto:onap-lf-announce-boun...@lists.onap.org>>
 on behalf of Jeremy Phelps 
mailto:jphe...@linuxfoundation.org>>
Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 4:15 PM
To: mailto:onap-lf-annou...@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: Re: [Onap-lf-announce] Jenkins and Nexus downtime

Date correction in the year:
Start Date/Time:
  - 8:30 am Pacific April 18, 2018
  - 
https://www.worldtimebuddy.com/?qm=1&lid=8,100,4641239&h=8&date=2018-4-18&sln=8.5-10
Systems affected:
  - 
jenkins.onap.org
  - 
nexus3.onap.org
Why:
  - LF IT is migrating the nexus3 system to a new node
Expected Downtime:
  - 1.5 hours

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 6:10 PM, Jeremy Phelps 
mailto:jphe...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
Start Date/Time:
  - 8:30 am Pacific April 18, 2019
  - 
https://www.worldtimebuddy.com/?qm=1&lid=8,100,4641239&h=8&date=2018-4-18&sln=8.5-10
Systems affected:
  - 
jenkins.onap.org
  - 
nexus3.onap.org
Why:
  - LF IT is migrating the nexus3 system to a new node
Expected Downtime:
  - 1.5 hours

___ Onap-lf-announce mailing list 
onap-lf-annou...@lists.onap.orghttps://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-lf-announce
___
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&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=8WoyDoqI2sCodXtJ6jJqxX83d9PMYB58t5rZKjJilp8&s=xQGZxLJRz9Vnx9GGtdy8ykqQsuQ-Ahsbbg3TZxNy1fo&e=

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

Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Composition Proposal

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Chris, Steve,

Thanks for drafting a proposal together. Let me share some thoughts following 
the board meeting last week.

1. A number of board members (vendors, suppliers and operators) are concerned 
that we are changing the TSC too soon at this early stage of ONAP.
Although not everyone voted for the June decision, we should proceed with the 
change over, but do it well and smoothly to ensure successful outcome.
I would suggest changing the TSC and Chair for June. All other leadership roles 
should change after Casablanca. Some projects and PTLs already
started Casablanca work and we should avoid disruptions.

2. I am supportive of simplicity and self-nomination. With exceptions.
a. 50% of the TSC must come from operators. Operators must sign and commit.
b. We have over 60 members in ONAP already. We can afford to have 1 member per 
company to ensure diversity.
c. Who qualifies to vote is complex. Just include all active members on the 
technical email list. LF can remove inactive ones.

It is fine bringing this subject up at the TSC meeting tomorrow, but the deeper 
discussion should happen in calls that Phil has been holding before
bringing the proposal to finalize and approve to the TSC.

Mazin






On Apr 4, 2018, at 4:58 PM, Christopher Donley (Chris) 
mailto:christopher.don...@huawei.com>> wrote:

Dear TSC,

Steve Terrill and I have put together a proposal to transition the TSC to its 
“steady state” by June 30, as required in the ONAP Technical Charter.  We have 
tried to incorporate feedback from previous TSC discussions on this topic, and 
are proposing a structure that encourages diversity of companies and roles, 
while recognizing contributions in the community and interested operators who 
may have joined later, but who want to take an active role in ONAP.  See 
attached.

Under our proposal, the TSC will be composed of 15 elected representatives, 
with a cap of no more than two people per company.  Anyone who is interested 
may run for a seat on the TSC.  Voters in the election will consist of people 
who have been active in the community over the previous six month period, as 
demonstrated by one or more of {code contributions, code reviews, lira ticket 
submissions, readthedocs, wiki (pages or file uploads), or subcommittee 
leadership}.

We are interested in feedback on our proposal (including community feedback), 
and would like to discuss this on tomorrow’s TSC call.

Thanks,
Chris & Steve


___
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&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=axGeWi3euUr4yk1LBh9N_ZBJjJ98efJ7xfk4c3pl8L0&s=qklC5R9PpmwnqtFhR1ZC8W3cEnvFpCeIkI4Xi1GP-2s&e=

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

Re: [onap-tsc] [onap-discuss] Action Plan towards Casablanca

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Chris

As Phil mentioned, this is a subcommittee of the LFN end-user advisory 
committee and does not need the approval, scope or charter
of our TSC. Phil can share status and plan.

Nevertheless, I agree that it is important for our TSC to review but we will 
not slow down the process.
thanks
Mazin

On Mar 30, 2018, at 10:45 PM, Christopher Donley (Chris) 
mailto:christopher.don...@huawei.com>> wrote:

Mazin,

As we discussed, please make sure that we follow the charter in proposing the 
end-user advisory committee (I.e, formal documentation of the purpose, scope, 
membership, etc) so that the TSC can review and vote on it. I think it’s a good 
idea, but I want to see the details and make sure we follow our documented 
procedure.

Thanks,
Chris


From: GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)
To: Alla Goldner;
Cc: onap-disc...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-disc...@lists.onap.org>; 
onap-usecase...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-usecase...@lists.onap.org>; 
onap-tsc@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org> P;
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] [onap-discuss] Action Plan towards Casablanca
Time: 2018-03-30 17:57:00


Thanks Alla for the summary.

Here is what we agreed to at the TSC meeting.
There are three work plans for Casablanca. The theme is increase deployability 
of ONAP.

1. Functional requirements and use cases. We agreed to establish an end-user 
advisory committee that will be driven by the equivalent of product managers 
across operators who will help to set priorties that can accelerate 
deployability of ONAP. The work of your committee on use cases and 5G 
solutioning will help to provide options for the end-user advisory committee.

2. Platform Evolution. This includes some of your list items
a. S3P new target (including code coverage)
b. Backward compatibility
c. Improve modularity and simplicity of using ONAP.

3. Broader learning and education of ONAP.
The Education committee will develop a proposal for weekly Webinars.

I am working to assemble 1. My hope is to have 3-4 operators signed up next 
week so they can meet with your team and get the work started.
Phil will make that committee official as a subgroup under LFN end-user 
advisory committee. Until then, let’s not slow down.

We also discussed what we want to accomplish prior to the Beijing meeting in 
June. We will discuss that further at the TSC meeting this week,
and also vote on the release planning for Casablanca.

Great progress by the team on Beijing. Most projects hit M4 already. Momentum 
is amazing.

Mazin

On Mar 30, 2018, at 5:03 AM, Alla Goldner 
mailto:alla.gold...@amdocs.com>> wrote:

Hi all,

I re-attach the picture which describes high level priorities as discussed 
during the meeting called by me on Wednesday evening. I understand this was 
discussed in details also during the TSC meeting.

What we had on the table was:

1.   Leftovers from Beijing remained from :
a.   Functional requirements (PNF, Scaling, Change Management, HPA)
b.  Leftovers from S3P support
2.   New S3P requirements
3.   All new use cases and requirements coming to Casablanca (you could see 
the variety during our meeting on Monday)
4.   A different projects proposed extensions
5.   Possibly, new projects potentially proposed for Casablanca
6.   Architecture evolution related modifications

Clearly, this whole scope will not be accomplished in a single Release, this is 
why we needed to see what would be areas of priorities.
Clearly, we may get additional input from the Service Providers, as discussed, 
but in the mean time, in order to make progress, let’s assume these are the 
priorities.

Now, in order to do constructive work and move forward towards Casablanca 
Release, specifically for Usecase subcommittee, we need to see what ongoing 
work matches the Deployability goal as defined and, additionally, extract 
generic functional requirements from the use cases brought to the table/see if 
some requirements brought to the table can be generalized.

I identify the following areas for our activities out of proposed prioritized 
areas:

1.   Leftovers of functional requirements from Beijing – as scope is pretty 
clear, I would say that at this point the required actions are:
a.   Have a detailed list of functionality proposed to move to Casablanca
b.  Negotiate with involved projects on this functionality and resources 
assigned to these activities

2.   All 5G related requirements:
a.   A realistic plan of what can be implemented in Casablanca (a subset of 
functionality discussed so far), based on available/emulated VNFs/PNFs, 3GPP 
standards’ availability etc. with flows, needed resources, affected modules

3.   All external controllers related activities – this work should be 
generalized and common principle should be developed on what we bring to 
Casablanca in such a way that it can be utilized by several use cases. Some 
initial work on this was also done in Beijing.
a.   

Re: [onap-tsc] [onap-discuss] Action Plan towards Casablanca

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Thanks Alla for the summary.

Here is what we agreed to at the TSC meeting.
There are three work plans for Casablanca. The theme is increase deployability 
of ONAP.

1. Functional requirements and use cases. We agreed to establish an end-user 
advisory committee that will be driven by the equivalent of product managers 
across operators who will help to set priorties that can accelerate 
deployability of ONAP. The work of your committee on use cases and 5G 
solutioning will help to provide options for the end-user advisory committee.

2. Platform Evolution. This includes some of your list items
a. S3P new target (including code coverage)
b. Backward compatibility
c. Improve modularity and simplicity of using ONAP.

3. Broader learning and education of ONAP.
The Education committee will develop a proposal for weekly Webinars.

I am working to assemble 1. My hope is to have 3-4 operators signed up next 
week so they can meet with your team and get the work started.
Phil will make that committee official as a subgroup under LFN end-user 
advisory committee. Until then, let’s not slow down.

We also discussed what we want to accomplish prior to the Beijing meeting in 
June. We will discuss that further at the TSC meeting this week,
and also vote on the release planning for Casablanca.

Great progress by the team on Beijing. Most projects hit M4 already. Momentum 
is amazing.

Mazin

On Mar 30, 2018, at 5:03 AM, Alla Goldner 
mailto:alla.gold...@amdocs.com>> wrote:

Hi all,

I re-attach the picture which describes high level priorities as discussed 
during the meeting called by me on Wednesday evening. I understand this was 
discussed in details also during the TSC meeting.

What we had on the table was:

1.   Leftovers from Beijing remained from :
a.   Functional requirements (PNF, Scaling, Change Management, HPA)
b.  Leftovers from S3P support
2.   New S3P requirements
3.   All new use cases and requirements coming to Casablanca (you could see 
the variety during our meeting on Monday)
4.   A different projects proposed extensions
5.   Possibly, new projects potentially proposed for Casablanca
6.   Architecture evolution related modifications

Clearly, this whole scope will not be accomplished in a single Release, this is 
why we needed to see what would be areas of priorities.
Clearly, we may get additional input from the Service Providers, as discussed, 
but in the mean time, in order to make progress, let’s assume these are the 
priorities.

Now, in order to do constructive work and move forward towards Casablanca 
Release, specifically for Usecase subcommittee, we need to see what ongoing 
work matches the Deployability goal as defined and, additionally, extract 
generic functional requirements from the use cases brought to the table/see if 
some requirements brought to the table can be generalized.

I identify the following areas for our activities out of proposed prioritized 
areas:

1.   Leftovers of functional requirements from Beijing – as scope is pretty 
clear, I would say that at this point the required actions are:
a.   Have a detailed list of functionality proposed to move to Casablanca
b.  Negotiate with involved projects on this functionality and resources 
assigned to these activities

2.   All 5G related requirements:
a.   A realistic plan of what can be implemented in Casablanca (a subset of 
functionality discussed so far), based on available/emulated VNFs/PNFs, 3GPP 
standards’ availability etc. with flows, needed resources, affected modules

3.   All external controllers related activities – this work should be 
generalized and common principle should be developed on what we bring to 
Casablanca in such a way that it can be utilized by several use cases. Some 
initial work on this was also done in Beijing.
a.   A concrete proposal on what we bring to Casablanca should be worked on 
and brought

I suggested end of April as a deadline for the conditional approval of the 
scope as discussed above. (Conditional is because some more detailed 
discussions with the projects after this may rule out/or add some of the 
requirements/functionalities.

For that, we need to get your revised high level proposals per (2) and (3) by 
our April 9th meeting. Please talk to me in case of any questions.

Best regards,

Alla Goldner

Open Network Division
Amdocs Technology




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
___
onap-discuss mailing list
onap-disc...@lists.onap.org
https

Re: [onap-tsc] [onap-tsc-vote] ONAP Beijing Architecture Approval (ends 5PM Pacific, March 20)

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Let’s have the architecture team regroup, and initiate the vote at the TSC F2F 
meeting next week.
We need a target architecture for Beijing that we can use publicly.

For Casablanca, I did exchange notes with Chris to consider

1. Include both target and software (design) architecture.
2. Approval no later than M1.

I would like the architecture approval to be more than target, and to consider 
mode details on the
solutioning even if the approvals happen in two waves. I will look for guidance 
and thought leadership
from the architecture committee.

I realize lots of great work and discussions went into this, so thank you!

Mazin




On Mar 21, 2018, at 2:35 AM, Alla Goldner 
mailto:alla.gold...@amdocs.com>> wrote:

Hi,

I have to admit I have difficulty understanding meaning of vote for Beijing 
architecture at this point of time (and also understanding the meaning of 
failure of this vote).

Usually, architecture is agreed when Release starts – otherwise how different 
projects can plan their work/develop their functionalities? And what this vote 
result means? My assumption was that architecture approval AT THIS POINT of 
time is purely bureaucratic, for book keeping.

I don’t know what will be our next steps – I do believe we must establish some 
clear rules on when architecture should be approved for any Release (and what 
such an approved architecture should include in terms of contents/level of 
details for a different involved modules). I also believe such an approval MUST 
happen prior to M1 of any Release.

Best regards,

Alla Goldner

Open Network Division
Amdocs Technology




From: 
onap-tsc-vote-boun...@lists.onap.org
 [mailto:onap-tsc-vote-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Kenny Paul
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 2:31 AM
To: onap-tsc-v...@lists.onap.org
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc-vote] ONAP Beijing Architecture Approval (ends 5PM 
Pacific, March 20)

(Bcc’d to onap-tsc for Community visibility)

The proposed ONAP Beijing Architecture v2.0.3 was NOT approved.


Votes needed to pass: 10
Votes cast: 10
Votes in favor: 9
Votes against: 1
Abstentions: 9

Company  Member Vote
AMDOCS Alla Goldner   1
AT&T Mazin Gilbert  1
Bell Canada   David Sauvageau
China Mobile  Lingli Deng   1
China Telecom  Xiaojun Xie   1
Cisco Frank Brockners
Cloudify Amir Levy
Ericsson  Stephen Terrill
Huawei   Christopher Donley 1
IBM  Jason Hunt1
Intel   Rajesh Gadiyar
NokiaRanny Haiby
OrangeJamil Chawki  -1
Reliance Jio   Aayush Bhatnagar
Tech Mahindra  Dhananjay Pavgi 1
Turk Telecom Cosar Baykal
VMWare Xinhui Li
VodafoneSusana Sabater  1
ZTEZhaoxing Meng 1


For reference:

Section 3.c of the ONAP Technical Charter
c. Except as provided in Section 7.c. and 8.a, decisions by vote at a meeting 
require a majority vote of those in attendance, provided quorum is met. 
Decisions made by electronic vote without a meeting require a majority vote of 
all voting members of the TSC.

Vote thread archive: 
https://lists.onap.org/pipermail/onap-tsc-vote/2018-March/000441.html

Best Regards,
-kenny

Kenny Paul, Technical Program Manager, The Linux Foundation
kp...@linuxfoundation.org, 510.766.5945
San Francisco Bay Area, Pacific Time Zone


On Mar 15, 2018, at 11:18 AM, Kenny Paul 
mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:


The TSC approves the ONAP Beijing Architecture v2.0.3 as documented here: 
Beijing 
Architecture

Please respond with a +1, 0 -1



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

Re: [onap-tsc] Community Announcement- PTL Self Code Merge Vote

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

-1



On Mar 17, 2018, at 7:53 AM, GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E) 
mailto:ma...@research.att.com>> wrote:

But this will give PTLs in other companies the ability to push their own code,
or even code from their colleagues that they claim is theirs. This impacts code
quality process. I am not very comfortable letting this happen, frankly.



On Mar 15, 2018, at 6:30 PM, Kenny Paul 
mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

This is to inform the community that the following item is being forwarded to 
the TSC for an email vote as per today’s TSC meeting.

The TSC approves changing the General Code Commit Rules as documented under 
Approved Operational 
Policies<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.onap.org_display_DW_Approved-2BOperational-2BPolicies&d=DwMFAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=jwTiArcEj6aUX0HjV0M3dT12gUtk7rC07xpgpVZkS_4&m=cAD_hd8nB7EFlC523Ubj359d3-sy7Yyaow8XBuQWhXE&s=nkA2AHFlGJBmvSbBlADZQSxujmyj0APLr15VUMp4PaY&e=>
 to allow PTLs merging their own commit provided there is a time critical need 
and provided that the justification for doing so is documented in the code 
review comments.


THIS IS NOT THE CALL TO VOTE!  The formal vote will occur on the onap-tsc-vote 
alias, not here.
A plus-one, minus-one, or zero here on this issue is null and void.

Best Regards,
-kenny

Kenny Paul, Technical Program Manager, The Linux Foundation
kp...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>, 510.766.5945
San Francisco Bay Area, Pacific Time Zone

___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.onap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Dtsc&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=7zFgm0XTqg3Zx-CI5PQJjIaYUEokDvu_xPWfdYtfc1U&s=E69yU-W3pvKTigIC3quTyF5mmRe3_RQBnjNiohgBzeo&e=


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

Re: [onap-tsc] Community Announcement- PTL Self Code Merge Vote

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

But this will give PTLs in other companies the ability to push their own code,
or even code from their colleagues that they claim is theirs. This impacts code
quality process. I am not very comfortable letting this happen, frankly.



On Mar 15, 2018, at 6:30 PM, Kenny Paul 
mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

This is to inform the community that the following item is being forwarded to 
the TSC for an email vote as per today’s TSC meeting.

The TSC approves changing the General Code Commit Rules as documented under 
Approved Operational 
Policies
 to allow PTLs merging their own commit provided there is a time critical need 
and provided that the justification for doing so is documented in the code 
review comments.


THIS IS NOT THE CALL TO VOTE!  The formal vote will occur on the onap-tsc-vote 
alias, not here.
A plus-one, minus-one, or zero here on this issue is null and void.

Best Regards,
-kenny

Kenny Paul, Technical Program Manager, The Linux Foundation
kp...@linuxfoundation.org, 510.766.5945
San Francisco Bay Area, Pacific Time Zone

___
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&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=7zFgm0XTqg3Zx-CI5PQJjIaYUEokDvu_xPWfdYtfc1U&s=E69yU-W3pvKTigIC3quTyF5mmRe3_RQBnjNiohgBzeo&e=

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

Re: [onap-tsc] FW: ONAP - Liaison statement from ITU-T FG ML5G: [sp16-fgml5g-oLS-00001] (LS on the results of the 1st meeting of the ITU-T Focus Group on Machine Learning for Future Networks including

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Thanks for sharing. I passed the doc to the LF for feedback on how we should
proceed with ITU-T. I expect significant synergies between ONAP and ML through
Acumos once the project is formally formed. LF will get back to us
regarding relationship with ITU-T.

Will keep you posted.
Mazin




On Feb 12, 2018, at 3:55 AM, denghui (L) 
mailto:denghu...@huawei.com>> wrote:

Hi Mazin,

I just received this official liaison letter from ITUT. I am not sure whether 
it is more ONAP scope or other opensource project.

Thanks a lot for your direction

Best regards,

DENG Hui

From: TSB FG ML5G, ITU [mailto:tsbfgm...@itu.int]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 4:53 PM
To: denghui (L)
Cc: TSB FG ML5G, ITU
Subject: ONAP - Liaison statement from ITU-T FG ML5G: [sp16-fgml5g-oLS-1] 
(LS on the results of the 1st meeting of the ITU-T Focus Group on Machine 
Learning for Future Networks including 5G (FG ML5G))


Dear colleagues,

At its meeting in Geneva on 30 January - 2 February 2018, ITU-T FG ML5G agreed 
to the attached liaison statement to be sent to ONAP. It has no attachment.

[sp16-fgml5g-oLS-1]: LS on the results of the 1st meeting of the ITU-T 
Focus Group on Machine Learning for Future Networks including 5G (FG ML5G).

Thank you for acknowledging receipt.

Best regards,

FG ML5G Secretariat

___
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&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=dfPwvn11PGKFkkz6XVReURrHdlig_DRSUpJTuhL32ks&s=ZN9QtJ5xSpLCalsKi9x88-PNIoXTv8pcgewEEim6Kbo&e=

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

Re: [onap-tsc] [onap-discuss] ONS Registration Discount for active developers and leadership

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Phil,

On behalf of the ONAP community and its members, I want to thank you and the LF 
for making this happen.

I expect and hope this will encourage significant participation.

Mazin

Sent through AT&T's fastest network

On Jan 27, 2018, at 12:47 AM, Phil Robb 
mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

Hello ONAP community:

Active developers and project leadership are strongly encouraged to participate 
in the ONS event.  Monday and Tuesday will be exceptionally valuable and the 
rest of the week can be used to either learn about something new going on in 
the industry and/or continue the discussions and work that are started on 
Monday and Tuesday.

To facilitate as much developer participation as possible, we have arranged for 
a 50% (ie $600 for the early-bird registration) discount to individuals meeting 
any one of the following criteria:

- You are an active contributor to ONAP with a gerrit ID and have submitted a 
patch within the last 6 months...and prior to receiving this email.

- You are an active committer and have reviewed a code contribution within the 
past 6 months and prior to receiving this email.

- You are a current TSC member

- You are a current PTL

- You are a Subcommittee Chairperson

- You are the ONAP Release Manager.

If you satisfy one of the criteria above, please do the following to register 
for ONS

  *   Please click 
here
 to register for the conference
  *   Select "Attendee Registration"
  *   Enter the discount code: ONSDVE18

My team will be reviewing everyone that uses this code, so please don't use it 
if you don't qualify.  We will void any registration made that does not meet 
the criteria.

Best regards and I look forward to seeing everyone at ONS,

Phil.
--
Phil Robb
VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation
(O) 970-229-5949
(M) 970-420-4292
Skype: Phil.Robb
___
onap-discuss mailing list
onap-disc...@lists.onap.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.onap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Ddiscuss&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=qxdWttB_80KqwMJc2HNyUCZIJiRUEWTpCOlouDvl-i4&s=b6q0zaCIKOp4hRspauDHlUUXLT7hqhPugMvuwaemROM&e=
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc

Re: [onap-tsc] [onap-discuss] Beijing M1: Status of functional requirements

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Thanks Alla. That is great progress, and appreciate the hard work by everyone.
Have the software architectures worked on the detailed designs of those 
requirements
with the PTLs to ensure nothing is lost in translation?

Can you add to the website the services that will be tested to evaluate 
completions of those requirements.

Mazin




On Jan 18, 2018, at 1:08 PM, Alla Goldner 
mailto:alla.gold...@amdocs.com>> wrote:

Hi all,

As per today’s M1 dedicated TSC meeting and outcomes of the work done by 
Usecase subcommittee along with relevant PTLs,

Here is the most updated status of the functional requirements: 
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Beijing+Functional+Requirements

1.   Thus, we assume, the following functional requirements are part of 
Beijing Release scope:

a.   HPA
b.  Change Management
c.   Manual scaling
d.  PNF support

All, please indicate if you see any issues with that.

2.   Auto scaling status: APPC, CLAMP and Policy could not commit due to 
lack of resources.

All, please indicate in case some additional resources can be dedicated from 
your side to help the above mentioned projects with Auto scaling requirement 
support.

Best regards,

Alla Goldner

Open Network Division
Amdocs Technology




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
___
onap-discuss mailing list
onap-disc...@lists.onap.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.onap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Ddiscuss&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=7VBK7vn4mMMbbTBo_UbIrby0L3gd_KvI_MskXwqLW-k&s=Y63nXwhDh5uYEaYn9pj-mMgdhOa5KZzTbaZj3NWvzgg&e=

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

Re: [onap-tsc] We need to decide how to populate the ONAP Representative to the LFN TAC

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Team,

I am happy to represent ONAP at TAC for one year. A new ONAP chair will need to 
be selected post Beijing release
so I will be stepping down as a Chair.

If there are several candidates who would like to represent ONAP at TAC then I 
suggest we go for a vote.
Phil can help us to start a nomination and voting process.

Mazin




On Jan 18, 2018, at 7:27 AM, Frank Brockners (fbrockne) 
mailto:fbroc...@cisco.com>> wrote:

Given that during the transition period into the LFN structure some continuity 
would make sense, #1 would be the straight-forward choice, assuming that Mazin 
has the cycles (Mazin, any thoughts?). Once we move to a newly composed TSC in 
May, we could also re-assess the question how we’d choose the TAC 
representative for ONAP.
BTW/ - several other communities, .e.g. FD.io and OPNFV went with 
the same approach – i.e. have the TSC chair also be the TAC representative.

Regards, Frank

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Alla Goldner
Sent: Donnerstag, 11. Januar 2018 21:41
To: Phil Robb mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>>; 
Gadiyar, Rajesh mailto:rajesh.gadi...@intel.com>>
Cc: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org; 
onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] We need to decide how to populate the ONAP 
Representative to the LFN TAC

Yes.

Best regards,

Alla Goldner

Open Network Division
Amdocs Technology




From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Phil Robb
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 9:24 PM
To: Gadiyar, Rajesh mailto:rajesh.gadi...@intel.com>>
Cc: onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>; 
onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] We need to decide how to populate the ONAP 
Representative to the LFN TAC

Hello Rajesh and Alla:

Just so I'm clear on your +1s, you are agreeing with Jason's comment, with a 
preference for #1 unless the TSC Chair does not want to sign up for the 
responsibility, in which case we move to #2?

Best,

Phil.

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Gadiyar, Rajesh 
mailto:rajesh.gadi...@intel.com>> wrote:
+1

From: mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>> 
on behalf of Jason Hunt mailto:djh...@us.ibm.com>>
Date: Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 9:38 AM
To: Dhananjay Pavgi 
mailto:dp00476...@techmahindra.com>>
Cc: "onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org" 
mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>>, 
onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>

Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] We need to decide how to populate the ONAP 
Representative to the LFN TAC

#1 makes the most sense to me, but if Mazin feels it's too much for the chair 
to take on, #2 is a fine backup option.


Regards,
Jason Hunt
Executive Software Architect, IBM

Phone: 314-749-7422
Email: djh...@us.ibm.com
Twitter: @DJHunt




From:Dhananjay Pavgi 
mailto:dp00476...@techmahindra.com>>
To:"HU, BIN" mailto:bh5...@att.com>>, Phil Robb 
mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>>, onap-tsc 
mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Date:01/11/2018 11:00 AM
Subject:Re: [onap-tsc] We need to decide how to populatethe 
   ONAPRepresentative to the LFN TAC
Sent by:
onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org




Support Option 1; as TSC Chair for a particular stream has broader 360 view of 
the program including roadmap, priorities etc.

thanks & regards,
Dhananjay Pavgi
+91 98220 22264

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of HU, BIN
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 10:24 PM
To: Phil Robb mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>>; 
onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] We need to decide how to populate the ONAP 
Representative to the LFN TAC

Just FYI:
-  OPNFV TSC voted on Tuesday (Jan 9) to have TSC Chair to represent 
OPNFV in TAC
-  
fd.io
 voted the same today to have TSC Chair represent 
fd.io
 in TAC, if I am not mistaken.

Option 1 is used by both of our sister communities under the same LFN.

Just an FYI.

Thanks
Bin

From: 
onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org]
 On Behalf Of Phil Robb
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 7:08 AM

Re: [onap-tsc] Committer Promotion Request for [appc]

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

+1

Please add the candidate’s company plus existing committers.


On Jan 11, 2018, at 6:57 PM, MAHER, RANDA 
mailto:rx1...@att.com>> wrote:

***Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT&T ***
Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more information.

Dear TSC,

Please consider request below for Committer Promotion for APPC project.

https://wiki.onap.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=22251669

One of our existing committers has indicated that he will  step down from 
Committer to Contributor role.
Existing Committers have all voted +1 on Taka Cho promotion to Committer.

Thanks, Randa
APPC PTL
___
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&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=2dwD7a5k4V9cZl09O7uTpejnZMF8aa01W3yMqrrZC5Y&m=NXGqSa5NxTHo7zyxUrPP49eLYsmXzI4yh64s3B4oM5A&s=Evsqbp4rRCVLOh5p5fjHYs14lo95L06AtvAB_oZldfM&e=

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

Re: [onap-tsc] Planning for ONAP TSC Elections

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Phil,

This is great. Thanks for putting it together. Let’s have an open discussion in 
our first meeting
in January before finalizing the working group. We should finalize what the 
group needs to go and do.
What you have are a perfect list. I would like to add few more.

For example, I want us to get recommendation on who in the community should 
vote in the TSC
election. Also provide recommendation for Chair election.

The WG should provide regular updates to the current TSC, with final 
recommendation at the ONS meeting in March.

Thanks.
Mazin




On Dec 13, 2017, at 7:03 PM, Phil Robb 
mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

Hello ONAP TSC Members:

As documented in the ONAP Project Charter, the TSC is tasked with figuring out 
how to populate the TSC in a meritocratic manner beginning 12 months after the 
project launch, which was March 2017.  Hence it is time to start planning this 
transition.  To kick this process off, I have the following suggestions:

- Given that March 2018 is in the middle of the Beijing release cycle, I 
suggest we postpone the TSC election until directly after the Beijing release 
in late May.  We should discuss and approve our method of populating the TSC by 
the end of March, but not actually execute it until late May or early June.  
Please let me know if you think this is a good or bad idea.

- I suggest we form a small workgroup to create an initial proposal for 
discussion with the broader TSC.  Some topics to consider when architecting the 
TSC makeup include:
- Constituencies.  Are there different constituencies that need 
representation on the TSC?
- PTLs.  Having an election of PTLs to populate the TSC one possible way to 
do it.  These PTLs may be from different constituencies, or just At-Large.
- Committers-At-Large (CALs).  Some seats can come from the committer 
community at large.
- Particular Roles.  Possibly have the PTL from the Integration Team, or 
the Release Manager as voting members of the TSC as an example of "special" 
roles that should have TSC representation.
- Company Caps - To ensure that a single company does not have too much 
voting power within the TSC, a limit (usually defined as a percentage) is 
imposed on how many TSC members can come from the same organization (or 
affiliated organization).
- TSC size.  Common guidance is to keep the TSC size somewhere between 7 
and 19.  11,13, and 15 are common sizes.  Depending on how the TSC is populated 
the size may vary or may be static.

Please let me know your thoughts.  If you think a workgroup to put an initial 
proposal together is a good idea, please indicate that.  If you think we should 
have a few open discussions to set an initial direction please indicate that.  
If a workgroup seems reasonable, and you would like to participate in that 
group please indicate that as well.

I look forward to the discussion.

Thanks,

Phil.
--
Phil Robb
Executive Director, OpenDaylight Project
VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation
(O) 970-229-5949
(M) 970-420-4292
Skype: Phil.Robb
___
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&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=2dwD7a5k4V9cZl09O7uTpejnZMF8aa01W3yMqrrZC5Y&m=EvPKhlCQIe_F_l__hnyY8NtkHy5dOq9uVqf7oCauGMQ&s=GEaUduuti_404OgeJ0q4mU5fdGjUzAESA7LQL8cCu2g&e=

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

Re: [onap-tsc] Existing project reviews

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

This is good. Let’s use this in our project planning. I like it.
We should modify the chart to reflect MVPs versus Non-MVP projects
so to help us prioritize support and integration testing.

Stephen is pointing out a related but a different issue.
Projects were approved at Incubation with a scope.
Project scope should remain intact and projects
should not evolve from their initial charter without
TSC approval. We need to do that for existing projects before
we decide elevation to Mature.

thanks!
Mazin




On Dec 12, 2017, at 7:21 PM, Jason Hunt 
mailto:djh...@us.ibm.com>> wrote:

Stephen, this proposal makes sense.  Thanks.

On a related note, I'd like to refresh everyone's memory about the project 
lifecycle outlined in the TSC charter:

https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/ONAP+TSC+Charter#ONAPTSCCharter-3.3.3ProjectLifecycleStatesandReviews



Briefly:

Incubation -- "Project has resources, but is recognized to be in the early 
stages of development."
Mature -- "Project is fully functioning and stable, has achieved successful 
releases."
Core -- "Project provides value to and receives interest from a broad 
audience."  Also, states that core projects meet S3P/Platform Maturity 
requirements.

Note that approved projects start as Incubation, so all current ONAP projects 
are in Incubation stage.

Questions for the TSC:

- should we promote projects that participated in Amsterdam to mature?  
(understanding that each needs to go through an official maturity review)
- after Beijing, if mature projects meet a level of S3P/Platform Maturity 
(which may  be the same as the Beijing maturity requirements), should they be 
promoted to Core?
- while we used an ad-hoc "MVP" definition in Amsterdam to prioritize resources 
for the release, might we use these official definitions in future releases to 
prioritize resources?

Welcome the TSC's thoughts here.


Regards,
Jason Hunt
Executive Software Architect, IBM

Phone: 314-749-7422
Email: djh...@us.ibm.com
Twitter: @DJHunt




From:Stephen Terrill 
mailto:stephen.terr...@ericsson.com>>
To:"onap-tsc@lists.onap.org P" 
mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Date:12/12/2017 05:21 PM
Subject:[onap-tsc] Existing project reviews
Sent by:
onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org




Hi TSC,

When we first approved the projects, there was some flexibility allowed in 
terms of keeping release dependent information in the project definition.  The 
projects definitions should be independent of the release.  Now as we go into 
Beijing perhaps its time to do that.  Here is a proposal for that.

Comments appreciated.

Best Regards,

Steve




STEPHEN TERRILL
Technology Specialist
POA Architecture and Solutions
Business Unit Digital Services

Ericsson
Ericsson R&D Center, via de los Poblados 13
28033, Madrid, Spain
Phone +34 339 3005
Mobile +34 609 168 515
stephen.terr...@ericsson.com
www.ericsson.com




Legal entity: Ericsson España S.A, compay registration number ESA288568603. 
This Communication is Confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis 
of the terms set out at 
www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer
 [attachment "Projects Definitions.pptx" deleted by Jason Hunt/St Louis/IBM] 
___
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&d=DwICAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=oMOO2HmZ8JJWvUc1M7Sklm

Re: [onap-tsc] [OOM] Request for new committer on OOM - Borislav Glozman

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Thanks David.

Please include the company where each committer is from.
All inactive committers should be given a notice of being decommissioned.

Thanks
mazin




On Dec 3, 2017, at 11:30 PM, Sauvageau, David 
mailto:david.sauvag...@bell.ca>> wrote:


Dear TSC

Following a unanimous +1 vote from the current OOM committers, I would like to 
promote Borislav Glozman as a new committer to the OOM project. Borislav has 
made great contribution to the project, both from an implementation and design 
perspectives.

Official request is posted here: 
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Committer+Promotion+Request+for+%5BOOM%5D+-+Borislav+Glozman

Thanks for supporting!


From: "Sauvageau, David" 
mailto:david.sauvag...@bell.ca>>
Date: Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 8:53 AM
To: "onap-tsc@lists.onap.org" 
mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Cc: Borislav Glozman 
mailto:borislav.gloz...@amdocs.com>>
Subject: [OOM] Request for new committer on OOM - Borislav Glozman

Dear TSC
Following a unanimous +1 vote from the current OOM committers, I would like to 
promote Borislav Glozman as a new committer to the OOM project.

Thanks for supporting!

Envoyé de mon iPhone

Début du message transféré :
Expéditeur: Mike Elliott 
mailto:mike.elli...@amdocs.com>>
Date: 10 novembre 2017 à 14:31:38 UTC−5
Destinataire: "Sauvageau, David" 
mailto:david.sauvag...@bell.ca>>, 
"onap-disc...@lists.onap.org" 
mailto:onap-disc...@lists.onap.org>>
Objet: Rép :⁨ [onap-discuss] [OOM] Request for new committer on OOM - Borislav 
Glozman⁩
++1!

Mike.

From: 
mailto:onap-discuss-boun...@lists.onap.org>>
 on behalf of "HU, JUN NICOLAS" mailto:jh2...@att.com>>
Date: Friday, November 10, 2017 at 10:00 AM
To: "Sauvageau, David" 
mailto:david.sauvag...@bell.ca>>, 
"onap-disc...@lists.onap.org" 
mailto:onap-disc...@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: Re: [onap-discuss] [OOM] Request for new committer on OOM - Borislav 
Glozman

+1

Thanks for the contribution.

From: 
onap-discuss-boun...@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-discuss-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Sauvageau, David
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 8:20 AM
To: onap-disc...@lists.onap.org
Subject: [onap-discuss] [OOM] Request for new committer on OOM - Borislav 
Glozman

Dear OOM committers,

This is a request to promote Borislav as a committer on the OOM project. I 
would need all OOM committers to vote on Borislav’s promotion by replying +1, 0 
or –1 on this email. If we get a majority of +1, I will then bring the request 
to the TSC.

Thanks!

From: Borislav Glozman 
mailto:borislav.gloz...@amdocs.com>>
Date: Sunday, November 5, 2017 at 2:48 AM
To: David Sauvageau mailto:david.sauvag...@bell.ca>>
Cc: Alla Goldner mailto:alla.gold...@amdocs.com>>
Subject: ONAP OOM committer for Borislav Glozman

Hi David,

I would like to officially become OOM committer.
I fix defects, commit code, participate in meetings, participate in design of 
features, participated in Paris ONAP event and presented there.
I also lead a team of developers who work on OOM.

Could you please assist me in becoming a committer in OOM project so that I 
could actively participate in Beijing release in OOM?
Please let me know what is the process.

Thanks,
Borislav Glozman
O:+972.9.776.1988
M:+972.52.2835726

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
___
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&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=Rr3duhCpligpNtphOMSFOuxADOQ2yDiQuamhEp53o7M&s=CxqQfwyrg9X_Desx9Ian-JPv7nria1EWCBo2JwCw5MI&e=

[onap-tsc] ONAP Meeting in Santa Clara

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Colleagues and Friends,

On behalf of the TSC and the LF,  I want to congratulate every one of you for 
your outstanding collaboration in delivering
Amsterdam. The goal and timeline were far reaching, but yet this community 
delivered the
impossible. I am truly honored and excited about what we delivered and what 
Chapter 2
looks like for our the Beijing release.

We will celebrate in style at the Santa Clara meeting, hosted by Intel. I do 
want to encourage you  to
attend the meeting. Agenda will go out by Monday or Tuesday. If you are 
attending, it is
vital that you register asap. The link is at

https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/ONAP+Beijing+Release+Developer+Forum%2C+Dec.+11-13%2C+2017%2C+Santa+Clara%2C+CA+US

Congratulations, and see you in Santa Clara.

Mazin

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

Re: [onap-tsc] Usecase subcommittee meeting Nov 6 - themeeting'ssummary

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

What Yuan is asking are software requirements, which is why we are creating a 
software architect coordinator role.
I do agree that is a missing link with the project and needs to coordinate with 
the use case and target architecture subcommittees.

Mazin


On Nov 9, 2017, at 7:47 AM, Alla Goldner 
mailto:alla.gold...@amdocs.com>> wrote:

Hi Yuan,

We can definitely consider this, though I believe that the specific information 
you require below belongs to the next level of details. Perhaps even more 
points will be raised when we present it.
And, as I said, this is “endorsement” not “approval”, and definitely needs 
future work/refining by a different projects. The question I was asked about is 
whether one or another requirement is indeed considered for Beijing, and this 
is why it is important to start bringing those requirements for the TSC.

Best regards,

Alla Goldner

Open Network Division
Amdocs Technology




From: yuan@zte.com.cn 
[mailto:yuan@zte.com.cn]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 12:09 PM
To: Alla Goldner mailto:alla.gold...@amdocs.com>>
Cc: onap-usecase...@lists.onap.org; 
sw3...@att.com; 
onap-...@lists.onap.org; 
vb1...@att.com; 
onap-tsc@lists.onap.org
Subject: 答复: RE: Re: [onap-tsc] Usecase subcommittee meeting Nov 6 - 
themeeting'ssummary


Hi Alla,



Thank for your reply, it's clear to me. I does not object we bring the 
requirements to TSC for approval but from my view, the requirements need next 
level of detials before it goes to component design. The requirements looks too 
generic for different project teams reaching consensus on what they should 
design. My proposal is use case subcommittee should add some examples into 
usecase which would help developers understand related requirement. Like we add 
which PNF we should model and manage, what kind of API the PNF support for 
management, CLI, SNMP or restful? It does not mean the PNF requirement is 
specific to this PNF, it works to help people understand what problem they are 
facing.



Maybe we can let TSC make the decision where the refining work would be took 
place.



Regards,

Yuan Yue







袁越 yuanyue

资深战略规划师   Senior Strategy Planner

技术规划部/技术规划部/系统产品 Technology Planning Dept./Technology Planning Dept./System 
Product






南京市雨花区软件大道50号中兴通讯3号楼
1/F,Building 3, ZTE Nanjing R&D Center II, No.50, Software Avenue,YuHua 
District,Nanjing,P.R.China 210012
T: +025 88013478
M: +86 13851446442
E: yuan@zte.com.cn
www.zte.com.cn

原始邮件
发件人： mailto:alla.gold...@amdocs.com>>;
收件人：袁越10008526;
抄送人： mailto:onap-usecase...@lists.onap.org>>; 
mailto:sw3...@att.com>>; 
mailto:onap-...@lists.onap.org>>; 
mailto:vb1...@att.com>>; 
mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>;
日 期 ：2017年11月08日 16:24
主 题 ：RE: Re: [onap-tsc] Usecase subcommittee meeting Nov 6 - themeeting'ssummary



Hi Yuan,

Thanks a lot for your questions. I provide my answers below embedded into your 
text. Please let me know if you have any follow-up questions.

Best regards,

Alla Goldner

Open Network Division
Amdocs Technology




From: yuan@zte.com.cn 
[mailto:yuan@zte.com.cn]
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 4:59 AM
To: Alla Goldner mailto:alla.gold...@amdocs.com>>
Cc: onap-usecase...@lists.onap.org; 
sw3...@att.com; 
onap-...@lists.onap.org; 
vb1...@att.com; 
onap-tsc@lists.onap.org
Subject: RE: Re: [onap-tsc] Usecase subcommittee meeting Nov 6 - the 
meeting'ssummary


Hi Alla and all,



Two points for clarification:

1.  Please correct me if I misunderstand your conclusion on 5G requirements 
part. The text on this item looks like all 5G requirerments except Conflict  
resolution will be part of Beijing release. But during the discussion I heard 
many times the requirements are long term not fixed to Beijing release. My 
understanding is we do have these requirements like 5G network slicing include 
vNFs and PNFs, but it is  really hard to decide how far each project can go in 
Beijing Release based on the description of the requirements this days. May I 
propose that usecase subcommittee accept these requirement as phased output. 
The implementaion plan for different requirements  in future releases, Beijing 
or some others, would be decided after comprehensive discussing with PTLs. 
Personally I think developing teams would ask for more detail info about the 
requirement items. AG> Usecase subcommittee doesn’t decide  on including 
specific require

Re: [onap-tsc] Updated invitation: Amsterdam PTL Confidance Vote @ Mon Nov 13, 2017 6am - 8am (PST) (onap-tsc@lists.onap.org)

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Dear PTLs, TSC members,

I would like to remind you that we are holding a confidence vote meeting next 
Monday.
It is very important that all PTLs attend. TSC members are strongly encouraged 
to attend. This is not a go/no go meeting for Amsterdam. But it will help to 
set the direction per PTL votes on whether we believe
we will be delivering Amsterdam on time or not.

If you are unable to attend, then follow up with Gildas prior to the meeting.

Thank you! We are awfully close. Keep up the great work you are doing.

Mazin



From: ONAP Meetings and Events 
[linuxfoundation.org_1rmtb5tpr3uc8f76fmflplo...@group.calendar.google.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 12:04 PM
Required: wangchen...@chinamobile.com; TIMONEY, DAN; Philip Robb; 
helen.c...@huawei.com; zhao.huab...@zte.com.cn; denglin...@chinamobile.com; 
DRAGOSH, PAMELA L (PAM); denghu...@hotmail.com; TALASILA, MANOOP (MANOOP); 
KOYA, RAMPRASAD; seshu.kuma...@huawei.com; MAYER, ANDREW J; GILBERT, MAZIN E 
(MAZIN E); Casey Cain; lxin...@vmware.com; FORSYTH, JAMES; 
stephen.terr...@ericsson.com; LANDO, MICHAEL; POND, MARK; PUTHENPURA, SARAT 
(SARAT); JI, LUSHENG (LUSHENG); GLOVER, GREG L; kanagaraj.manic...@huawei.com; 
NGUEKO, GERVAIS-MARTIAL; fu.guangr...@zte.com.cn; onap-tsc@lists.onap.org; 
denghu...@huawei.com; david.sauvag...@bell.ca; MAHER, RANDA; 
shen...@chinamobile.com; HEMLI, AMICHAI; gildas.lani...@huawei.com; SUNDELOF, 
ERIK; kp...@linuxfoundation.org; ONAP Meetings and Events; WRIGHT, STEVEN A
Subject: [onap-tsc] Updated invitation: Amsterdam PTL Confidance Vote @ Mon Nov 
13, 2017 6am - 8am (PST) (onap-tsc@lists.onap.org)
When: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:00 AM-11:00 AM.
Where: https://zoom.us/j/227871708

This event has been changed.
more details 
»<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.google.com_calendar_event-3Faction-3DVIEW-26eid-3DYWJ1bjJqMTY2ZDJlN3RpMWM0OWhkZmRqa2NfMjAxNzExMTNUMTQzMDAwWiBvbmFwLXRzY0BsaXN0cy5vbmFwLm9yZw-26tok-3DNzIjbGludXhmb3VuZGF0aW9uLm9yZ18xcm10YjV0cHIzdWM4Zjc2Zm1mbHBsb2k4OEBncm91cC5jYWxlbmRhci5nb29nbGUuY29tZjQ5MWIzOWZjYzJhYTEyOTY4MjkzYWY3ZjRjMjY2Yjk0NTI3NjQ4Ng-26ctz-3DAmerica_Los-5FAngeles-26hl-3Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=g3Qo3u0ZOXNXQk4WuV4nxHpXOThKveypEuGiq34jykc&s=P6WA2VzI8sHYOnXduNJ8E0IwG_eo1btRgoVrABHvITs&e=>
Changed: Amsterdam PTL Confidance Vote
WhenChanged: Mon Nov 13, 2017 6am – 8am Pacific Time
Where   
https://zoom.us/j/227871708<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__zoom.us_j_227871708&d=DwQFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=g3Qo3u0ZOXNXQk4WuV4nxHpXOThKveypEuGiq34jykc&s=aBNdpRvDyzpSAOFoZwik1CetGt8AwUTWOyhakVp80x0&e=>
 
(map<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.google.com_url-3Fq-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fzoom.us-252Fj-252F227871708-26sa-3DD-26usd-3D2-26usg-3DAFQjCNH4TU6fURAFTr2qlCvrnUsAx8-5FlHQ&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=g3Qo3u0ZOXNXQk4WuV4nxHpXOThKveypEuGiq34jykc&s=_25NYEUFa7z6usJV_Hra9klrT5WktGndI8abhGZKEJk&e=>)
Calendaronap-tsc@lists.onap.org
Who
•   kp...@linuxfoundation.org - creator
•   sw3...@att.com
•   denghu...@hotmail.com
•   kanagaraj.manic...@huawei.com
•   ml6...@intl.att.com
•   dtimo...@att.com
•   am8...@att.com
•   gg2...@att.com
•   l...@research.att.com
•   wangchen...@chinamobile.com
•   jf2...@att.com
•   stephen.terr...@ericsson.com
•   onap-tsc@lists.onap.org
•   Eman Gil
•   gn4...@intl.att.com
•   mp...@amdocs.com
•   david.sauvag...@bell.ca
•   zhao.huab...@zte.com.cn
•   ah0...@intl.att.com
•   pdrag...@research.att.com
•   denghu...@huawei.com
•   fu.guangr...@zte.com.cn
•   rx1...@att.com
•   es4...@att.com
•   gildas.lani...@huawei.com
•   helen.c...@huawei.com
•   sa...@research.att.com
•   Casey Cain
•   talas...@research.att.com
•   Philip Robb
•   rk5...@att.com
•   seshu.kuma...@huawei.com
•   lxin...@vmware.com
•   shen...@chinamobile.com
•   denglin...@chinamobile.com
•   Kristi Tan
•   lcayw...@linuxfoundation.org
•   Jill Lovato
•   Sarah Conway


Hi there,
ONAP Meeting 3 is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.
Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: 
https://zoom.us/j/227871708<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.google.com_url-3Fq-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fzoom.us-252Fj-252F227871708-26sa-3DD-26usd-3D2-26usg-3DAFQjCNH4TU6fURAFTr2qlCvrnUsAx8-5FlHQ&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=g3Qo3u0ZOXNXQk4WuV4nxHpXOThKveypEuGiq34jykc&s=_25NYEUFa7z6usJV_Hra9klrT5WktGndI8abhGZKEJk&e=>
Or iPhone one-tap (US Toll): +14086380968,,227871708# or 
+16465588656,,227871708#
Or Telephone:
Dial: +1 408 638 0968 (US Toll) or +1 646 558 8656 (US Toll)
+1 855 880 1246

Re: [onap-tsc] Stage to Release Process Discussion

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Thank you Kenny. We have nearly two weeks and counting down. So we need a laser 
focused effort on the critical deliverable for Amsterdam that have been 
committed already.

TSC members
Please review the material from Kenny prior to our meeting tomorrow. I would 
appreciate your feedback on prioritization for the next 2 weeks. Please attend 
the call or let me know your proxy.

Thank you.
Mazin

Sent through AT&T's fastest network

On Nov 1, 2017, at 1:21 AM, Kenny Paul 
mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

This evening I facilitated a call between the Integration team, the LF Release 
Engineering team, and several folks from the development community. This was an 
action item from Monday’s PTL meeting.  The “quick 1/2 hour call" ran for just 
short of 2 full hours, so there was plenty of discussion around these 
recommendations.   This will be reviewed as part of the version and branching 
decisions at the TSC meeting on Thursday.

In order to ensure we make the release date the following steps are being 
recommended by the people on the call:
—


  *   Follow the recommendations presented last week which will be voted on 
Thursday.
 *   
https://wiki.onap.org/download/attachments/15993187/ONAP-versioning_discussion_26Oct2017.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=150903356&api=v2


  *   From now on only high/highest priority bugs against MVP projects should 
be COMMITTED into the repos. Other code can be SUBMITTED to gerrit, but not 
committed and should not be considered for Amsterdam
 *   The definition of high/highest priority bugs can be found here:  
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Tracking+Issues+with+JIRA#TrackingIssueswithJIRA-JIRADefectDefinition


  *   Daily Integration meeting calls are being held to determine testing 
priorities for the day. PTLs with outstanding high/highest priority bugs must 
attend to help jointly decide what may be Committed.
 *   Meeting time is 7:30 AM Pacific.  
https://zoom.us/j/44


  *   As of Thursday Nov. 9 the Integration team will ONLY be testing against 
code in the Nexus Release repo.  PTLs must formally release both the maven 
artifacts and Docker artifacts to be tested. This implies several things in 
terms of the actual release process:

  *   Some manner of self assessed stressed testing has been performed against 
the code in STAGING by the development team

  *   The PTL has made the decision that the code is stable and ready to be 
released

  *   The PTL opens a ticket with helpd...@onap.org 
to promote maven artifacts from the STAGING repo into the RELEASE repo. This 
ticket must include specific Jenkins job that produced the artifacts they want 
released

  *   LF Release Engineering will take that information and:
 *   sign the maven artifacts that were produced
 *   push a signed tag into the repository on the commit that produced the 
artifacts
 *   release the staging repository into the releases repository.

  *   The development team should have their docker build utilize newly 
released artifacts and pull those artifacts into their docker image. A new 
build should be then be triggered.

  *   The development team should do any stability testing of their docker 
image they feel is needed

  *   Upon PTL’s decision that the docker image is also good, the PTL opens a 
ticket with helpd...@onap.org to promote the docker 
artifact, similar to what was done for the maven artifact.

  *   LFRE will:
 *   Migrate the docker image from the snapshot / staging docker repository 
into the docker release repository.
 *   Push the images into docker hub when appropriate


Normally here I would say something like, “Please let me know if you have any 
questions”, but I'm probably not the right person to be fielding most of the 
questions that are likely to be generated by this thread. ;-)
If you are looking for clarification on something related to this, please just 
reply and the appropriate party will respond.

Best Regards,
-kenny

Kenny Paul,  Technical Program Manager
kp...

Re: [onap-tsc] Amsterdam PTL Confidance Vote

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

From the view of the project you are leading.





On Oct 26, 2017, at 12:22 PM, DRAGOSH, PAMELA L (PAM) 
mailto:pdrag...@research.att.com>> wrote:

Kenny et all,

Question – is this confidence vote coming from my point of view of my project? 
Or from my point of view of Amsterdam overall??

Thanks,

Pam

From: 
linuxfoundation.org_1rmtb5tpr3uc8f76fmflplo...@group.calendar.google.com
When: 9:00 AM - 11:00 AM November 13, 2017
Subject: Amsterdam PTL Confidance Vote
Location: https://zoom.us/j/227871708


This event has been changed.
more details 
»
Changed: Amsterdam PTL Confidance Vote
When

Changed: Mon Nov 13, 2017 6am – 8am Pacific Time

Where

https://zoom.us/j/227871708
 
(map)

Calendar

pdrag...@research.att.com

Who

•

kp...@linuxfoundation.org - creator

•

sw3...@att.com

•

denghu...@hotmail.com

•

kanagaraj.manic...@huawei.com

•

ml6...@intl.att.com

•

dtimo...@att.com

•

am8...@att.com

•

gg2...@att.com

•

l...@research.att.com

•

wangchen...@chinamobile.com

•

jf2...@att.com

•

stephen.terr...@ericsson.com

•

onap-tsc@lists.onap.org

•

Eman Gil

•

gn4...@intl.att.com

•

mp...@amdocs.com

•

david.sauvag...@bell.ca

•

zhao.huab...@zte.com.cn

•

ah0...@intl.att.com

•

pdrag...@research.att.com

•

denghu...@huawei.com

•

fu.guangr...@zte.com.cn

•

rx1...@att.com

•

es4...@att.com

•

gildas.lani...@huawei.com

•

helen.c...@huawei.com

•

sa...@research.att.com

•

Casey Cain

•

talas...@research.att.com

•

Philip Robb

•

rk5...@att.com

•

seshu.kuma...@huawei.com

•

lxin...@vmware.com

•

shen...@chinamobile.com

•

denglin...@chinamobile.com

•

Kristi Tan

•

lcayw...@linuxfoundation.org

•

Jill Lovato

•

Sarah Conway



Hi there,
ONAP Meeting 3 is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.
Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: 
https://zoom.us/j/227871708
Or iPhone one-tap (US Toll): +14086380968,,227871708# or 
+16465588656,,227871708#
Or Telephone:
Dial: +1 408 638 0968 (US Toll) or +1 646 558 8656 (US Toll)
+1 855 880 1246 (US Toll Free)
+1 877 369 0926 (US Toll Free)
Meeting ID: 227 871 708
International numbers available: 
https://zoom.us/zoomconference?m=KVVYvoPsmVc1-iR5MAAzXkGM_QvcVUy3

Re: [onap-tsc] Beijing release participation - MSB

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Thanks Huabing for your note. The TSC will send a notification to the community 
for project proposals for the Beijing release
aligned with the “carrier grade” goals of the release. The TSC will make a 
decision on all projects at the Dec meeting.

Mazin






On Oct 25, 2017, at 9:07 PM, 
zhao.huab...@zte.com.cn wrote:


Dear TSC,



This email is to formally notify ONAP TSC and community that the MSB project 
plans to be part of the ONAP Beijing release.



Regards,
Huabing Zhao
PTL of MSB




___
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&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=BSIGFd8vIR-c19qFBFT7adKtnC-vKgorPSc0p-i32ng&s=TFphOajFLmWnayrnK5sPrZifLlDLv_D2IqAKAtm0AL0&e=

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

Re: [onap-tsc] Daily IT Status 10/23/2017

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Thank you. Great progress
Mazin

Sent through AT&T's fastest network

On Oct 23, 2017, at 8:01 PM, Kenny Paul 
mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

There were 32 tickets presented on this morning’s PTL Call. Now down to 20. 
Thanks for validating tickets which could be closed.
I will also be posting these here: IT Ticket 
Status


#   opened  Requestor   Subject Status  Owner   last update Last 
Updated By 23-Oct
40696   5/10/17 phrobb (Phil Robb)  Fwd: Need of Swagger for ONAP   open
jwagantall  10/22/17KennyPaul
43901   8/3/17  Williams, Marcus 
mailto:marcus.willi...@intel.com>>  RE: CCSDK review 
requestopenKennyPaul   8/23/17 
marcus.willi...@intel.com working to 
place with an owner
45257   9/1/17  Gary Wu mailto:gary.i...@huawei.com>> 
[integration] Issue-ID checkopenjwagantall  10/23/17
jwagantall  getting clarification
45447   9/6/17  Gary Wu mailto:gary.i...@huawei.com>> 
[integration] Maven repo precedence issue   openjwagantall  
10/22/17KennyPaul   validation request sent
45658   9/11/17 mailto:dt5...@att.com>> Wrong version used by 
staging pluginopenjeremyphelps10/22/17KennyPaul   
validation request sent
46156   9/23/17 mailto:ml6...@intl.att.com>>   Commit  
openjwagantall  10/22/17KennyPaul   validation request sent
46449   9/29/17 mailto:talas...@research.att.com>>   
Portal's Stage-site-java jobs not triggered and never passedopen
jwagantall  10/23/17
cl...@research.att.com
46502   10/1/17 Shlosberg, Yuli 
mailto:ys9...@intl.att.com>>   Install TestNG plugin 
in jenkinsopenjwagantall  10/22/17KennyPaul   
validation request sent
47018   10/13/17Lusheng Ji 
mailto:l...@research.att.com>>  Daily Release job 
failing during docker build   openjeremyphelps10/13/17
l...@research.att.com   sprint scheduled
47071   10/16/17mailto:arul.na...@amdocs.com>>   
Hosting a npm project   openjeremyphelps10/23/17
arul.na...@amdocs.com
47090   10/16/17Gary Wu 
mailto:gary.i...@huawei.com>> Jenkins job to test 
deployment into Wind River lab  openjwagantall  10/19/17
gary.i...@huawei.com   waiting on us
47108   10/16/17Gildas Lanilis 
mailto:gildas.lani...@huawei.com>>Jira Gadgets 
in Confluence are no longer workingopenjnguyen 10/23/17
jnguyen waiting on us
47160   10/17/17Gary Wu 
mailto:gary.i...@huawei.com>> Permission to 
start/stop Jenkins jobs   openjwagantall  10/22/17KennyPaul 
  validation request sent
47165   10/17/17KennyPaul (Kenny Paul)  Re: [onap-tsc-private] 
IMPORTANT - One month and counting down  openKennyPaul   10/23/17   
 KennyPaul   working on infrastructure
47194   10/18/17Shlosberg, Yuli 
mailto:ys9...@intl.att.com>>   Connectivity problems 
during CSIT job execution openjwagantall  10/23/17
ys9...@intl.att.com
47235   10/19/17mailto:af7...@intl.att.com>>   
Failure - vvp-gitlab-master-docker-java-daily   openjwagantall  
10/22/17af7...@intl.att.com
47237   10/19/17mailto:af7...@intl.att.com>>   
Failure - Docker Build - VVP/Jenkinsopenjwagantall  10/23/17
af7...@intl.att.com
47241   10/19/17
mailto:pdrag...@research.att.com>>   Policy CLM Jobs 
Instability openjwagantall  10/23/17jwagantall
47244   10/19/17mailto:af7...@intl.att.com>>   
Recommended Dockers nameopenjwagantall  10/19/17
af7...@intl.att.com
47354   10/23/17Shlosberg, Yuli 
mailto:ys9...@intl.att.com>>   problem that occurs in 
sdc csit job openNobody  10/23/17
ml6...@intl.att.com


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&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=AiSN8-4WaUf0H5IhCsaCiiDMmm3GGB2c22pGa_52joQ&s=SMUlewYTNlYXNJD92c6-6DL6UxL2UPSsZ-nH9934894&e=
_

[onap-tsc] Monday EOB (CA) deadline

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Dear PTLs,

On behalf of the TSC, I wanted to thank you for your leadership and drive to 
get us to the Amsterdam release on Nov 16th. You and your teams are incredible 
role models of how a community is harmonizing towards a common goal.

As we discussed at the Paris meeting, we have to make some hard decisions to 
get to the Amsterdam release on November 16th. The TSC, with feedback from 
Gildas and Helen, have decided on the following

All projects should at least pass the M4 milestone and a min of 30% unit 
coverage by next Monday EOB (PST)

Non-gating projects that do not meet this timeline will be removed from the 
formal release.
Gating projects will need to provide a date of when they expect to reach this 
milestone.

Gildas will collect all info and share with the community Monday night (PST)

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

Re: [onap-tsc] Amsterdam Release - Lesson Learned

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Thank you. When you and Eric are ready and have included feedback, let Kenny 
know and we will add the reporting
to the TSC Meeting.
Mazin

On Sep 28, 2017, at 4:50 AM, LEFEVRE, CATHERINE 
mailto:cl6...@intl.att.com>> wrote:

***Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT&T ***
Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more information.

Dear TSC,

The “Amsterdam Release - Lesson Learned” is now posted:
https://wiki.onap.org/download/attachments/15997434/ONAP-Amsterdam%20Release%20Leasson%20Learned_V6.pptx?api=v2

Eric and I, we are looking forward to receiving feedback from the community

Many thanks and regards
Catherine

Catherine Lefèvre
AT&T Network and Shared Services
D2 Platform & Systems Development
AVP Software Development & Engineering
ECOMP/ONAP/RUBY/SPP


Phone: +32 2 418 49 22
Mobile: +32 475 77 36 73
catherine.lefe...@intl.att.com

TEXTING and DRIVING… It Can Wait

AT&T
BUROGEST OFFICE PARK SA
Avenue des Dessus-de-Lives, 2
5101 Loyers (Namur)
Belgium



NOTE: This email (or its attachments) contains information belonging to the 
sender, which may be confidential. proprietary and/or legally privileged. The 
information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) 
named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified 
that any disclosure, distribution or taking of any action in reliance on the 
content of this is strictly forbidden. If you have received this e-mail in 
error please immediately notify the sender identified above

___
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&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=mVZhwTKAdDHWYp7pDxdkCq3LmKlXt5BqYnN4ovsG-7E&s=P9sGc9WipqJhWcUxX3sdMPQW8d30DblpiRe_9U2ObyI&e=

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

[onap-tsc] IMPORTANT - Heat and OOM

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Dear TSC Community, 

I need your help to increase the chance of us successfully delivering the 
Amsterdam release by Nov 16th.
The lack of a decision regarding Heat and OOM has increased the risk of getting 
Amsterdam released on time.  

I want to clarify the following points.

1. Supporting both Heat and OOM in Amsterdam requires more effort and time than 
we have in order to hit Nov 16th.
2. We need to pick one, and the least effort and least risk to meeting Nov 16th 
deadline is Heat accordingly to Helen’s
recommendation and information that she summarized from the PTLs.
3. OOM is our target deployment strategy for Beijing and beyond.
4. The Integration and testing team is ready to work with each project to help 
them with Heat and make that painless.

The focus on Heat puts the least amount of risk on the Amsterdam release. I am 
opening up a discussion for 
24 hours on this subject. At 6pm EST Friday (tomorrow), Kenny will begin the 
voting process.

Thanks and appreciate your support and understanding.
mazin
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc

Re: [onap-tsc] [tsc]Vote: ONAP Deployment Proposal for Amsterdam Release

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Lingli, and Team,

When the TSC met 2 weeks back to discuss Heat and OOM, it was agreed that Heat 
is the plan of record
as it is the more mature solution while Helen and the integration team 
evaluates the OOM solution in the meantime.
Heat was always the plan of record for Amsterdam while the target solution is 
OOM. So Helen’s note should
not be a surprise to anyone.

Helen’s assessment based on PTL feedback today was that Amsterdam is not ready 
for OOM even
though it may be a simpler solution. I was on the call today and heard the 
feedback. Moving ahead
with OOM per feedback received from PTLs and Helen’s assessment is a 
significant risk to Amsterdam.
OOM will remain the solution for Beijing.

This discussion has gone on for too long, and it is time for the TSC to make 
some difficult decisions
to de-risk Amsterdam.

thanks
Mazin



On Sep 18, 2017, at 10:57 PM, Lingli Deng 
mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>> wrote:

Hi Huabing and Helen,

I believe this page is supposed to track the current status for each project 
integration with OOM/HEAT.
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/ONAP+Installation+Strategy+for+Release+A

I agree need input from PTL on assessing the transition and make sure it could 
be done in time.

Thanks,
Lingli

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of 
zhao.huab...@zte.com.cn
Sent: 2017年9月19日 10:08
To: helen.c...@huawei.com
Cc: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] [tsc]Vote: ONAP Deployment Proposal for Amsterdam 
Release

Hi Helen and all,

As a ONAP developer, I have some concerns about this proposal:

Firstly, the kubernetes approach OOM currently adopted is much simpler and more 
lightweight than heat template approach because every component is just a 
docker container. If we switch to heat way, It will be very hard for community 
developer and potential ONAP user to play with ONAP because it will need much 
more resources to bring up the ONAP system. If anyone want to try ONAP, they 
might have to rent a dozen of vm from public cloud. This will significantly 
increase the difficulty and cost for trying ONAP, as ONAP community, we want to 
encourage people to test and use ONAP, this obviously is not what we want to 
see.

Secondly, some projects may have no experience on heat template approach, so it 
will add a lot of extra works for them. At the same time, most of them already 
have kubernetes deployment ready. As far as I know(please correct me if I'm 
wrong), these projects(or sub-projects) include MSB, Holmes, ESR,VF-C, 
Multi-Cloud, workflow-designer, CLI, etc.


I suggest we carefully think over the impact to the projects and community 
before make this decision.

My two cents.

Thanks,
Huabing
Original Mail
Sender:  mailto:helen.c...@huawei.com>>;
To:  mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>;
Date: 2017/09/19 08:03
Subject: [onap-tsc] [tsc]Vote: ONAP Deployment Proposal for Amsterdam Release

Dear ONAP TSC Members,

We had several discussion sessions regarding “Heat template vs OOM” with PTLs, 
a lot of emails follow ups in past 4+ weeks, and we also tested OOM and Heat 
template in Integration lab in past two weeks. Here  are our conclusions:

  1.  Heat template deployment is more mature than OOM with Kubernetes at this 
moment
  2.  Most of the OpenECOMP projects have done integration test with Heat 
template while Kubernetes based has not done any
  3.  PTLs / key developers feel less comfortable to “learn” a new tool at this 
time

Based on above reasons, Integration team recommends to use Heat template as 
ONAP platform deployment strategy in Amsterdam Release.

Please send your email vote for “whether you approve using Heat template as 
ONAP platform deployment strategy in Amsterdam Release”, options are:
+1: approve
0: no opinion
-1: disapprove

Due: 9/20/2017, 6:00PM PDT.

Kenny, please help us collect the result. The result will impact our 
integration testing priority and integration lab resource allocation priority.

Regards,
Helen Chen


___
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&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=KSR6PrsZRiEmjmaij5MmjZycgerqLf-CNiNMJg6x4WU&s=JqX3STNDf0aFULBkDOCsgxS0u2W7xLmRl2Sr0OjfPzs&e=

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

Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP University subcommittee : proposed charter.

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Let’s invest few minutes at the TSC meeting to give status on this effort
and push things forward. I would like the TSC to approve the formation of the
subcommittee.

 LF has proposed a multi-level training program for
ONAP. We need to review with this subcommittee.

Mazin




On Sep 11, 2017, at 4:13 AM, Dhananjay Pavgi 
mailto:dp00476...@techmahindra.com>> wrote:

Thanks, Lingli for prompt response, appreciate it.

Very valid and the most important point considering R1 timelines. Will have to 
chart out working plan for R1 with PTLs.

Given paucity of time for R1; suggest we cover following topics at the minimum:

1.   Architecture Enhancements from R1

2.   New projects that fit MVP criteria for R1

3.   Use Cases
Suggested Format could be : White paper and webinar for 1. Above, Detailed 
project component description (sort of deep-dive component 
architecture/functional design) document for 2. Above and canned videos, README 
for 3. Above. We can package this; and work with Marketing steering committee 
to arrive at email teasers/campaigns/webinars around release date of R1.

thanks & regards,
Dhananjay Pavgi
Mobile : +91 98220 22264

From: Lingli Deng [mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 1:09 PM
To: Dhananjay Pavgi 
mailto:dp00476...@techmahindra.com>>; 'onap-tsc' 
mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: RE: [onap-tsc] ONAP University subcommittee : proposed charter.

Hi Dhanajay,

Thanks for the well-prepared proposal.
I have a quick question:
As the document states, that the subcommittee and current proposals are not 
bounded to R1, I am wondering what is the working plan for R1.
So far as I know, LF has contacted with PTLs preparing for similar material for 
R1 as part of M4.

Thanks and Regards,
Lingli

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Dhananjay Pavgi
Sent: 2017年9月11日 15:10
To: onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: [onap-tsc] ONAP University subcommittee : proposed charter.

Dear All,

As discussed in the TSC meeting last week; please find attached herewith 
proposed charter for ONAP University Subcommittee. Would like to seek your 
views.

thanks & regards,
Dhananjay Pavgi
Mobile : +91 98220 22264
   
www.techmahindra.com
 Platinum Member. Visit : 
http://www.onap.org


Disclaimer:  This message and the information contained herein is proprietary 
and confidential and subject to the Tech Mahindra policy statement, you may 
review the policy at 
http://www.techmahindra.com/Disclaimer.html
 externally 
http://tim.techmahindra.com/tim/disclaimer.html
 internally within TechMahindra.

___
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&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=2dwD7a5k4V9cZl09O7uTpejnZMF8aa01W3yMqrrZC5Y&m=f0L0HOibqhPq1bHEmQH29bh0gzsLpJuNmqdYyYqTiIE&s=EI2pPtkIQKWsbik-R2Lk_dlui4jKfMS8HuouuiXURAw&e=

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

[onap-tsc] ONAP TSC measures of success

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Dear ONAP Community,

I want to start an email dialog which we will follow up in our Paris meeting on 
technical measures of success of the ONAP platform.
What measures we should track and make publicly visible in PR events? I know 
LOC has been used already. This seems like one
of 2-3 other measures we should be tracking.

Those measures should be agnostic to any particular release and publicly 
recognized. Please share your thoughts and ideas.

thanks!
Mazin





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

[onap-tsc] Paris F2F meeting

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

ONAP Community, 

This is a gentle reminder to register for the TSC meeting in Paris.
Please propose relevant subjects for the F2F meeting to the website.

Also, it is important that there is representation and lead for each project
as we will be discussing status of  all projects at the meeting.

Thank you!
Mazin

https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/ONAP+Developer+Event+September+25-28%2C+2017%2C+Paris-Saclay%2C+France


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

[onap-tsc] TSC F2F meeting in Paris

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

ONAP Community,

We are really excited about our next face to face meeting in Paris, hosted by 
Nokia.
This is a critical meeting as we will review our Amsterdam release and make
key decisions about the Beijing release.

There are limited spots, so please register at your earliest convenience.
The place has limited seats.

Here is the link for info and registration.

https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/ONAP+Developer+Event+September+25-28%2C+2017%2C+Paris-Saclay%2C+France

Look forward to seeing you all.
Mazin

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

Re: [onap-tsc] R2 use cases planning

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Alla, Team

Agree with the discussion below that the goal of R1 has been on integration of 
Open-O with Open ECOMP.
One of the key goals for R2 should be maturing the platform to an “enterprise” 
grade, specifically the non-functional aspects.
We should have measures and frameworks that evaluate those measures so we track 
progress.

Another key goal of R2 should be to create additional platform capabilities 
that can promote self-service of the platform.
I.e., we may not develop many new applications for R2, but with R2, the user 
community should be able to develop
a number of new applications that require new VNF instantiation, micro services 
on-boarding and closed loop automation with no development.

Very exciting discussion topic. Let’s organize and plan to reach a conclusion 
at the F2F meeting in Sep.

Mazin



On Aug 18, 2017, at 7:27 AM, Alla Goldner 
mailto:alla.gold...@amdocs.com>> wrote:

Hi Vladimir, all,

Thanks for all replies received so far!

Vladimir, this is not about meeting time resources, I believe. Meeting time can 
be extended, if necessary.
The limitation and the need to reduce the scope comes from the fact that 
different projects will have to support related functionality, Integration team 
will have to do all integration work around approved use cases etc.

R1 major goal, as Mazin mentioned yesterday, is about merging Openecomp and 
Open-O code and we decided that the best way to achieve this goes though 
implementing R1 use cases. However, we compromised on ONAP Platform 
functionalities – some of them appear on the dedicated wiki page already, some 
more will be included by the community members. And, as also appears in my 
presentation yesterday
“- Issue of the technical debt we are acquiring in R1 and how to pay that off
• If we load R2 at 100% capacity with new features this may never get cleaned 
up and ONAP may eventually collapse under its own complexity.”

When we develop a use case it typically consists of 2 different aspects:

1.   New ONAP platform capabilities
2.   New functionality related to specific use case, including connectivity 
support, support of new VNFs etc.

For example, if we were guided to concentrate on ONAP Platform capabilities 
only, we then would support R2 with R1 only use cases by implementing ONAP 
Platform capabilities missing in R1, and by also aligning this with R2 target 
architecture view. As clearly, (2) above requires additional effort. This, I 
guess, goes back to the question asked by Jason on R2 goal – and, also in my 
view, as Jason put it, “R2 would be about strengthening the non-functional 
aspects of the platform (usability, maintainability, scalability, reliability, 
etc.) to provide an unrivaled, hardened platform that can be leveraged in any 
carrier's environment.”

And, yet another example, if we agree to decide on case-by-case basis, as 
proposed by Vladimir and by Rajesh, we need criteria on how we select to 
support use cases/missing Platform capabilities. And Ranny provided a great 
list of initial criteria to be used for this goal, if we decide to go in this 
direction.

We are looking for more inputs on this, as this will eventually determine the 
direction R2 takes.

Best regards,

Alla Goldner

Open Network Division
Amdocs Technology




From: Vladimir Yanover (vyanover) [mailto:vyano...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 12:43 PM
To: Jason Hunt mailto:djh...@us.ibm.com>>; Alla Goldner 
mailto:alla.gold...@amdocs.com>>
Cc: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org
Subject: RE: [onap-tsc] R2 use cases planning

Jason, Alla and All
Just to understand the topic, what is this resource that should be managed 
here; is it e.g. meeting time?
Speaking of the #1 below, I understand it as that some ONAP platform 
capabilities are missing so that the agreed R1 use cases cannot be supported. 
If this is the case, the gap certainly should be closed, but it’s R1 work item, 
isn’t it? One therefore can expect that there will be R1 related activities 
(“R1 work items”) and R2 related activities (“R2 work items”) with some 
resource partitioning between them.
Speaking of R2 related activities, we certainly need some selection of use 
cases, but I think it should go on case by case basis: importance, complexity 
of new platform capabilities needed (if any), timeline etc.
Thanks
Vladimir

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Jason Hunt
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 10:16 PM
To: Alla Goldner mailto:alla.gold...@amdocs.com>>
Cc: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] R2 use cases planning

Alla,

Thank you for your leadership here and for the work of the use case committee 
on this topic.

ONAP should be able to run any VNF or network service, even ones that aren't 
known today.  And, just as importantly, ONAP needs to manage those VNFs and 
network services well, in a num

[onap-tsc] Rewarding committers and coders

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

ONAP Community,

I hope you are enjoying what remains of the summer.

I wanted to kick off a discussion on ideas for rewarding top committers and 
coders.
How often we should do this, type of rewards, ideas on promoting diversity,
bases for the rewards (lines, commits, etc). Should we introduce badges?

We will complete this discussion at the F2F meeting in France and start
executing your ideas.

Thanks!
Mazin







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

Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Meeting Agenda, Aug. 17, 2017

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Hey Kenny,

The agenda is good. I do want to have 5 min in each meeting for round table 
items starting next week.
Also could we make sure that we approve meeting notes via emails every week.
For next week, let’s add R2 architecture update as well.

Thanks
mazin




On Aug 16, 2017, at 8:10 PM, Kenny Paul 
mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/2017-08-17+Meeting+Agenda


15 min R2 use cases  Alla Goldner
15 min Diversity policy old business
10 min Paris F2F Phil Robb
5 min Heads-up for M3 Gildas Lanilis
5 min Bitergia Kenny Paul


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&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=tmG3KPYMYVcAmKAxZ0wuQTV-Qgt8hybQsDK4itWmCtY&s=0ukelRTS78ccljoTDg-Rqp6X_kYq0f_KsnJDSpRIU8g&e=

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

Re: [onap-tsc] Enforcing an "Upstream first" approach to ONAP

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

.
-  Anything to do with code styling, best practices, etc.  I agree its 
great to have a desired aligned view.  However lets involve the designers and 
projects, enforcing from “external” may not have traction.  My suggestion would 
be to involve them and have TSC approval based on PTL approval first.

Best Regards,

Steve.

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org> 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)
Sent: 03 August 2017 18:33
To: Yunxia Chen mailto:helen.c...@huawei.com>>
Cc: eric.deb...@orange.com<mailto:eric.deb...@orange.com>; 
onap-tsc@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Enforcing an "Upstream first" approach to ONAP

Thank you Helen. Appreciate the leadership.
Mazin

Sent through AT&T's fastest network

On Aug 3, 2017, at 7:00 PM, Yunxia Chen 
mailto:helen.c...@huawei.com>> wrote:
Hi, Mazin,
The Integration team will take this one as an action item: we will define a 
list, (there’s other best code practice as well, such as code review etc.).
with an implementation plan since we may not able to do everything in R1, and 
get TSC’s approval.

Regards,

Helen Chen

From: mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>> 
on behalf of "GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)" 
mailto:ma...@research.att.com>>
Date: Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 8:31 AM
To: Eric Debeau mailto:eric.deb...@orange.com>>
Cc: onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Enforcing an "Upstream first" approach to ONAP

I am ok if the integration team wants to take the task of defining best code 
practices and guidelines on significant code insertion. I agree with Ash that 
code that can not be reviewed should not be committed blindly. But we need to 
form guidelines so we are all following the same practices. Even the concept of 
significant code is not defined.

This is not a trivial effort and I do not want the integration team to be 
distracted from R1, but I am open for suggestions from the TSC. Let's have the 
discussion via email. I would also appreciate links to successful code best 
practices and enforcements adopted by other forums.

Mazin

Sent through AT&T's fastest network

On Aug 3, 2017, at 11:35 AM, 
"eric.deb...@orange.com<mailto:eric.deb...@orange.com>" 
mailto:eric.deb...@orange.com>> wrote:
+1 for raising this topic


We should avoid 10k LOC patches because it is very complex to review and is not 
aligned with an open source spirit.

I do not believe that we should create another subcommitte to handle such 
issue. The integration project may be able to detect such behavior and alerts 
the PTL and TSC

I also agree with Dhananjay => We spend too much effort on functional aspects 
for R1. There is still some issues to setup a full ONAP platform on Vanilla 
OpenStack.

Best regards

Eric

_



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.onap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Dtsc&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=rSkZu5gsdRT8HwFjzhd2QXyGHqPCRZUGh5Z88VRAiJs&s=o6YwYnIHiT-aLyFYu-yYBdw3IkZxVziwKVEUvMO7h6c&e=
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.onap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Dtsc&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=2dwD7a5k4V9cZl09O7uTpejnZMF8aa01W3yMqrrZC5Y&m=Avw5LueTGQHoXOasfmj2n0-boBsc2V8CIHRy89IYfdM&s=aqGH5lXGTbm_wzoEELGng_lbQncOPwM9FBUOz9aC28U&e=
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc

Re: [onap-tsc] Enforcing an "Upstream first" approach to ONAP

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Thank you Helen. Appreciate the leadership.
Mazin

Sent through AT&T's fastest network

On Aug 3, 2017, at 7:00 PM, Yunxia Chen 
mailto:helen.c...@huawei.com>> wrote:

Hi, Mazin,
The Integration team will take this one as an action item: we will define a 
list, (there’s other best code practice as well, such as code review etc.).
with an implementation plan since we may not able to do everything in R1, and 
get TSC’s approval.

Regards,

Helen Chen

From: mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>> 
on behalf of "GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)" 
mailto:ma...@research.att.com>>
Date: Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 8:31 AM
To: Eric Debeau mailto:eric.deb...@orange.com>>
Cc: onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Enforcing an "Upstream first" approach to ONAP

I am ok if the integration team wants to take the task of defining best code 
practices and guidelines on significant code insertion. I agree with Ash that 
code that can not be reviewed should not be committed blindly. But we need to 
form guidelines so we are all following the same practices. Even the concept of 
significant code is not defined.

This is not a trivial effort and I do not want the integration team to be 
distracted from R1, but I am open for suggestions from the TSC. Let's have the 
discussion via email. I would also appreciate links to successful code best 
practices and enforcements adopted by other forums.

Mazin

Sent through AT&T's fastest network

On Aug 3, 2017, at 11:35 AM, 
"eric.deb...@orange.com<mailto:eric.deb...@orange.com>" 
mailto:eric.deb...@orange.com>> wrote:
+1 for raising this topic


We should avoid 10k LOC patches because it is very complex to review and is not 
aligned with an open source spirit.

I do not believe that we should create another subcommitte to handle such 
issue. The integration project may be able to detect such behavior and alerts 
the PTL and TSC

I also agree with Dhananjay => We spend too much effort on functional aspects 
for R1. There is still some issues to setup a full ONAP platform on Vanilla 
OpenStack.

Best regards

Eric

_



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.onap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Dtsc&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=rSkZu5gsdRT8HwFjzhd2QXyGHqPCRZUGh5Z88VRAiJs&s=o6YwYnIHiT-aLyFYu-yYBdw3IkZxVziwKVEUvMO7h6c&e=
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc

Re: [onap-tsc] Enforcing an "Upstream first" approach to ONAP

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

I am ok if the integration team wants to take the task of defining best code 
practices and guidelines on significant code insertion. I agree with Ash that 
code that can not be reviewed should not be committed blindly. But we need to 
form guidelines so we are all following the same practices. Even the concept of 
significant code is not defined.

This is not a trivial effort and I do not want the integration team to be 
distracted from R1, but I am open for suggestions from the TSC. Let's have the 
discussion via email. I would also appreciate links to successful code best 
practices and enforcements adopted by other forums.

Mazin

Sent through AT&T's fastest network

On Aug 3, 2017, at 11:35 AM, 
"eric.deb...@orange.com" 
mailto:eric.deb...@orange.com>> wrote:

+1 for raising this topic


We should avoid 10k LOC patches because it is very complex to review and is not 
aligned with an open source spirit.

I do not believe that we should create another subcommitte to handle such 
issue. The integration project may be able to detect such behavior and alerts 
the PTL and TSC

I also agree with Dhananjay => We spend too much effort on functional aspects 
for R1. There is still some issues to setup a full ONAP platform on Vanilla 
OpenStack.

Best regards

Eric

_

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.


___
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&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=rSkZu5gsdRT8HwFjzhd2QXyGHqPCRZUGh5Z88VRAiJs&s=o6YwYnIHiT-aLyFYu-yYBdw3IkZxVziwKVEUvMO7h6c&e=
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc

Re: [onap-tsc] Vote on Date & Location of Next ONAP Developer Face To Face

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

+1

Sent through AT&T's fastest network

On Aug 3, 2017, at 12:49 AM, Phil Robb 
mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

Hello ONAP TSC Members:

As was mentioned at the last TSC meeting, Nokia and Orange have offered to host 
the next ONAP Developer Face to Face meeting the week of September 25th, 2017 
at the Nokia Paris-Saclay facility approximately 25 Kilometers south west of 
the Paris Orly airport.  We will have access to an auditorium that holds 200 
people along with several conference/break-out rooms.  We are still finalizing 
the specific days of the event, but I would like to have the TSC approve this 
time/week, and location so that attendees who need visas can begin the process 
of getting them.

Therefore, please provide your vote via email to the following resolution:

Shall the TSC approve the next ONAP Developer Face to Face meeting to be held 
the week of September 25th, at the Nokia facility located in Paris-Saclay, 
France? +1, 0, -1

TSC Members, please provide your vote at your earliest opportunity.  If we 
reach an affirmative vote on this prior to the TSC meeting tomorrow, we'll 
simply make that announcement during the meeting.  If we do not reach an 
affirmative vote, we will discuss this topic and vote on it in the meeting 
tomorrow.

Thanks in advance for your response.

Best,

Phil.
--
Phil Robb
Executive Director, OpenDaylight Project
VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation
(O) 970-229-5949
(M) 970-420-4292
Skype: Phil.Robb
___
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&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=TZM9w1qxATWfADqCsoci5waP3EmT6jwXpm2l_lXNA-U&s=Uzo2tpo9-tLUljTDxnTLcnyLpB9Fl7IDVMpDrX7w9OI&e=
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc

Re: [onap-tsc] Enforcing an "Upstream first" approach to ONAP

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

David

You are raising a valid point and it relates to my previous note to the TSC 
about monitoring and evaluating code quality. I suggested forming a 
subcommittee to make a recommendation. This is vital for the success of ONAP. 

Our first release includes a merger of open ecomp and open-o components. Hence, 
I expect significant new code to be included. What we need to ensure are the 
following:

1. Significant new code is consistent with our project approvals
2. TSC is monitoring significant code contribution and quality. The LF is 
implementing a statistical tool shortly that will enable us to do formal 
monitoring. Kenny can provide an update in our Thursday call.

In the meantime, I am urging committers to review codes properly before any 
check in. PTLs need to ensure significant code commitments align with project 
approvals for R1. 

We can discuss this also in our f2f meeting in September to install guidelines 
and more detailed monitoring for R2. 

Thanks
Mazin  

Sent through AT&T's fastest network 

> On Aug 2, 2017, at 7:37 PM, Sauvageau, David  wrote:
> 
> Hi TSC members, 
> 
> I would like to bring to our attention one major opportunity for improvement 
> in the behaviour currently adopted by some of our community members. 
> 
> I am observing a big number of very large commits (10’s of thousands of lines 
> of code in a single commit) which to me is a symptom of us not working well 
> as a community yet. In order to be successful, I believe communities need to 
> adopt an “Upstream first” approach, meaning that every single day, the new 
> code is committed upstream. We need to avoid the “we’ll build it internally 
> and then upstream the code” approach. This is the only way we’ll get traction 
> as a community rather than allowing individual companies to push for internal 
> agendas. 
> 
> With the current approach, it is very difficult for the community to start 
> contributing to ongoing projects, or even to know what’s coming up on the 
> projects as code is pushed by major chunks with no visibility on the roadmap. 
> If we continue supporting such behaviour this will slow down the adoption of 
> ONAP in production environments. 
> 
> I believe it is our responsibility as the TSC to change that behaviour, first 
> by educating different organizations how open source should be handled, but 
> probably also by putting technical mechanisms to prevent such a behaviour 
> (e.g. Limit commit size; enforce multi-company reviews before merge, allow 
> for unfinished code in the repo …, any suggestions welcome). 
> 
> I do not have a specific solution to propose, but I would ask the TSC to open 
> up the dialogue on such behaviour. The Amsterdam release is quickly coming 
> and I believe this needs to be addressed asap. 
> 
> I’d like to discuss the topic tomorrow during TSC. 
> 
> Comments, anyone?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> ___
> 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&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=Ox6br4500P9jahGnamXENkht6L9W002IZBJGbiMNvvM&s=zlTN8uxcV4H9FNf4sXe7QqPKxSZ9X8IcQgY0V41sJ4w&e=
>  
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc

Re: [onap-tsc] Use case subcommittee meeting (31/07/2017): the summary

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

s,

Alla Goldner

Open Network Division
Amdocs Technology




From: Alla Goldner
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2017 4:17 PM
To: onap-usecase...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-usecase...@lists.onap.org>
Cc: GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E) 
mailto:ma...@research.att.com>>; 'Phil Robb' 
mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>>; 'Kenny Paul' 
mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>>; 
'emau...@research.att.com<mailto:emau...@research.att.com>' 
mailto:emau...@research.att.com>>; 'Vimal Begwani' 
mailto:begw...@att.com>>; 
'wanglm@chinatelecom.cn<mailto:wanglm@chinatelecom.cn>' 
mailto:wanglm@chinatelecom.cn>>; 'Yunxia Chen' 
mailto:helen.c...@huawei.com>>; 'Kang Xi' 
mailto:kang...@huawei.com>>; 'Yang Xu (Yang, Fixed 
Network)' mailto:yang@huawei.com>>; Yoav Kluger 
mailto:yoav.klu...@amdocs.com>>; 'Chengli Wang' 
mailto:wangchen...@chinamobile.com>>
Subject: Agenda for the upcoming Use case subcommittee meeting (31/07/2017)

Hi,

Here is agenda for the upcoming Monday’s meeting:


1.   R1 use cases: Status and actions, required from Use case subcommittee 
(vCPE: Kang Xi/Yoav Kluger, vVoLTE: Yang Xe/Chengli Wang)



2.   R2 use cases proposals for presentation and review

a.   ONAP Change Management 
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Use+Case%3A+ONAP+Change+Management<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.onap.org_display_DW_Use-2BCase-253A-2BONAP-2BChange-2BManagement&d=DwMFAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=2dwD7a5k4V9cZl09O7uTpejnZMF8aa01W3yMqrrZC5Y&m=5pwChWhrwfVVGRmnAWWIJM9JCCfkDXG-j7ovu16hW5M&s=Uk_Oo37hfeMG6GlvEbIH3kk-NtFvmcB8T768yPrhidc&e=>
  - will be presented as use case candidate for R2 (Emmanouil Mavrogiorgis)
b.  5G RAN deployment – will be presented as use case candidate for R2 
(Vimal Begwani)

c.   Enterprise vCPE 
https://wiki.onap.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=6593376<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.onap.org_pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D6593376&d=DwMFAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=2dwD7a5k4V9cZl09O7uTpejnZMF8aa01W3yMqrrZC5Y&m=5pwChWhrwfVVGRmnAWWIJM9JCCfkDXG-j7ovu16hW5M&s=9cNjr3vKSbfomdKGfwPuKYMZ79JniUYhnlLSyD53bBA&e=>
  - was already presented as use case candidate for R2, questions and comments, 
if any, will be discussed (Luman Wang)


3.   General topics

a.   Kick off discussion on criteria for use case selection (for your 
information, R1 use cases criteria for selection are here: 
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Release+1+Use+Cases<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.onap.org_display_DW_Release-2B1-2BUse-2BCases&d=DwMFAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=2dwD7a5k4V9cZl09O7uTpejnZMF8aa01W3yMqrrZC5Y&m=5pwChWhrwfVVGRmnAWWIJM9JCCfkDXG-j7ovu16hW5M&s=dWAAzet4lINHq9N84MmzjSkF0r7oWb8U82EULRuHQNQ&e=>
 )

b.  Plans for alignment with Architecture subcommittee on R2 use cases 
architecture, plans on initial presentation of R2 use cases to the TSC, pre-R2 
rough milestones


   i
Please let me know if you would like to include more topics.


Best regards,

Alla Goldner

Open Network Division
Amdocs Technology




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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amdocs.com_about_email-2Ddisclaimer&d=DwMFAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=2dwD7a5k4V9cZl09O7uTpejnZMF8aa01W3yMqrrZC5Y&m=5pwChWhrwfVVGRmnAWWIJM9JCCfkDXG-j7ovu16hW5M&s=MaNZdVuMEu4Q2BkOaQlVx13-UDgJmjJIVP3vyOGxNtk&e=>
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc

Re: [onap-tsc] [onap-discuss] Draft of TSC Charter Section 5.4.1 Changes

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Thank you Kenny,

I encourage the ONAP community to review the proposed changes below and provide 
feedback.
We want to finalize this in one week. The TSC will then review and vote.

Mazin



On Jul 24, 2017, at 5:53 PM, Kenny Paul 
mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

The proposed changes to Section 5.4.1 have been posted to the TSC wiki page
 
https://wiki.onap.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4719160

Sorry for the delay but I did not have an editable version of Charter v.7.1 
available to me to redlined and I got that this morning.

What is reflected in the v7.2.1 draft are:
- numbering changes to facilitate a line-by-line vote as was recommended by Ed 
Warnicke
- a page break for the sake of readability
- the text discussed at the July 20th TSC meeting below:

5.4.1.2 Each subcommittee may elect a Chair or Vice-Chair who is responsible 
for leading meetings and representing the subcommittee to the TSC.

5.4.1.3 The Chair or Vice-Chair will be elected by members of the subcommittee 
as of the date the nomination process starts for the election.

5.4.1.4 Voting for a Chair or Vice-Chair not limited to member companies 
however only 1 Subcommittee member from each company, or group of related 
companies (as defined in section 7.4 of the ONAP Project Charter) may vote in 
the election.


Not reflected in this draft is language around from Rajesh Gadiyar, Susana 
Sabater and Bob Monkman around the diversity of participation in leadership 
positions.
I did not include this as A) the language had been inadvertently omitted from 
the discussion and B) the intended scope of those provisions extends beyond the 
specific changes to the topic of Steering Committee elections to also include 
PTL and Community Coordinator roles.  I will with Susana, Bob and Rajesh on the 
specific language around that to be presented at the August 3rd TSC meeting.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,
-kenny

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

___
onap-discuss mailing list
onap-disc...@lists.onap.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.onap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Ddiscuss&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=UNKen1fs4ejCf862AlleVo3HNxfdUuBM8SAbP3PFpe4&s=LRP_uTu46KNtzOcv6P8g10MJ2bJjK5l1E3ilxUYG4AM&e=

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

Re: [onap-tsc] TSC VOTE on Repos for AAI, AAF, Modeling & MSB

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

+1 ALL

Sent through AT&T's fastest network

On Jul 22, 2017, at 2:49 PM, Kenny Paul 
mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

As mentioned we have several repository requests queued up. Gildas has reviewed 
these and feels the requestors have done their due diligence regarding the data 
needed.

Please vote for each one individually OR respond with a (+1, 0, -1)  
“ALL” to approve or reject all requests
——

VOTE to approve the AAF Project's Requests for the creation of an incremental 
repository (+1, 0 -1)
Components Name

Components Repository name

Maven Group ID

Components Description

luaplugin

aaf/luaplugin

org.onap.aaf.luaplugin

A lua plugin to integrate AAF with MSB, which provides centralized auth 
features at the API Gateway.




VOTE to approve the MSB Project's Requests for the creation of two incremental 
repositories (+1, 0 -1)
Components Name

Components Repository name

Maven Group ID

Components Description

java-sdk

msb/java-sdk

org.onap.msb.sdk

Provides a JAVA SDK for rapid microservices development, including service 
registration, service discovery, request routing, load balancing, retry, etc.

swagger-sdk

msb/swagger-sdk

org.onap.msb.swagger-sdk

Swagger sdk helps to generate swagger.json and java client sdk during the build 
time, it also helps to provide the swagger.json at the given URI in the run 
time.



VOTE to approve the A&AI Project's Requests for the creation of two incremental 
repositories (+1, 0 -1)
Components Name Components Repository Name  Maven Group ID  Components 
Discription
esr-server  aai/esr-server  org.onap.aai.esr-server
ESR backend, mainly include the function of external system reachable 
check and data pretreatment
esr-gui aai/esr-gui org.onap.aai.esr-gui
External system management ui

VOTE to approve the Modeling Subcommittee’s requests for the creation of an 
incremental repository within the Modeling Project’s structure (+1, 0 -1)
Components Name

Components Repository name

Maven Group ID

Components Description





 modelspec   modeling/modelspec  org.onap.modeling.modelspec
The repository for modeling specification

published by modeling subcommittee



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&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=aKi7Pxz2d_1qb_2w7Rq51Pw-rKcpxyLHUHHnyAh0Hsg&s=AexSSviPIoUHIWlE9aBnWBPb_1X8xrIwA4vVmtVx830&e=
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc

Re: [onap-tsc] Vulnerability Management subcommittee (and TSC Action)

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

+1


On Jul 12, 2017, at 8:54 PM, Xinhui Li 
mailto:lxin...@vmware.com>> wrote:

+1

From: mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>> 
on behalf of Lingli Deng 
mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>>
Date: Thursday, 13 July 2017 at 8:43 AM
To: 'Alla Goldner' mailto:alla.gold...@amdocs.com>>, 
'Jason Hunt' mailto:djh...@us.ibm.com>>, 
"stephen.terr...@ericsson.com" 
mailto:stephen.terr...@ericsson.com>>
Cc: "onap-sec...@lists.onap.org" 
mailto:onap-sec...@lists.onap.org>>, 
"david.j...@gmail.com" 
mailto:david.j...@gmail.com>>, 
"ruan...@orange.com" 
mailto:ruan...@orange.com>>, 
"t...@lists.onap.org" 
mailto:t...@lists.onap.org>>, 
"spat...@research.att.com" 
mailto:spat...@research.att.com>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Vulnerability Management subcommittee (and TSC Action)

+1

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13日 2:50
To: Jason Hunt mailto:djh...@us.ibm.com>>; 
stephen.terr...@ericsson.com
Cc: onap-sec...@lists.onap.org; 
david.j...@gmail.com; 
ruan...@orange.com; 
t...@lists.onap.org; 
spat...@research.att.com
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Vulnerability Management subcommittee (and TSC Action)

+1

 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Vulnerability Management subcommittee (and TSC Action)
From: Jason Hunt mailto:djh...@us.ibm.com>>
Date: Jul 12, 2017, 7:24 PM
To: stephen.terr...@ericsson.com
+1


Regards,
Jason Hunt
Executive Software Architect, IBM

Phone: +1-314-749-7422
Email: djh...@us.ibm.com
Twitter: @DJHunt


- Original message -
From: Stephen Terrill 
mailto:stephen.terr...@ericsson.com>>
Sent by: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org
To: "t...@lists.onap.org" 
mailto:t...@lists.onap.org>>
Cc: David Jorm mailto:david.j...@gmail.com>>, 
"SPATSCHECK, OLIVER \(OLIVER\)" 
mailto:spat...@research.att.com>>, 
"ruan...@orange.com" 
mailto:ruan...@orange.com>>, 
"onap-sec...@lists.onap.org" 
mailto:onap-sec...@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: [onap-tsc] Vulnerability Management subcommittee (and TSC Action)
Date: Sat, Jul 8, 2017 4:22 PM


Hi Fellow TSC members,



As indicated in the last TSC meeting I will forward the proposed participants 
for the vulnerability management sub-committee and who should be on that list.



As a reminder, the vulnerability management subcommittee is to handle the 
reception to resolution of received vulnerabilities according to our agreed 
procedures: 
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/ONAP+Vulnerability+Management



Proposed members

  *   Oliver Spatscheck from ATT
  *   Amy Zwarico from ATT
  *   Ruan He from Orange
  *   Arul Nambi from Amdocs

This will be supported by:

  *   Stephen Terrill (to link with the security subcommittee and coordinator)
  *   Phil Robb (link to LF)
  *   David Jorm (whom has experience on this from other forum and will phase 
out when up and running)



To: All TSC members, as this is the proposal from the security sub-committee we 
should decide on whether to accept the proposal or no, my suggestion (unless 
there is objection to this process) is that a +1/0/-1 via email is an 
acceptable way forward.  (obviously I am +1), so please reply accordingly to 
formalize this.



To: Phil/Casey/Kenny: Once approved, please add the above to the security email 
list.



To: Oliver, Amy, Ruan, Arul.

Firstly, thank-you for stepping up.  When the confirmation is complete I 
suggest that you decide who is chair and revert back to the TSC this 
information for confirmation.



To: All PTLs.  Just a reminder, support will be needed when processing 
vulnerabilities.  I am sure that we all agree that this will be necessary.



Best Regards,



Steve.





STEPHEN TERRILL
Technology Specialist
DUIC, Systems and Technology
Development Unit IP & 
Cloud

Business Unit, IT & Cloud 
Products

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

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Team,

I strongly encourage you to vote. We only have 22 votes.
We need to close on this and announce the results at the TSC meeting tomorrow.
Mazin


On Jul 10, 2017, at 5:10 PM, GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E) 
mailto:ma...@research.att.com>> wrote:

***Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT&T ***
Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more information.

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 
mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>> 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__doodle.com_poll_38ca2yt66294mwmy&d=DwMFAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=n1ksc3vmAcJyawJH0JEz_umKqa9XqJXyijKbCiGCYc8&s=sYuuV_xzFy-qo3jpQaccrD4tk4H91vjZzQaQM4vte84&e=>

Thanks!


Best Regards,
-kenny

Kenny Paul,  Technical Program Manager
kp...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>
510.766.5945

___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.onap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Dtsc&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=n1ksc3vmAcJyawJH0JEz_umKqa9XqJXyijKbCiGCYc8&s=YtIgcFtglQUV6hVQuFvTBJu3la2dhkHXCHGapJJeZBk&e=

___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.onap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Dtsc&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=Vkn4FukiSOfTuv_kffGoHGid1It6RMOCRee_NUkn_Sc&s=l0PLMI8rc2vUd_5efqohfrWepnkah-MRcaZANQJj6hY&e=

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

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

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Jamil

I don’t want to mix all these issues. The subcommittee will propose new 
language for the community to review.
The language will help to provide stronger policies for elections and 
participation of companies and members in ONAP activities.

I want to separate that from the irregularity of the use case election. We will 
discuss that separately at the TSC meeting or a meeting
I requested the LF to set up later in the week.

thanks

Mazin

On Jul 11, 2017, at 8:41 AM, 
jamil.cha...@orange.com<mailto:jamil.cha...@orange.com> wrote:

Hi Mazin
Are you proposing a new subcommittee to review the TSC voting procedure for the 
election of subcommittee Chair ?
My preference will be to discuss first the irregularity of the use case 
election during the next TSC meeting before to take any action.
Regards
Jamil

De : onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org> 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] De la part de GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN 
E)
Envoyé : mardi 11 juillet 2017 12:46
À : Bob Monkman; Rajesh Gadiyar; Sabater, Susana, Vodafone Spain
Cc : onap-tsc
Objet : Re: [onap-tsc] REMINDER - Re: Irregularities in the Use Case 
Subcommittee Chair Election

ONAP Community,

Per my note yesterday, we now have a subcommittee from members that had minimal 
or no
involvement in the voting or the use case subcommittee.

Bob (Arm), Rajesh (Rajesh), Susana (VF)

Let me suggest a path forward.

I am going to ask Bob to take the lead. The goal of the subcommittee is to 
review Chris’s feedback
and the situation that happened, and provide a proposed set of updates/changes 
to the charter.
The subcommittee should share their feedback with the ONAP community no later 
than one week from now.
The ONAP community would have another week to provide comments and feedback via 
email. The TSC members would then vote
in a TSC Meeting. Proposed changes should be in the form of alternative
language to the charter to help the TSC to take a stand when voting.

If another member not involved in the use case subcommittee would like to join 
this subcommittee
then please contact Bob.

Note that this subcommittee is not defining the charter. They are merely 
proposing an updated language for the whole
ONAP community to comment on prior to the TSC voting on the updated charter.

If anyone has any objection or suggested changes to this proposal then please 
let me know
before we set this committee to work at the end of today.

Thanks!
mazin





On Jul 10, 2017, at 9:40 PM, Bob Monkman 
mailto:bob.monk...@arm.com>> wrote:

Thanks, I was going to seek a more formal suggestion in conjunction with my 
open source legal colleague but she is travelling and it is making it 
difficult. In the end, other members of the subcommittee and LF legal can hone 
the language.

Chris Donley has a good start here. I suggest to add language around limits 
with respect to Related Companies, as we find in the charter. Mayeb 1 vote per 
member, with a maximum of two for a set of Related Companies- this is just a 
suggestion, but the idea is to ensure parent/subsidiaries/sister orgs from 
holding inordinate sway. In addition, it may make sense for some language 
requiring the member company to name a new voting representative if the current 
one in inactive, or an alternate named in cases where a vote comes up and the 
voting rep is on holiday/sabbatical.

I am happy to continue to iterate/comment further if a small working group is 
formed to work to a final version.

Regards,
Bob

Robert (Bob) Monkman
Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs
ARM
150 Rose Orchard Way
San Jose, Ca 95134
M: +1.510.676.5490
Skype: robert.monkman

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org> 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Donley (Chris)
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 3:43 PM
To: GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E) 
mailto:ma...@research.att.com>>; onap-tsc 
mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] REMINDER - Re: Irregularities in the Use Case 
Subcommittee Chair Election

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 vot

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

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

ONAP Community,

Per my note yesterday, we now have a subcommittee from members that had minimal 
or no
involvement in the voting or the use case subcommittee.

Bob (Arm), Rajesh (Rajesh), Susana (VF)

Let me suggest a path forward.

I am going to ask Bob to take the lead. The goal of the subcommittee is to 
review Chris’s feedback
and the situation that happened, and provide a proposed set of updates/changes 
to the charter.
The subcommittee should share their feedback with the ONAP community no later 
than one week from now.
The ONAP community would have another week to provide comments and feedback via 
email. The TSC members would then vote
in a TSC Meeting. Proposed changes should be in the form of alternative
language to the charter to help the TSC to take a stand when voting.

If another member not involved in the use case subcommittee would like to join 
this subcommittee
then please contact Bob.

Note that this subcommittee is not defining the charter. They are merely 
proposing an updated language for the whole
ONAP community to comment on prior to the TSC voting on the updated charter.

If anyone has any objection or suggested changes to this proposal then please 
let me know
before we set this committee to work at the end of today.

Thanks!
mazin






On Jul 10, 2017, at 9:40 PM, Bob Monkman 
mailto:bob.monk...@arm.com>> wrote:

Thanks, I was going to seek a more formal suggestion in conjunction with my 
open source legal colleague but she is travelling and it is making it 
difficult. In the end, other members of the subcommittee and LF legal can hone 
the language.

Chris Donley has a good start here. I suggest to add language around limits 
with respect to Related Companies, as we find in the charter. Mayeb 1 vote per 
member, with a maximum of two for a set of Related Companies- this is just a 
suggestion, but the idea is to ensure parent/subsidiaries/sister orgs from 
holding inordinate sway. In addition, it may make sense for some language 
requiring the member company to name a new voting representative if the current 
one in inactive, or an alternate named in cases where a vote comes up and the 
voting rep is on holiday/sabbatical.

I am happy to continue to iterate/comment further if a small working group is 
formed to work to a final version.

Regards,
Bob

Robert (Bob) Monkman
Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs
ARM
150 Rose Orchard Way
San Jose, Ca 95134
M: +1.510.676.5490
Skype: robert.monkman

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org> 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Donley (Chris)
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 3:43 PM
To: GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E) 
mailto:ma...@research.att.com>>; onap-tsc 
mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] REMINDER - Re: Irregularities in the Use Case 
Subcommittee Chair Election

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 
t

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

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Ed,

We are following the same process we did when we developed the charter and 
everything else we are doing.
A subcommittee proposes options (not one person) and the community can comment 
and provide feedback.
TSC will vote with a 2-day notice.

Bob can be a contributor to this subcommittee or leading the effort for making 
the changes.

Mazin


On Jul 10, 2017, at 6:13 PM, Ed Warnicke 
mailto:hagb...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Mazin,

I would suggest we sort this out over the mailing list, as its clear and 
transparent to all participants, rather than moving it into a subcommittee.  I 
believe Bob Monkman has already volunteered to write up an initial proposal for 
the subcommittee situation to send back to this thread for review.

Ed

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:56 PM, GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E) 
mailto:ma...@research.att.com>> wrote:
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) 
mailto:ma...@research.att.com>> 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 
mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__amdocs.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=dICrvymP9NN1-zsg6YaCB03SctW-7ymvancBmZPCTg8&s=BygWTMjRMyeytG3SCqw5BGDHG8MMwcUJe8gSIc3A6u8&e=>
 17
att.com<http://att.com/> 12
boco.com.cn<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__boco.com.cn&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=dICrvymP9NN1-zsg6YaCB03SctW-7ymvancBmZPCTg8&s=ifC9NY4VWueYHORn2XLthO1mwGp8rIHK_LGFIxcESQ0&e=>
 6
chinamobile.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__chinamobile.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=dICrvymP9NN1-zsg6YaCB03SctW-7ymvancBmZPCTg8&s=TwTezxWuyLkxbcYh67CT8Ug4UbD9uBtszjoWBx3in5M&e=>
 9
chinatelecom.cn<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__chinatelecom.cn&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=dICrvymP9NN1-zsg6YaCB03SctW-7ymvancBmZPCTg8&

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

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

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) 
mailto:ma...@research.att.com>> 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 
mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__amdocs.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=dICrvymP9NN1-zsg6YaCB03SctW-7ymvancBmZPCTg8&s=BygWTMjRMyeytG3SCqw5BGDHG8MMwcUJe8gSIc3A6u8&e=>
 17
att.com<http://att.com/> 12
boco.com.cn<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__boco.com.cn&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=dICrvymP9NN1-zsg6YaCB03SctW-7ymvancBmZPCTg8&s=ifC9NY4VWueYHORn2XLthO1mwGp8rIHK_LGFIxcESQ0&e=>
 6
chinamobile.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__chinamobile.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=dICrvymP9NN1-zsg6YaCB03SctW-7ymvancBmZPCTg8&s=TwTezxWuyLkxbcYh67CT8Ug4UbD9uBtszjoWBx3in5M&e=>
 9
chinatelecom.cn<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__chinatelecom.cn&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=dICrvymP9NN1-zsg6YaCB03SctW-7ymvancBmZPCTg8&s=1obNsgDjk_yiSwM7BhZUVUKeXSqU9KERvE1Io99Pud8&e=>
 1
ericsson.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ericsson.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=dICrvymP9NN1-zsg6YaCB03SctW-7ymvancBmZPCTg8&s=T57TUQg20NLTeAFOFxz7PpSbYj6tYNzGrpIKLmosP_Y&e=>
 1
gigaspaces.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gigaspaces.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=dICrvymP9NN1-zsg6YaCB03SctW-7ymvancBmZPCTg8&s=V5iBNoprNv3_bf8osFDdCUWZuDwS5H9sPtxjBO-n2I4&e=>
 4
gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=dICrvymP9NN1-zsg6YaCB03SctW-7ymvancBmZPCTg8&s=l-r4TPeeMxNHyW_sbwt3Dy7jNEn7q7LkWDBtCiZ5wwM&e=>

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 
mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>> 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&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=n1ksc3vmAcJyawJH0JEz_umKqa9XqJXyijKbCiGCYc8&s=YtIgcFtglQUV6hVQuFvTBJu3la2dhkHXCHGapJJeZBk&e=

___
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 
mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>> 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 
mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>>; 'BEGWANI, 
VIMAL' mailto:vb1...@att.com>>; 
onap-usecase...@lists.onap.org
Cc: onap-disc...@lists.onap.org; 'onap-tsc' 
mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
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 mailto:alla.gold...@amdocs.com>>; 
'BEGWANI, VIMAL' mailto:vb1...@att.com>>; 
onap-usecase...@lists.onap.org
Cc: onap-disc...@lists.onap.org; 'onap-tsc' 
mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
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 mailto:vb1...@att.com>>; 
onap-usecase...@lists.onap.org
Cc: onap-disc...@lists.onap.org; onap-tsc 
mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
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

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

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

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 
mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> 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

Re: [onap-tsc] YOUR ACTION IS REQUIRED: A&AI Project needs new repos for microservices

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

+1



On Jul 6, 2017, at 6:26 PM, Gildas Lanilis 
mailto:gildas.lani...@huawei.com>> wrote:

Dear TSC Voting Members,

AAI team needs the 3 following repos to be added in Gerrit. The PTL (Jimmy 
Forsyth) has provided the rational down below.
At this point the request and all associated artifacts are properly  documented 
in 
wiki
 and are summarized in the screenshot below.


To expedite the approval, your approval by replying a +1, 0, -1 by email will 
be deemed sufficient by LF to move forward in repos creation.
The AA&I team thank you in advance for your prompt response.

Best Regards,
Gildas Lanilis
ONAP Release Manager
1 415 238 6287

From: FORSYTH, JAMES [mailto:jf2...@att.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2017 7:06 AM
To: Gildas Lanilis
Subject: FW: [onap-tsc] A&AI Project needs new repos for microservices

Hi, Gildas,

I have made the update to the Resources and Repositories 
Page.

Can you help with A&AI’s request to get new repos added?

Thank you!

-jimmy

From: Kenny Paul [mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2017 7:48 AM
To: FORSYTH, JAMES mailto:jf2...@att.com>>
Cc: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org; PAQUETTE, FRANCIS 
mailto:francis.paque...@amdocs.com>>; WEATHERLY, 
STEPHEN mailto:sweat...@amdocs.com>>; BYLSMA, SUSAN 
mailto:susan.byl...@amdocs.com>>; DENING, EDWARD 
mailto:ed.den...@amdocs.com>>; BLIMKIE, STEVEN 
mailto:steven.blim...@amdocs.com>>; AGGARWAL, 
MANISHA mailto:amani...@att.com>>; Gildas Lanilis 
mailto:gildas.lani...@huawei.com>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] A&AI Project needs new repos for microservices

Hi James,
Please ensure that all of the necessary information for these have been 
provided on the Resources and Repositories 
Page.
At first glance it appears that babel is missing.

Once that information is complete, please let Gildas know and he will help 
shepherd this request.

Best Regards,
-kenny

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

On Jul 5, 2017, at 9:27 AM, FORSYTH, JAMES 
mailto:jf2...@att.com>> wrote:

Dear ONAP TSC Members,

The A&AI team would like to request permission to add 3 new repositories for 2 
new microservices and a new graph database abstraction library for the 
Amsterdam release.

The repos will be called:

aai/champ
aai/gizmo
aai/babel

A&AI’s rationale for creating these separate repos as opposed to using a 
subdirectory under an existing repo is as follows: it is the convention to 
create a separate git repository for each microservice and library as is 
demonstrated by the microservices currently part of the AAI project. The 
advantages of separate repos (as opposed a single repo containing multiple 
microservices) is the ability to manage access rights for each microservice. 
Otherwise a user with write permissions to the “common” microservice repo could 
accidentally (or intentionally) make change to another microservice.

Please let me know if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your attention,
Jimmy Forsyth
A&AI PTL


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

___
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&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=7gqB74m4lSK9d3-3Sxf-SmCzWD_Co0YO8kg1PC4gXYs&s=RaJWOd63THRgopwD0pCKeJgBm0JsiYnSi1J2TW0PdHA&e=

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

Re: [onap-tsc] sdc committers

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Yuan Yue,

I have not examined this particular project, but the TSC and I have requested 
last week during the review phase of projects for R1,
that the PTLs clean up the list of committers to 3-5, as some are more 
qualified to be contributors than committers.
We have projects with 16-20 committers and 2-3 contributors. PTLs should work 
with their project team to clean-up
the list to a core set of committers but should do it in total transparency and 
openness. If the TSC needs to provide clearer guidelines then we
can discuss today in our TSC Meeting.

thanks
Mazin


On Jul 6, 2017, at 4:42 AM, yuan@zte.com.cn 
wrote:


Hi Michael and Phil,


I wish this is just an unintentional mistake during synchronizing information 
between "approved SDC proposal page" to "Resources and Repositories" in the 
wiki page. Otherwise I would be greately confused on the pratice of removing 
committer from an approved project acording to the procedure we have defined on 
TSC Charter:


A Committer for a project who is disruptive, or has been inactive on that 
project for an extended period (e.g., six or more months) may have his or her 
Committer status revoked by the project’s Project Technical Leader (PTL) or by 
super-majority vote of the project’s committers.

The Project Technical Leader is responsible for informing the Technical 
Steering Committee (TSC) of any committers who are removed or resign.


Is there any explanation on the issue Zhaoxing mentioned in his mail?


Best Regards,

Yuan Yue



原始邮件
发件人：孟照星10024238
收件人： mailto:ml6...@intl.att.com>>;
抄送人： mailto:onap-disc...@lists.onap.org>>; 
mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>;
日 期 ：2017年07月06日 14:45
主 题 ：[onap-tsc] sdc committers


Hi Michael,

I noticed that some of the committers have been removed from Resources and 
Repositories
 even though they're listed as committer in the approved SDC proposal 
page
 .
There is a guideline from TSC about project participants, for community 
diversity, a project is encouraged to have at least three companies involved, 
Currently only 2 in SDC. Given that ZTE has seed codes for SDC listed in the 
approved proposal page for Catalog, workflow designer and VNF designer, I think 
the committers from ZTE should also be listed at the Resources and Repositories 
page.

Thanks and Regards,
Zhaoxing






___
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&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=zagCM6lrm4jcHVIcirLmNorTBnCLgbojm4GVc3NWGnA&s=WzM6PSwQz7jZ2SxUp_oMzcrP2JB3z4oWonomCFpPfPg&e=

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

Re: [onap-tsc] Corrective Action on Approved Project Proposals

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

+1



On Jun 29, 2017, at 3:12 PM, Kenny Paul 
mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

TSC Members:

The following are discrepancies and/or change requests in the approved versions 
of the Project Proposals have been identified during project infrastructure set 
up, which warrants your attention. To minimize email traffic I have 
consolidated these into a single message for your review. It is my 
recommendation that we pursue the necessary corrective action to maintain 
forward momentum.  In the event that any TSC member feels that any one of these 
items warrants further consideration/discussion please let me know and I will 
see that we address it a more formal fashion.

ACTION REQUIRED:  A +1, 0, -1 vote in response to this email will be deemed 
sufficient to cover all of these cases.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Project Descrepancy / Requested change  Corrective Action
Command Line Interface  Jira naming conflict with the Portal project
changing Jira Project name from PORTAL to CLI and Jira Prefix and Mailing list 
to CLI

University  conflicting repo naming within the different sections of the 
Proposal   setting repo name to onapuniversity

Software Defined Network Controller - list of commiter names changed
- addition of 2 repositories
org.onap.sdnc/architecture
org.onap.sdnc/features  Accept requested changes

 Modeling   repository name change request- remove  “modeling” and replace 
with repos named “toscaparsers” and “yangvalidators” Accept requested 
changes

MultiVIM/cloud: Addition of 1 repository - windriverAccept requested change




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&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=p5B9xSQVb2iWdQA_cXe_3p1JQCJ-jaJG7eFlwDrKGbE&s=yf_ZqRU5NBCKivG1BA586k4Jrvfml4DpZ6EHtH9izq4&e=

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

Re: [onap-tsc] Project deliverables

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Good points. We will discuss within the ONAP University project.
The ONAP University project is outward facing to the global community, 
beyond ONAP. So it will need to work with the subcommittees and project PTLs as 
well
to get the information and material out. The documentation project is
a good proxy to help in this effort.

Mazin


> On Jul 1, 2017, at 9:55 PM, Lingli Deng  wrote:
> 
> Hi Mazin,
> 
> I wonder if it also helps to have the documentation project works closely
> with university as well and acting as the proxy for aggregating
> documentation input from individual implementation projects, as it is
> targeted to the following, as I quote form the wiki page
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.onap.org_pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D3247185&d=DwIFbw&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=2dwD7a5k4V9cZl09O7uTpejnZMF8aa01W3yMqrrZC5Y&m=HMIM9rKgVEwdvVGqO7iWsqe_OwuAE_D0qKd7AC3i-Fg&s=n0D9sX0WJ8LZRG-A0PiZgBWPsJLoeqjYaVpCQweFKXc&e=
>   
> 
> Create and maintain documentation targeted to ONAP user audiences and the
> tasks they perform. 
> Illustrative examples below, specific list to be defined or each ONAP
> release:
> 
> *a platform developer pulling, building, running, hacking and pushing source
> code;
> *an administrator installing, configuring, and monitoring an ONAP instance;
> *a designer or tester creating, validating, and delivering service models.
> 
> IMHO, having documentation acting as the proxy and coordinator with
> university might help align the efforts of producing a more systematic
> training program.
> 
> My 2 cents.
> Lingli
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org
> [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of GILBERT, MAZIN E
> (MAZIN E)
> Sent: 2017年7月2日 8:31
> To: Gildas Lanilis 
> Cc: t...@lists.onap.org
> Subject: [onap-tsc] Project deliverables
> 
> Gildas, 
> 
> The ONAP University project (on Education) is working with the marketing
> team on a detailed plan.
> One of the by-products is to create a set of education videos. We would like
> each project deliverable for the Amsterdam release to do a video recording.
> The ONAP University will provide a guideline documentation, but a PTL or
> project member need to make the short recording. Similar recordings were
> made for each of the ONAP components few months back.
> 
> More to come, but wanted that to be a deliverable from each project. We
> expect the resource requirement for this is extremely minimal.
> Thoughts?
> 
> Mazin
> ___
> 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&d=DwIFbw&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=2dwD7a5k4V9cZl09O7uTpejnZMF8aa01W3yMqrrZC5Y&m=HMIM9rKgVEwdvVGqO7iWsqe_OwuAE_D0qKd7AC3i-Fg&s=fXXp4_mtSOWSIjLmfz9enRahXQ6IOYk3KRHEljjjQoY&e=
>  
> 
> 
> 

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

[onap-tsc] Project deliverables

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Gildas, 

The ONAP University project (on Education) is working with the marketing team 
on a detailed plan.
One of the by-products is to create a set of education videos. We would like 
each project deliverable for the
Amsterdam release to do a video recording. The ONAP University will provide a 
guideline documentation, 
but a PTL or project member need to make the short recording. Similar 
recordings were made for
each of the ONAP components few months back.

More to come, but wanted that to be a deliverable from each project. We expect 
the resource requirement
for this is extremely minimal.
Thoughts?

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

[onap-tsc] Committers and voting - Please read.

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

ONAP Community, 

I have sent a note on this before, so my apology for sending it again.
It is important that this community follow the guidelines of the TSC on 
committers and PTLs. We have provided guidelines that projects should
have between 3-5 committers that have actual development experience
and deep knowledge in the software or release software. While I love
the passion and involvement of the community, I see few projects that
misused those directions and ended up with committers in excess of 10, some
signed up the last minute to steer the PTL vote. 

I hesitated to manage and clean-up the committers per advice from 
the Linux Foundation, but I will ask the TSC to enforce those guidelines
in future to ensure fair outcomes across all projects.

Thank you.. I will soon share some great news of new exciting members who
are joining ONAP. Thank you again for your hard work to making ONAP 
a success and let’s make the Amsterdam Release a blast.

Mazin

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

[onap-tsc] IMPORTANT - PTL Update Today

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

ONAP Team Project Leads

The following projects have no assigned PTL. Please respond to this email and 
provide
status no later than today. It is very important we close so we stay on time 
for our Amsterdam Release.

Much appreciate it.
mazin

DMaaP- Nominations end 6/30
Optimization Framework- status unknown
Service Design & Creation- status unknown
Service Orchestrator- in progress
University - requires coordination w/ Marketing committee
Usecase UI- ended yesterday, results have not been provided
Virtual Function Controller- ends today
Virtual Infrastructure Deployment- status unknown
VNF Validation- status unknown
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc

[onap-tsc] PTLs Re: ONAP projects

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Kenny, 

Please circulate which approved project does not have an assigned PTL by end of 
today Est.
I will start reaching out to the project leads.

thanks
Mazin


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

Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP projects

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Thank you Gary.

We are still missing PTLs for many projects.
Please enter the results on this page. If there
are setbacks then please let me and Kenny know asap.

Mazin


On Jun 26, 2017, at 5:50 PM, Gary Wu 
mailto:gary.i...@huawei.com>> wrote:

Thanks Kenny.

I’ve also put together a page to record all the voting results:  
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Voting+Results+History

Would all the poll supervisors kindly add your election results to this page as 
they are announced?

Thanks,
Gary

From: Kenny Paul [mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org]
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2017 6:01 PM
To: Gary Wu mailto:gary.i...@huawei.com>>
Cc: Phil Robb mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>>; 
SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER) 
mailto:spat...@research.att.com>>; onap-tsc 
mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP projects

Hi Gary,

Created: 
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Voting+Best+Practices


Best Regards,
-kenny

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

On Jun 22, 2017, at 9:51 AM, Gary Wu 
mailto:gary.i...@huawei.com>> wrote:

Since there will be lots of voting over time, may I suggest the following:

1.   Document the below on the wiki as the standard/recommended process to 
run a voting poll, and
2.   Request that the results of completed polls (i.e. links to the results 
page) be recorded and shared as public record.

Thanks,
Gary

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Phil Robb
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 3:18 AM
To: SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER) 
mailto:spat...@research.att.com>>; onap-tsc 
mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP projects

Hi Oliver:
.. I added the TSC list to this reply as it is generally applicable.

Normally, I would suggest at least one week for the nomination period and one 
week for the voting, but in accelerated conditions we can do it as quickly as 2 
days for nominations and 2 days for voting.  The concern is that people may be 
on vacation and miss the opportunity.  Those in a project should do their best 
to ensure that all committers are aware of the election.

Along with the self nomination, suggest to the candidates that they include a 
bio and statement of intent for the PTL position.

To perform the vote, I suggest using the CIVS system from Cornell University.
http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/

Select "Create A Poll" in the upper right hand corner and fill out the form, 
selecting the options and end date/time you want (be specific including time 
zone).  I usually keep the "Completion Method" at the default, select detailed 
ballot reporting but leave the results anonymous.  I also have the results of 
the poll visible to all who receive an invitation to vote.  You will need to 
describe the election "CLAMP PTL Election" for example, then specify the 
candidates.
  After you have completed the form, an email will be sent to you with a link 
as the Voting Coordinator.
Click that link and from there hit the "Start Poll" button.
Once the Poll is started go back to the "Poll Control" page and enter the email 
address of all committers on the project and invite them to vote.

That's it.  The email invitations will be sent.  When the end-time comes, go 
back to the "Poll Control" webpage and close the poll.  Once that is done you 
can see the results of the election.  Send an email to the committers 
indicating the election has concluded and indicate the winner.  There is a link 
on the invitation to vote, that points to the election results as well.

Hope that helps.  Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best,

Phil.


On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:12 PM, SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER) 
mailto:spat...@research.att.com>> wrote:

Phil,

so how is the process for this?

I would assume:

1. project solicits self nominations on onap-discuss
2. wait (for how long)
3. set up vote with committers being able to vote
4. wait (for how long)

have PTL elected.

Could you advice on waiting times so I can make sure all projects with an AT&T 
contact are going through this?

Thx

Oliver


> On Jun 13, 2017, at 7:48 PM  EDT, Phil Robb 
> mailto:pr...@linuxfounda

Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP Project Owner To-Dos

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Thanks Kenny,

If the election is past and there is only one nomination, then can we have the 
PTL’s name on the Wiki. We need to create an alias with all PTLs.
Also the TSC recommends 3-5 committers, with 2 per company. Projects with 
numerous committers will need to be cleaned up asap, and nomination started 
today.
If not, we will select the project lead as the PTL.

I really need the community’s help that we close this chapter today so we can 
start the release planning and development. Please you start working on the 
release planning and get
help from Gildas if needed on how to create a project template. We will have 
two TSC reviews of project releases. One is this Friday, and the other is next 
Friday. More to come from Kenny. Phil is out this week.

Mazin

On Jun 25, 2017, at 6:20 PM, Kenny Paul 
mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

Dear ONAP Project Owners / PTLs:

Congratulations once again on your project being approved by the TSC.
This message is to ensure that you are following all of the steps required to 
expedite your development work. I kindly request that everyone reviews the list 
below to ensure everyone is on the same page.  For some of you this list may 
cover steps you have already taken. If so thank you!.  For others this may be 
new information that needs your attention.



  *   There are two training sessions you should view if you have not already 
done so:

Project Technical Lead Training  - Chris Donley, June 14, 2017Recorded 
session
  Slides 
Only

Release Management Training - Gildas Lanilis, June 15, 2017  Recorded 
session
 Slides 
Only


  *   Initiate a PTL election if you have not already done so:
 *   
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Voting+Best+Practices


  *   Update your Resources and Repositories information as described in the 
Release Management Training:
 *   
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Resources+and+Repositories

  *   Create Your Repositories:
 *   I have just finished submitting requests to 
onap-helpd...@rt.linuxfoundation.org
 on your behalf to for any projects that were still pending repository tickets.


  *   Incoming Code Review (IRC)
 *   All inbound seed code must be reviewed for copyright and license 
validation.  Seed code from existing Open-O repositories and E-Comp code that 
had already been submitted for the initial repository creation have already 
been checked.   For any seed code that is NOT already part of an ONAP 
repository, please send me a tar ball so that I can submit it for processing 
ASAP.


Please let me know if you have any questions.

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

[onap-tsc] TSC Meetings

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

ONAP Community

Please mark your calendars for July 24 and 25 for the next TSC virtual meeting.
The goal of the meeting is to review progress with the Amsterdam release. We
will share more info on the agenda and working hours shortly. We realize it 
will be a challenge
to operate across all timezones.

We will also be having a F2F TSC meeting on the third week of September. We
hope to have it in Europe. We have a proposal in France but we are still open to
other proposals. The meeting will be focused on both update to the Amsterdam 
release
and planning for the Beijing Release.

Phil, I would appreciate creating a wiki for both of these meetings.

thanks and keep up the great work!
Mazin
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc

Re: [onap-tsc] Name Releases Finalized

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Thanks for the catching it. It should be
 “has now” endorsed.


On Jun 21, 2017, at 2:42 PM, denghui (L) 
mailto:denghu...@huawei.com>> wrote:

I guess "has not endorsed" below is a typo?

DENG Hui

-Original Message-
From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org> 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 8:40 PM
To: t...@lists.onap.org<mailto:t...@lists.onap.org>
Subject: [onap-tsc] Name Releases Finalized

Dear ONAP Team

As most of you know that the major city names received the highest votes from 
the TSC community for ONAP name releases.
I am happy to inform you that the marketing team has not endorsed the names of 
the first two releases of our ONAP Platform.

The Nov17 A Release will be called Amsterdam The May18 B Release will be called 
Beijing

Both are visually distinctive and attractive cities.

We will fold those names in our release planning going forward.

Thanks
Mazin

___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.onap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Dtsc&d=DwIFAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=2dwD7a5k4V9cZl09O7uTpejnZMF8aa01W3yMqrrZC5Y&m=Hf-JjaApOfquFBE0jgbmLh3wlVdbV38kf_wRhyZIQ1Y&s=DAy7po0oEy4_Iphk7p8CSzQnsfaX9Pf_-dhv-A-KY80&e=

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

[onap-tsc] Name Releases Finalized

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Dear ONAP Team

As most of you know that the major city names received the highest votes from 
the TSC community for ONAP name releases.
I am happy to inform you that the marketing team has not endorsed the names of 
the first two releases of our ONAP Platform.

The Nov17 A Release will be called Amsterdam
The May18 B Release will be called Beijing

Both are visually distinctive and attractive cities.

We will fold those names in our release planning going forward.

Thanks
Mazin

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

[onap-tsc] SO Committers

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

ONAP Team

The guidelines from the TSC for committers for any project is about 2-5. Those 
committers are ones
that will vote for a PTL. It seems like some projects like SO has well exceeded 
that number. I see
16. Committers to be software individuals who have familiarity and contribution 
to the code. I will
work with Phil to correct this today.

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

[onap-tsc] PTL Self-nomination

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

ONAP Team

Some projects do not have any nominations for a PTL. I would like to encourage 
one of the committers of projects who do not have
a PTL nomination to step up and self-nominate. This is a great leadership 
technical role.

We will finalize PTLs this week.

thanks
mazin

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

Re: [onap-tsc] Approval of Prior Meeting Minutes

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

+1

On Jun 19, 2017, at 4:58 AM, Phil Robb 
mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

Hello ONAP TSC:

I would like to suggest that we approve prior TSC meeting minutes via email so 
that we don't have to go through that activity during our precious time 
together on the TSC weekly call.  TSC Members please +1 if you approve of this 
practice, -1 if you want to only approve meeting minutes in the meeting, or 0 
if you abstain from the vote.

Thanks,

Phil.
--
Phil Robb
Executive Director, OpenDaylight Project
VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation
(O) 970-229-5949
(M) 970-420-4292
Skype: Phil.Robb
___
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&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=2dwD7a5k4V9cZl09O7uTpejnZMF8aa01W3yMqrrZC5Y&m=GpQiu-kj8kR6FaxdDaVqzy5cI2SHCUAAYAxI0xiDXKk&s=vRNBemAwIbl6_reZlnvrdG4zwfQVNKKVcd4wacQJ7Vc&e=

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

Re: [onap-tsc] [ONAP TSC VOTE] vCPE Residential Broadband Use Case For Release-1

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

On Jun 16, 2017, at 11:52 PM, Phil Robb 
mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

Hello ONAP TSC Members:

As we left it on the ONAP TSC call this week, please review and vote on the 
vCPE Residential Broadband Use Case proposal for inclusion in Release-1 of the 
ONAP project.

The wiki page for your review is here: 
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Use+Case%3A+Residential+Broadband+vCPE

Please include your vote below indicating a "+1" if you approve, a "-1" if you 
deny, and :"0" if you abstain from the vote:



This vote will close at 9:00pm PDT, 12:00 midnight EDT Tuesday 6/20, and 12:00 
noon Wednesday China Time.

Thanks,

Phil.
--
Phil Robb
Executive Director, OpenDaylight Project
VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation
(O) 970-229-5949
(M) 970-420-4292
Skype: Phil.Robb
___
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&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=Pq_4V-5REslyzp4bR3XHxN4jBs-58Y9sSXvr0Rqx4h8&s=3q5Ee26YDthpR0XmJxcsLQ3AQZkMeYM_fd9yxuAMdKc&e=

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

Re: [onap-tsc] vCPE Use Case Updated and Complete

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

Luman,

Thanks for the suggestions.
Will China Telecom make those physical network devices available for the ONAP 
community to test and and will you support a lab and developers for an 
enterprise vCPE use case
with these virtual and physical functions? Please document all these details on 
our use case website under an enterprise vCPE.

Thanks
mazin

On Jun 15, 2017, at 10:36 PM, 
xiexj...@chinatelecom.cn wrote:


Hi，all
   I am Luman Wang, from Chinatelecom.
   First of all, we support this vCPE use case. But the current Residential 
Broadband vCPE use case only include residential case and it is a completely 
virtual one. Here, we have two suggestions as below.
1. In actual scenario, we would also like to deploy enterpise-base vCPE to 
provide the Enterprise2DC service to the tenants conveniently and quickly. We 
have a large number of companies who have strong requirements on this vCPE 
scenario. So we suggest that community will take enterprise vCPE scenario into 
consideration.
   2. We also suggest to include actual physical network devices into vCPE use 
case.We will implement the service this year, and we hope ONAP will provide an 
prototype for it.

Enterprise-vCPE Scenario diagram is shown below:



Best Wishes
Luman Wang




发件人: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] 代表 Yoav Kluger
发送时间: 2017年6月15日,星期四 06:11
收件人: onap-tsc
主题: [onap-tsc] vCPE Use Case Updated and Complete
All,
This is to let everybody know that the vCPE description in the wiki 
(https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Use+Case%3A+Residential+Broadband+vCPE)
 is ready for review and approval as a use case for R1. ALL VNFs that will be 
used in the use case are open source, however commercial VNFs will also be 
considered if proposed.
The material in the wiki is the result of a team effort by AT&T, Orange, Intel 
and Amdocs.
Would like to use this opportunity to call for additional members in the 
community to join the vCPE effort.
Thanks,
Yoav Kluger
Amdocs Technology
+1(201)912-7294
+972-54-4850278
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
___
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&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=aXZ9EQvwXRr5WymqykGhZ1JQZ3cV9r70-iWHrmC585k&s=3p0bmkkHte-5VYRXGWeSDZXKbbKY3TnqEm3KfnR1X-M&e=

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