Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [mano-wg] meeting#59 Is OVP VNF Ready?

[prakash RAMCHANDRAN via opnfv-tech-discuss]

George
Hope and wish  you are doing well.

Glad you noticed and responded to OVP question on VNF testing.
This is a good info and like to follow up on the next mano-wg call with Amdocs 
team. Sure I will try attend the session at ONS besides seek to follow on with 
Chris  Donley and possibly Helen Chen to see how this will tie with VNF SDK and 
Dovetail test Client and OVP server for reports. 
Let me review the links you have pointed to this week at mano-wg and get 
additional inputs and find resources who can make this happen in Beijing / 
Frazer time frames.
ThanksPrakash

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 2:06 AM, Georg Kunz wrote:   
#yiv0175071612 #yiv0175071612 -- _filtered #yiv0175071612 
{font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0175071612 
{font-family:Wingdings;panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} _filtered #yiv0175071612 
{panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0175071612 
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv0175071612 
#yiv0175071612 p.yiv0175071612MsoNormal, #yiv0175071612 
li.yiv0175071612MsoNormal, #yiv0175071612 div.yiv0175071612MsoNormal 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv0175071612 h2 
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:18.0pt;}#yiv0175071612 a:link, 
#yiv0175071612 span.yiv0175071612MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0175071612 a:visited, #yiv0175071612 
span.yiv0175071612MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0175071612 
p.yiv0175071612MsoListParagraph, #yiv0175071612 
li.yiv0175071612MsoListParagraph, #yiv0175071612 
div.yiv0175071612MsoListParagraph 
{margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv0175071612
 p.yiv0175071612msonormal0, #yiv0175071612 li.yiv0175071612msonormal0, 
#yiv0175071612 div.yiv0175071612msonormal0 
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv0175071612 
span.yiv0175071612Heading2Char {color:#365F91;}#yiv0175071612 
p.yiv0175071612ydp85742881card-description, #yiv0175071612 
li.yiv0175071612ydp85742881card-description, #yiv0175071612 
div.yiv0175071612ydp85742881card-description 
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv0175071612 
span.yiv0175071612EmailStyle20 {color:windowtext;}#yiv0175071612 
span.yiv0175071612EmailStyle21 {color:windowtext;}#yiv0175071612 
.yiv0175071612MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv0175071612 
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv0175071612 div.yiv0175071612WordSection1 
{}#yiv0175071612 _filtered #yiv0175071612 {} _filtered #yiv0175071612 
{font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv0175071612 {} _filtered #yiv0175071612 
{font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv0175071612 {font-family:Symbol;} 
_filtered #yiv0175071612 {} _filtered #yiv0175071612 {font-family:Wingdings;} 
_filtered #yiv0175071612 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv0175071612 {} 
_filtered #yiv0175071612 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv0175071612 {} 
_filtered #yiv0175071612 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv0175071612 {} 
_filtered #yiv0175071612 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv0175071612 
{font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv0175071612 {} _filtered #yiv0175071612 
{font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv0175071612 {font-family:Symbol;} 
_filtered #yiv0175071612 {} _filtered #yiv0175071612 
{font-family:Wingdings;}#yiv0175071612 ol {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv0175071612 ul 
{margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv0175071612 
Hi Prakash,
 
  
 
Thanks for the summary. I was not on your call, so the following might or might 
not be known to the WG. I’d like to make you aware of the following:
 
  

   - There is an effort ongoing to define a LFN-level compliance program, 
driven by Chris Donley. This program is meant to coordinate and facilitate 
cross-project compliance efforts, looking at governance, tooling, scope.
 
  

   - There will be an unconference session at ONS of the Dovetail project 
[1][2]. This is also meant to be a place for discussing cross-project 
requirements on Dovetail.
 
  

   - There is prototyping work ongoing by folks from Amdocs (Bruce and Moshe) 
who are working on utilizing Dovetail as a tool within the ONAP VNF SDK project 
to orchestrate VNF test cases. They have shown a demo during one of the last 
Dovetail meeting calls.
 
  
 
[1] 
https://wiki.lfnetworking.org/display/LN/OPNFV+Unconference+topics+at+LFN+Developer+Forum
 
[2] https://etherpad.opnfv.org/p/ons_devforum_dovetail_planning
 
  
 
Best regards
 
Georg
 
  
 
From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org]On Behalf Of prakash 
RAMCHANDRAN via opnfv-tech-discuss
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:08 AM
To: mano...@lists.opnfv.org; Opnfv-tech-discuss 

Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [mano-wg] meeting#59 Is OVP VNF Ready?
 
  
 
Hi all,
 
  
 
Today the discussions went in a different direction due to newly 

[opnfv-tech-discuss] Step down as a committer

[Wanglei (Leo, CCN)]

Hi TSC

It was a wonderful experience working for this dovetail project , Yet my focus 
shift to other area, i will step down as a committer.

--
王磊 Leo
M: 
+86-18930628020(上海号码)/+46-725281355(瑞典号码)
E: leowang.wang...@huawei.com
产品与解决方案-云核心网NFV研究部
Products & Solutions-NFV Research Dept,CCN
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Auto] VNFs and ONAP setup for Kubernetes and Arm pod at UNH

[Sofia Enriquez]

Maybe this may interest you. It's not specific to ARM, but CONTAINER4NFV
project is working on a Clearwater implementation with K8s[0] and Helm[1].
Helm deployment will be Istio compatible. I wrote some documentation about
it [2].

Best Regards,
Sofia

[0]: https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/50467/
[1]: https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/51603/
[2]:
https://github.com/opnfv/container4nfv/blob/master/docs/release/userguide/clearwater-project.rst

2018-02-16 17:36 GMT-03:00 SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) <
bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>:

> Not specific to ARM, but I have implemented clearwater-docker as part of
> the Models kubernetes demo deploy, which includes a full-stack k8s cluster
> deployment, ending with clearwater-docker deployment and test. See
> https://github.com/opnfv/models/tree/master/tools/kubernetes for an
> overview of the process. The clearwater-docker deployment script is at
> k8s-cloudify-clearwater.sh
> 
> (note this currently uses kubectl to deploy… I am working on wrapping the
> charts in TOSCA so I can use cloudify-kubernetes to deploy it, over the
> cloudify-manager API).
>
>
>
> Note that the models scripts use clearwater-docker containers built for
> this test. It may be possible to build them for ARM platforms, after which
> the rest of the deploy process should work as scripted. The build scripts
> are clearwater-docker.sh
> 
> and clearwater-live-test.sh
> 
> .
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bryan Sullivan | AT
>
>
>
> *From:* opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:
> opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] *On Behalf Of *
> gerard.d...@wipro.com
> *Sent:* Friday, February 16, 2018 12:08 PM
> *To:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Subject:* [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Auto] VNFs and ONAP setup for Kubernetes
> and Arm pod at UNH
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> Does anyone have pointers to open-source (containerized) VNFs for
> Kubernetes ?
>
> (something like this: http://dougbtv.com/nfvpe/2017/
> 05/30/vnf-asterisk-kubernetes/
> ,
> thanks Joe Kidder for sharing the link!)
>
>
>
> Even more specifically, Arm-compatible VNFs ?
>
>
>
> And which would be a recommended ONAP install setup (i.e. successfully
> tried at least once) to manage and use them ?
>
> (among those listed at https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/ONAP+on+Kubernetes
> 
> ).
>
>
>
> The target for that installation is the Auto Arm pod at UNH IOL.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Gerard Damm
>
>
>
>
>
> The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments
> to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and
> may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are
> not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy
> this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of
> this message and any attachments. WARNING: Computer viruses can be
> transmitted via email. The recipient should check this email and any
> attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability
> for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
> www.wipro.com
> 
>
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
>
>


-- 
Sofia Enriquez
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [release][fraser] MS5 - scenario integration - March 02

[David McBride]

Gentle reminder... 2 weeks!!

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 4:56 PM, David McBride 
wrote:

> ... also, please make sure that any scenarios that you plan to use are
> accurately documented on the scenario status page
> .  Thanks.
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 4:53 PM, David McBride <
> dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> OPNFV feature projects,
>>
>> Reminder - MS5 is just 4 weeks from tomorrow (Friday).  If you have not
>> started integrating with a scenario and installer, please contact me
>> immediately.  Thanks.
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 3:58 PM, David McBride <
>> dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Team,
>>>
>>> Fraser MS5 is scheduled for *6 weeks from Friday on March 2*.  We
>>> recently passed MS3.1 (installers pass health check for nosdn-nofeature
>>> scenario), and the installer teams have made substantial progress on MS3.2
>>> (pass health check for sdn-nofeature scenario) scheduled for Feb 02.  In
>>> addition, we also just passed MS4 (test framework readiness), so our test
>>> frameworks are ready to support feature test implementation and execution.
>>>
>>> This means that the installers should be stable enough for project and
>>> scenario owners to complete scenario integration and feature test case
>>> implementation. I will be tracking installer status on a weekly basis to
>>> ensure that the installers remain stable.
>>>
>>> So, if you have a feature that you plan to deploy via installer, you
>>> should be pushing hard to complete scenario integration NOW.  If you do not
>>> have a plan for scenario integration, or you are not sure what to do next,
>>> please contact me immediately.  These six weeks will go by quickly, so
>>> please complete your integration ASAP.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> --
>>> *David McBride*
>>> Release Manager, OPNFV
>>> Mobile: +1.805.276.8018
>>> Email/Google Talk: dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
>>> Skype: davidjmcbride1
>>> IRC: dmcbride
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *David McBride*
>> Release Manager, OPNFV
>> Mobile: +1.805.276.8018
>> Email/Google Talk: dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
>> Skype: davidjmcbride1
>> IRC: dmcbride
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *David McBride*
> Release Manager, OPNFV
> Mobile: +1.805.276.8018
> Email/Google Talk: dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
> Skype: davidjmcbride1
> IRC: dmcbride
>



-- 
*David McBride*
Release Manager, OPNFV
Mobile: +1.805.276.8018
Email/Google Talk: dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
Skype: davidjmcbride1
IRC: dmcbride
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Auto] VNFs and ONAP setup for Kubernetes and Arm pod at UNH

[SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L)]

Not specific to ARM, but I have implemented clearwater-docker as part of the 
Models kubernetes demo deploy, which includes a full-stack k8s cluster 
deployment, ending with clearwater-docker deployment and test. See 
https://github.com/opnfv/models/tree/master/tools/kubernetes for an overview of 
the process. The clearwater-docker deployment script is at 
k8s-cloudify-clearwater.sh
 (note this currently uses kubectl to deploy... I am working on wrapping the 
charts in TOSCA so I can use cloudify-kubernetes to deploy it, over the 
cloudify-manager API).

Note that the models scripts use clearwater-docker containers built for this 
test. It may be possible to build them for ARM platforms, after which the rest 
of the deploy process should work as scripted. The build scripts are 
clearwater-docker.sh
 and 
clearwater-live-test.sh.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of 
gerard.d...@wipro.com
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 12:08 PM
To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Auto] VNFs and ONAP setup for Kubernetes and Arm 
pod at UNH

Hello,

Does anyone have pointers to open-source (containerized) VNFs for Kubernetes ?
(something like this: 
http://dougbtv.com/nfvpe/2017/05/30/vnf-asterisk-kubernetes/,
 thanks Joe Kidder for sharing the link!)

Even more specifically, Arm-compatible VNFs ?

And which would be a recommended ONAP install setup (i.e. successfully tried at 
least once) to manage and use them ?
(among those listed at 
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/ONAP+on+Kubernetes).

The target for that installation is the Auto Arm pod at UNH IOL.

Best regards,
Gerard Damm


The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to 
this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may 
contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the 
intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. 
Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and 
any attachments. WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted via email. The 
recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of 
viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus 
transmitted by this email. 
www.wipro.com
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [Auto] VNFs and ONAP setup for Kubernetes and Arm pod at UNH

[gerard.d...@wipro.com]

Hello,

Does anyone have pointers to open-source (containerized) VNFs for Kubernetes ?
(something like this: 
http://dougbtv.com/nfvpe/2017/05/30/vnf-asterisk-kubernetes/, thanks Joe Kidder 
for sharing the link!)

Even more specifically, Arm-compatible VNFs ?

And which would be a recommended ONAP install setup (i.e. successfully tried at 
least once) to manage and use them ?
(among those listed at https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/ONAP+on+Kubernetes).

The target for that installation is the Auto Arm pod at UNH IOL.

Best regards,
Gerard Damm


The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to 
this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may 
contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the 
intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. 
Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and 
any attachments. WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted via email. The 
recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of 
viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus 
transmitted by this email. www.wipro.com
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] For the TSC composition discussion on Tuesday

[SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L)]

Re “As for the mailing list/IRC contributions, the difficulty comes with 
identity mapping.  Trying to map IRC NICs/or email addresses with IDs used for 
the other tools is very challenging and will involve a lot of manual process.”

Anyone that wants their identity to be mapped (e.g. to strengthen their 
potential role in the election) should be aware of this discussion and should 
support your effort there. Generally though IMO our identities should not be 
that hard to map – most of us may use a couple of email addresses and probably 
one IRC handle. Further, email addresses associated with an LF identity should 
be obvious for any contributor/committer, as part of the gerrit record.

If you want help coordinating such a call for identity mapping, let me know. I 
think it’s important not to leave out email and IRC to the calculations.

But overall my main two points remain: we need to keep the bar low, and setup a 
process for concerns to be raised and addressed by the TSC. That will help 
ensure the process is equitable, for anyone who really cares.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

From: Raymond Paik [mailto:rp...@linuxfoundation.org]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 10:57 AM
To: opnfv-tech-discuss ; 
opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
Cc: Dave Neary ; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 

Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] [opnfv-tech-discuss] For the TSC composition 
discussion on Tuesday

As promised, here's a new spreadsheet with updated wiki contributor data.  Now 
the data should show beyond top 50 contributors and list anyone who contributed 
to the wiki in 2017.  Bitergia also fixed a bug they had as there were some 
undercounting of "page edits".

Thanks,

Ray


On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Raymond Paik 
> wrote:
A couple of clarifications.

When we say a "union of contributions" across all tools, we're setting a bar 
for total contributions across Git, Gerrit, Jira, and wiki.  So for example, if 
you had done 50 reviews + 2 merged patches + 30 Jira activities + 20 wiki 
edits, you have a 102 total contributions (and you'd clear the hurdle for 
either 50 or 100 contributions).  The discussion was that this maybe simpler 
than setting a different bar/hurdle for each tool.

As for the mailing list/IRC contributions, the difficulty comes with identity 
mapping.  Trying to map IRC NICs/or email addresses with IDs used for the other 
tools is very challenging and will involve a lot of manual process.

Hope this helps.

Thanks,

Ray

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:28 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
> wrote:
I echo Dave's recommendation to be inclusive. The main reason not to be 
exclusive AIUI is to prevent gaming of the voting process. There are two ways 
to address that, while remaining inclusive:

1) set a reasonably low bar for participation

IMO anyone that is a regular attendee in OPNFV TSC or technical community 
calls, has made any level of peer-reviewed commit (outside their own company) 
over the last year, etc should be included. There are a core of people that 
should be obvious to us all, as involved, and they should certainly not be 
excluded. These include all current TSC members, PTLs, active committers, 
anyone active in any form of discussion, anyone contributing content in any 
form (code, tests, docs, wiki, ...), ...

2) provide a means for process concerns to be raised and addressed by the TSC

Dave's concern is an example. We need to be open to any such concern as a sign 
the process needs to be improved or an exception needs to be made (which really 
means the process needs to be improved, but for some reason we are not able to 
at this time...). Other types of concern may be raised by analytics on the 
voting process, which should be shared with the community (every voter should 
be associated with a member company, or identified as independent, so we can 
ensure reasonable equity in the voting process). There should be a place on the 
wiki etc for raising these concerns so they can be tracked and the thread of 
addressing them is recorded.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

-Original Message-
From: 
opnfv-tsc-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tsc-boun...@lists.opnfv.org]
 On Behalf Of Dave Neary
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 5:49 AM
To: Raymond Paik >; 
opnfv-tech-discuss 
>;
 opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] [opnfv-tech-discuss] For the TSC composition 
discussion on Tuesday

[Note post TSC call: this is the email I had written and found in my
Drafts folder after the TSC call - so I had not sent it - DN]

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] For the TSC composition discussion on Tuesday

[Raymond Paik]

As promised, here's a new spreadsheet with updated wiki contributor data.
Now the data should show beyond top 50 contributors and list anyone who
contributed to the wiki in 2017.  Bitergia also fixed a bug they had as
there were some undercounting of "page edits".

Thanks,

Ray


On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Raymond Paik 
wrote:

> A couple of clarifications.
>
> When we say a "union of contributions" across all tools, we're setting a
> bar for total contributions across Git, Gerrit, Jira, and wiki.  So for
> example, if you had done 50 reviews + 2 merged patches + 30 Jira activities
> + 20 wiki edits, you have a 102 total contributions (and you'd clear the
> hurdle for either 50 or 100 contributions).  The discussion was that this
> maybe simpler than setting a different bar/hurdle for each tool.
>
> As for the mailing list/IRC contributions, the difficulty comes with
> identity mapping.  Trying to map IRC NICs/or email addresses with IDs used
> for the other tools is very challenging and will involve a lot of manual
> process.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ray
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:28 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) <
> bryan.sulli...@research.att.com> wrote:
>
>> I echo Dave's recommendation to be inclusive. The main reason not to be
>> exclusive AIUI is to prevent gaming of the voting process. There are two
>> ways to address that, while remaining inclusive:
>>
>> 1) set a reasonably low bar for participation
>>
>> IMO anyone that is a regular attendee in OPNFV TSC or technical community
>> calls, has made any level of peer-reviewed commit (outside their own
>> company) over the last year, etc should be included. There are a core of
>> people that should be obvious to us all, as involved, and they should
>> certainly not be excluded. These include all current TSC members, PTLs,
>> active committers, anyone active in any form of discussion, anyone
>> contributing content in any form (code, tests, docs, wiki, ...), ...
>>
>> 2) provide a means for process concerns to be raised and addressed by the
>> TSC
>>
>> Dave's concern is an example. We need to be open to any such concern as a
>> sign the process needs to be improved or an exception needs to be made
>> (which really means the process needs to be improved, but for some reason
>> we are not able to at this time...). Other types of concern may be raised
>> by analytics on the voting process, which should be shared with the
>> community (every voter should be associated with a member company, or
>> identified as independent, so we can ensure reasonable equity in the voting
>> process). There should be a place on the wiki etc for raising these
>> concerns so they can be tracked and the thread of addressing them is
>> recorded.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bryan Sullivan | AT
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: opnfv-tsc-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:opnfv-tsc-bounces@list
>> s.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Dave Neary
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 5:49 AM
>> To: Raymond Paik ; opnfv-tech-discuss <
>> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
>> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] [opnfv-tech-discuss] For the TSC composition
>> discussion on Tuesday
>>
>> [Note post TSC call: this is the email I had written and found in my
>> Drafts folder after the TSC call - so I had not sent it - DN]
>>
>> Thank you for putting this together, Ray!
>>
>> A few comments: Your wiki stats look off - I would expect to see many
>> more people in the list (of course the first thing I did out of vanity
>> was look for myself, and I have definitely made a number of wiki edits
>> and comments, but I am not in the list).
>>
>> We have so far discussed erring on the side of inclusion, so I am
>> curious about your setting a bar at 50 or 100 contributions. It might
>> make sense to have a minimum number for some of the lower impact
>> activities like Gerrit reviews, but for others like patch submission, a
>> lower bound of 1 might make more sense. For wiki edits 5 or 10 seems
>> reasonable. If using a composite metric, I would lean towards a lower
>> number (say, 20) rather than higher, to be more inclusive.
>>
>> Have you considered being active on the mailing list as a potential
>> market of activity? Again the question of whether people who are active
>> on the list, but inactive elsewhere, can be considered active
>> contributors (I think they could) - there, perhaps 30 emails during the
>> year is a good level.
>>
>> I would also be interested to hear if there are people who previously
>> had a vote as committers, who would not have a vote under this scheme,
>> or whether there is a big difference in the size of the
>> community/electorate with your proposed levels.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dave.
>>
>> On 02/12/2018 01:12 AM, Raymond Paik wrote:
>> > All,
>> >
>> > This is for the TSC composition discussion on Tuesday.
>> >
>> > As was discussed previously
>> > 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] {releng-anteater] project_scan.py check for top-level license needs enhancements

[Luke Hinds]

Thanks, I'll take a look.

On 16 Feb 2018 5:45 pm, "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L)" <
bryan.sulli...@research.att.com> wrote:

> I’m not sure how/where to raise this as a bug, so I created a JIRA issue:
> https://jira.opnfv.org/browse/RELENG-346
>
>
>
> Anteater needs to verify that the project top-level license file is
> correctly formatted (“Licence string present”), and accept any variation of
> file name “LICENSE*” (e.g. LICENSE.txt) as a valid present license file.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bryan Sullivan | AT
>
>
>
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

[opnfv-tech-discuss] {releng-anteater] project_scan.py check for top-level license needs enhancements

[SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L)]

I'm not sure how/where to raise this as a bug, so I created a JIRA issue: 
https://jira.opnfv.org/browse/RELENG-346

Anteater needs to verify that the project top-level license file is correctly 
formatted ("Licence string present"), and accept any variation of file name 
"LICENSE*" (e.g. LICENSE.txt) as a valid present license file.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [barometer] Weekly Meeting 02/13/18

[Aaron Smith]

* - Should Barometer Graduate?
(https://www.opnfv.org/software/technical-project-governance/project-lifecycle
)-
Are we a part of enough scenarios (another installer)?- Would be a good
recognition of the work done by Barometer- Have had good recognition at
shows (OpenStack Summit, OPNFV, etc)- Bryan would be supportive of applying
for graduation- No definitive answer, but positive reception- Standards
Update (Al)- Meeting with IFA working group completed work on all
measurement content.  Al provided an edit / rewrite of the document and
resubmitted. - Discussion of GAPs in Baromter-
https://jira.opnfv.org/browse/BAROMETER-89
- VES Update- Bryan working on
Barometer Kubernetes scenario.  Should be ready soon.  Barometer as
DaemonSet- Conversion of VES to gRPC in the testing phase.- Development
Update- Ansible scripts submitted to Gerrit- Clarification that plugins not
in collectd yet should still make it into Barometer / Fraser- (MS5)
Scenario integration and feature freeze -- 03/02/18- Good discussion on
“What’s next for Barometer”- Scope expansion -- Should Barometer move
beyond metrics / events to policy- Scope continuation into container space
-- - OPNFV Barometer people going to ONS in March- Aaron- Al- Bryan- ??*

-- 

AARON SMITH

SENIOR PRINCIPAL SOFTWARE ENGINEER, NFVPE

Red Hat



314 Littleton Rd, Westford, MA 01886

aasm...@redhat.comM: 617.877.4814

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss