2021-02-23 TSC Agenda and Minutes

Meeting Administration

Chairs

• Last weeks minutes are APPROVED.

5 min

Announcements

Chairs

• Status on intern project has not changed (still no dates available)

5 min

@Jim Baker

To update TSC about the proposed meeting's objectives, scope and timeframe

• Note: This is not a DCO vs. CLA discussion. You can have both (like ONAP).

• Several communities exclusively rely on DCO (incl. e.g. LF-Edge)

• Jim scheduled a meeting to dive deeper into the concerns (Thursday this week). Jim will share back the outcome of the meeting. 

15 min

@David McBride

On Docs: https://readthedocs.org/projects/anuket/ already exists. There is a need for consolidated documentation (which was earlier driven in OPNFV by the docs project).

• TSC agrees to have 2 release per year moving forward - one around June/15, one around Dec/15

15 min

@Trevor Bramwell

@Jim Baker

As you are aware, LF has been investing in IT Modernization with a key focus of cost efficiencies and modernizing the workflow of open source projects throughout the LF. In 2019 the LFN TAC sponsored the Infrastructure Working Group recommending moving all the projects to "as a Service" implementations, specifically naming gitlab. Gitlab offers benefits in the developer experience, platform tooling, and resource management.

Specifically:

• Developer experience: Gitlab provides a platform that is familiar for newer developers coming from Github, moves CI configurations next to the code, and enables projects to take advantage of Gitlab free container builds and CI's resources.

• Platform tooling: There are security, dependency and licence scanning tools that can easily be integrated into CI to increase security and compliance, and container and package repositories that can be used to reduce CI reliance on other platforms (eg. Dockerhub).

• Resource management: Moving to Gitlab.com will reduce the project's hosting costs, leverage Gitlab's SLA, and allow them to take advantage of features released monthly.

To mitigate the risk of this migration we plan on:

1.  Running existing toolchains in parallel with the bring up of gitlab

2.  Migrate projects as they become ready

3.  Having LF IT do the work of migrating the CI/CD configurations

4.  Utilizing LaaS resources when generic hardware is needed for validation.

5.  Pulling in developers to double-check LF IT's work, and coordinate timing to enroll the hardware in Gitlab.

 Learn more about the roadmap here: Transformation Roadmap & Process

• Trevor provided an overview of the process, entirely managed by LF IT
  (see details: Transformation Roadmap & Process)

• Trevor feels confident that the transition can be done within ~2 months (done by June); transition for projects post the next release (K-release) if so required. Target migration date should be flexible (migrate when the new tool chain is "turnkey" - so that no interruption to the projects' progress is caused).

  • Trevor will continuously update the TSC on progress of the transition

• TSC AGREES to initiate the migration to gitlab as per the plan outlined by Trevor.

• This is a subject to making sure that impact on projects and releases is limited and agreed

5 min

Chief Technical Editor

ONAP Technical Coordinator

CNCF Technical Coordinator

CVC Technical Coordinator

Automation and Tooling

ONF: Open Networking Foundation

ETSI

Open Infrastructure

GSMA

LFN EUAG

5G Session to promote RA2:

TIP

ODIM

XGVela

oRAN

Others?

@Walter.kozlowski

Proposal to nominate technical officers to lead particular technical and strategic collaboration activities. 

Topic deferred to the next meeting.

15 min

@Heather Kirksey (Deactivated)

Call for a recruitment campaign to be directed by Marketing with the TSC support from technical perspective.

Need the statement of Business value (focused on the vendor community) from the Marketing WG.

Bob Monkman heads up the Anuket marketing group. We could invite him for a readout in 2-3 weeks.

0 min

@Gergely Csatari

No updates on charter discussion (discussion likely to be continued in the next technical meeting).

10 min

@Jim Baker Everyone

• Anuket per project wiki:
  TSC AGREES to remove projects from the wiki that don't update their wiki by Mar 1, 2021 . Note that this does not include archiving the project (which might happen at a later stage).

Jim plans to lock OPNFV and CNTT wikis by end of this week. This means you can continue to view, but won't be able to change the wiki.

Side topic discussion: The TSC needs to agree on a construct for Anuket of what constitutes contributions to Anuket that count for eligibility to vote and run for TSC. → To be added to the agenda for a future TSC meeting

15 min

https://opensource.com/article/18/3/cla-vs-dco-whats-difference

@Jim Baker

• Copy active docker repos to: https://hub.docker.com/u/anuket, and instruct projects on how to update CI.

  • Barometer

  • Dovetail (dovetail-webportal)

  • Functest

  • LaaS

  • NFVBench

  • SampleVNF

  • Storperf

• Propose 6 months Interval for active project MIRRORS repo migration

• OPNFV Dockerhub will continue to exist - proposal is to CLONE repos in Anuket space, and it's up to projects to update their CI.

• Only DCO is planned in Anuket: indemnify LF regarding applicable licenses.

  • Any concerns?  no, more follow-up.

10 min

PTLs/Co-Chairs

• "Pharos":

  • Anuket needs a view of the available build/deploy/lab (incl. member labs) resources. TSC looks for volunteers to provide that overview - so that we can effectively use Anuket's budget in 2021 (before we spend money on new resources, the TSC needs a proper view on the current set of resources and their availability).

    • LFN lab resources: Linux Foundation Lab
      Projects are asked to move to "LaaS" resources (and off the existing UCS servers - so that they can be decommissioned). 

    • For LaaS @ UNH see: https://labs.lfnetworking.org/lab/UNH_IOL/ 

    • Jenkins List https://build.opnfv.org/ci/computer/

  • ACTION: for all PTLs - identify the Lab resources you are currently using!

    • This should give us a fairly broad view, but only as complete as the response.

Echo'ing what is already stated in the notes:
For all PTLs - identify the Lab resources you are currently using!

5 min

• Please don't use the UCS pod - trying to de-commission, but there are some Functest jobs running there - suggest to move to LaaS.

• LF Pods 4 and 5 are in Portland - will move to Oregon State to save costs. Scheduling has been a problem. Current allocation of 4 and 5 to Functest

• gitlab POC: Scheduled follow-up discussion from the DDF for next Monday

• Joint meeting with OITF with FASG planned for 10 March.

5 min

@Sridhar Rao

Future of VSPERF

• VSperf proposes name chnage to "NetCAP". Name change will happen along with the move to the new github tooling (i.e. no need to change existing name in legacy tools).

• Need to update scope of VSperf as well. 

• TSC agrees to move FDS to "archived" stage.

• OpenStack logo: https://www.openstack.org/brand/openstack-logo/logo-download/ :)

Future topics:

@Mark Beierl