Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Attendees & Representation (default sort: member first name)

TAC Members and Project representatives should mark their attendance below 
Non-TAC project reps do not count towards meeting quorum

X = Present | P = Proxy  (Indicate in the table with @name for @name

MemberRepresenting
MemberRepresenting
MemberRepresenting

TBD

ODIM (sandbox)
Tech Mahindra
ODL (TAC)

@Anil Guntupalli 

Verizon
Cisco

L3AF (sandbox)


EMCO (sandbox)

IBM



TF (incubation)
AT&T
Huawei
Red Hat
ONAP (TAC)
China Mobile

Intel


Orange
Deutsche Telekom
Anuket (TAC)
ZTE
Juniper
China Telecom
Ericsson
Nokia
XGVela (sandbox)
FD.io (TAC)
Google

TBD

Walmart
@Haseem AhmedKratos

Kratos
Kratos

LF Staff: Casey CainLJ Illuzzi Sandra Jackson Kenny Paul David McBride

Community: 

Agenda

  • Start the Recording
  • We will start by mentioning the project's Antitrust Policy, which you can find linked from the LF and project websites. The policy is important where multiple companies, including potential industry competitors, are participating in meetings. Please review and if you have any questions, please contact your company legal counsel. Members of the LF may contact Andrew Updegrove at the firm Gesmer Updegrove LLP, which provides legal counsel to the LF.
  • Roll Call
  • Action Items Review
  • Agenda Bashing
  • General Topics
    • Governing Board Followup
    • Release Management (David McBride)
    • Elections 
  • Any Other Topics

Minutes

Governing Board Followup

  • Jason Hunt provided an update to the TAC about the discussions about the Board.
  • Noted that there were a few questions for support from projects to the GB. 
    • Jason Hunt Invites projects to come to the TAC to ask questions.
  • Jason Hunt Noted that the EUAG has disbanded. Kenny Paul noted that the provisions for the EUAG are still there, but the attention is on 5G SBP.

Release Management

  • David McBride presented an update on the Release Management discussion. 
    • Some projects have dedicated release management while others have no support from the LF.
    • It's not scaleable for us to provide all projects with dedicated support from LF Release Management
    • Some projects have failed because of their lack of a robust release management pipeline. 
    • Our goal is to provide a more advisory role to the projects to help them with their processes, but ultimately have the community drive the release process.
    • In this way, we can provide direct counseling for all projects. 
    • We recommend the communities elect 2 (or more) release manages to help with the community with the release, it also provides a solution to vacations and departures to ensure the release process isn't interrupted. 
  • David McBride suggested that all new projects participate in release management consultation prior to Sandbox induction.
    • Prior to Incubation promotion projects should be able to show a documented release process and a history of following it.
    • This is to ensure that inducted projects do not fail due to the lack of release management, or a robust release process. 
    • Jason Hunt Casey Cain This would require a vote of the TAC and is a good suggestion. 
  • ONAP and Anuket currently have a dedicated LF release manager.
    • It is more challenging to migrate to a community release manager.
      • Options are to migrate them for scale to community release management or not.
      • Anuket may have an easier time than the complex processes of ONAP.
      • Timo Perala It has been a challenge for ONAP to find a community release manager.
      • Dave Wallace we tried a few different processes in FD.io and currently have settled on 2 community release manages.
        • We also automate our release notes and other tasks that simplify the release management duties.
        • David McBride Automation in Jira could also help ease the tasks for the RM.
    • Timo Perala It may be harder for larger projects to find a dedicated RM.
      • Casey Cain noted that larger projects are likely to have a stronger finical interest from their participating organizations to see the success of projects that they are building commercial dependencies on.  It makes sense for them to be willing to dedicate a community release management resource to protect their investment.  Sometimes that is easier than in smaller projects when they are still exploring commercial dependence. 
  • David McBride suggested that we start with a trial project to test the efficacy of this process.
    • Casey Cain noted that Tungsten and XGVela are both good candidates
      • Tungsten has not yet been able to identify a long term release manager
      • XGVlea has found 2 dedicated release managers and is hoping to participate in some open-source best practices training. 

Elections

  • Jason Hunt There are 2 new electable seats here on the Technical Advisory Council.  These seats are at the discretion of the TAC and are open to a wide audience.
    • Jason Hunt One idea is to have a seat dedicated to Security. 
    • Dave WallaceSuggested a diversity seat or someone who can focus on helping projects mature. 
      • Jason Hunt It could be beneficial to have a 5G SBP representative at the TAC.
      • LJ Illuzzi Casey Cain Could be a good idea to have a dynamic seat to focus on the 'hot' focus of the broader LFN direction. 
  • Reminder that the TAC that the self-nomination period is open for the Chair and Vice-Chairperson.
    • Jason Hunt noted that it makes sense for others to step up and take a more active role in the TAC leadership.  We encourage others to participate. 

Action items

  •