Blog from April, 2022


LFN projects have the possibility to participate in review by the GB in every 6 months. This page was created to collect information about the 2022 mid year review by Anuket TSC.


  • Apr 15: Notification, template distribution & invites
  • May 6: Completed slides are due in to your Project’s TCA
  • May 10: Assembled GB deck completed by TCAs
  • May 11: Final deck review by staff
  • May 12: deck distributed to the GB
  • May 18: TSC Chairs (or delegate) present to the GB

Final Presentation

Updated with input from TSC April 26 meeting. I included the notes from below and the notes from the email discussions.

Issues to address

  • Response from GB companies to the Anuket Assured staffing request on the 2021 October review

EUAG is NOT the right place to validate Anuket's relevance, as I am planning on sunsetting the group as it has little participation and has outlived its usefulness.  I think that we can gain validation from within Anuket (the telco members) and the hopeful success of the Anuket Assured program.

Progress Against 2022 Project Objectives:

  • I think we are okay with producing the releases -- Agree the releases have been more or less on time and had significant new requirements and features.
  • We did not grew the technical community. Without knowing the numbers I have a feeling that we are losing technical contributors. I think this should be indicated -- Agree, my sense is that we have lost some of the less involved members, many reasons for it, but it is something that we should mention as an issue.
  • We are working on the conversion and evolution. It is slower than what I’ve expected, but it is progressing. -- Yup.
  • Validation: I think there was no progress here. We should indicate this to the GB and request feedback. -- I think that the launch of the ANuket Assured program was a step in the right direction, it just has not gotten the traction that we expected.  Or rather it has been going slower than expected.
  • Linking the RC-s and Anuket Assured: I do not have any insights on this. Any opinion here? -- Needs more coordination.  I think that the Anuket Assured program is good, needs more publicity and better alignment/integration with the RC work.  The RC workstreams have been understaffed so that is something we should mention to the GB.


Key Call Outs for the LFN Governing Board (Gergely’s opinion, please comment):  Beth's adds

  • What our community is doing well
    • Producing releases
    • Doing document conversion at the same time
    • Broad support across the telecom and vendors in the community
  • Areas that we can improve upon
    • There are some sub-projects with very low resources. Even some are down to a single person, which makes them vulnerable. This is very bad bus factor.  Need to review the viability of some of the sub-projects and possibly archive them if they are no longer supportable or supported by the community.
    • This is a documentation heavy project, we still do not have a functioning doc project and doc PTL
  • Where we need help from the GB
    • We need help from the GB member companies in supporting and validating that Anuket project is in alignment with their needs and requirements.
    • We need help from the GB member companies in staffing the project with concrete resources. The same request was formulated in the previous review with no followup or response from the GB representatives.
    • We would like to have better communication between the LFN Projects and the GB.



  1. Template to be used: LFN Project Input for the Board template (1).pptx
  2. Material the TSC provided for the previous round of project reviews: 2021-10-06 Anuket Project to GB-rev.pptx
  3. Material presented for the GB during the previous round of project reviews, for reference: LFN Governing Board Meeting Day 2 - (Oct 20) Project Reviews (1).pdf

Anuket TSC decided to require a CLA for incoming contributions. There is a CLA text proposed by LF for ICLA and CCLA here.

Some TSC members requested the comparison of the old CLA and the new CLA. As OPNFV had no CLA, but it had IPR related sections in its Charter the closest thing to fulfill this request is to compare the IPR related sections of the OPNFV Charter with the proposed CLA texts.

The result of the comparison is here: OPNFV Charter vs Anuket CLA.pdf