For the August Governing Board meeting, we need to cover 3 specific areas (the first three headings below). Additional material has also been captured.
Description
- Full Merger of equal communities: both activities are needed for success.
- OPNFV+CNTT=NewName (Community and Marketing determine NewName, if communities want it).
- No Customer-Supplier relationships within NewName, recognition of shared fate.
- OPNFV Release process already allows for frequent project self-releases, so any CNTT release schedule can be accommodated.
- CNTT Work Streams become individual Projects, with PTLs, Committers, Contributors, and Project descriptions.
- This can be a structure where the existing workstreams have 1:1 mapping to new formal projects, or some restructuring is possible/optional.
- This can be a structure where the existing workstreams have 1:1 mapping to new formal projects, or some restructuring is possible/optional.
- Build new WGs according to CNTT’s need for tiered structure (if any WG are needed).
- Existing OPNFV projects could choose to continue to be independent projects or choose to combine with new projects being formed
- New TSC Elections and Officers (when organizations combine, possibly in January 2021?).
- Commitment from all OPNFV+CNTT members to supply a fixed amount of resources to both requirements and code development.
- New project to Integrate all relevant project outputs into a cohesive deliverable for automated Conformance testing.
- Reduce overall governance structure of OPNFV+CNTT, where possible. Reduce the overall number of meetings related to former CNTT activities.
Define Work Product, Interfaces and Dependencies
Development Project Release Artifacts (assuming recommended development
- Stable Project Repos
- Project Documentation
- For projects integrating with an Automated Conformance Test Suite, Integration test results
- Development to support LFN OVP badging programs
- Maintenance and lifecycle for all projects, including OVP
Requirement/Documentation Projects
- Stable Project Repos
- Reference Model Documentation Jointly approved by GSMA (or moves to GSMA, similar question for Reference Architecture)
- GSMA members are encouraged to participate
Interfaces and Dependencies
- Continue "Working Upstream": Open Stack, CNCF, other LFN projects (FDIO, ODL, ONAP, ...), ETSI NFV, IETF, others
Approximate Timeline
Factors:
- Governing Board Decision in October 2020?
- OPNFV JERMA meta-Release Calendar: December 2020 Release date
- CNTT Baraque Release in September 2020 (insert additional releases planned...)
- Current CNTT officer term ends in December 2020
- Intermediate tasks to flesh-out, post GB decision, such as the structure of the new organization
- Nomination periods and Elections take about 6 weeks - propose to start the Election Calendar in November 2020 (half of December is unavailable).
- NewName selection: Community and Marketing
Estimate: New org in operation in January 2021
Goals for this Option/Description
- Create a proposal that has advantages for the Governing Board, OPNFV, and CNTT.
- Help everyone recognize that the completeness of conformance testing is the common goal of all, and a unique opportunity for the success of all.
- Foster Trust, Transparency, and Truth.
Advantages over Current Mode of Operation
- Keep Requirements and Test Code Development together: OPNFV as an opensource and integration project for both OpenStack and K8s virtualization layers.
- Increase Communication and understanding of the level of effort involved to complete tasks among all contributors.
- OPNFV Charter and Website have been updated several times since January to fit CNTT requirements and mindsets (OPNFV 2.0)
- CNTT continues to enjoy LFN support for Zoom bridges, Program Management, Wiki Pages, Event Planning, etc.
- Data from LFN Support Survey indicates that < … results>
- Participation in both OPNFV and CNTT activities are stimulated by forming a complete conformance solution community.
- NewName Pros:
- send the message that it’s not business as usual
- help CNTT feel that it is joining a partnership vs. becoming a part of another organization and losing control.
Possible disadvantages
Use fact based points (check when done)
- CNTT stakeholders perceive some loss of visibility in the Industry once merged.
- Some CNTT Stakeholders leave because they don't like the outcome.
- 1[but some think they won’t leave for long. If they still need the common infrastructure that CNTT proposes, and if the merged community is successful, they will come back sooner or later]