15:01:10 #startmeeting operators_telco_nfv 15:01:11 Meeting started Wed Jun 28 15:01:10 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is serverascode. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:01:12 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 15:01:14 The meeting name has been set to 'operators_telco_nfv' 15:01:20 hi all :) 15:01:26 hi serverascode 15:01:26 o/ 15:01:31 hi serverascode 15:01:37 hi shintaro 15:01:53 hi ad_rien 15:02:10 ok I'll just give it another minute or so and we can get started 15:03:02 #topic What to do with this working group? 15:03:18 ok so the only thing I have on the agenda is what to do with this owrking group 15:03:34 we just haven't quite ever got the attendance of openstack operators doing nfv work 15:03:39 which isn't necessarily a bad thing 15:03:41 we gave it a shot 15:03:50 I think it is valuable to have a place to discuss about NFV topics 15:04:17 just we need more attendance, I agree 15:04:26 shintaro: sure, but the original idea was for operators, and they just don't really come to these kind of meetings 15:04:33 Hi all 15:04:36 Maybe a last tentative can consist in contacting the OpenSTack Foundation (Ildiko for instance) 15:04:38 we can do something else, but I don't think the orig idea is quite owrking out 15:04:52 in order to ask whether telcos want to join/participate/contribute to this WG. 15:05:23 It seems telcos invest a lot in OpenNFV 15:05:28 my initial thought was to perhaps move to being a subgroup of LCOO 15:05:38 There use to be many telco ppl in the summmit 15:05:47 so maybe knowing the position of the OpenStack foundation regarding that point can be valuable 15:06:00 ad_rien_ good piont 15:06:10 also the whole change working groups into SIGS is going on too 15:06:21 I know LCOO has AT&T, Orange, NTT at least 15:06:48 serverascode: I saw a couple of exchanges but not sure I got the whole idea of SIGs yets 15:06:55 s/yets/yet sorry 15:07:10 me neither 15:07:21 I don't completely understand it either, but my impression is that they want to rebrand working gruops as SIGS 15:07:30 I mean SIG is just another way to entitle a WG (i.e. a group of persons that are common interests) 15:07:33 and I don't know what that would end up looking like 15:08:18 do people think having a meeitng like this is worthwhile? but perhaps under different conditions? 15:08:20 What I heard in the forum was SIGs are focused on one topic and after finishing the goal, they finish the SIG 15:08:20 More generally, I get the feeling that the issue of attracting recurrent people in WGs is a shared issue? 15:08:32 ok 15:08:41 shintaro: I heard that also 15:09:28 once again, I think we can make an email to the OpenStack foundation to ask whether they have also seen that trends 15:09:36 (or if it is just related to some WGs) 15:10:05 The performance meetings are less dynamic/efficient/fruitful that what we used to have for the last two cycles 15:10:10 for instance 15:10:20 ad_rien_ so you think an email to the foundation to find out what to do with working groups? 15:10:32 I also took part to the Large Scale meeting last week 15:10:36 we were three 15:10:42 not minutes 15:10:51 not sure what will be the outputs of those meetings 15:11:08 I can be wrong but I have the feeling that several meetings can be merged to have more fruitful exchanges 15:11:20 i.e. less meetings but more effective ones 15:11:22 ad_rien_ I have that feeling too 15:11:46 agree, too 15:11:49 s/not minutes/no minute (once again sorry for typos) 15:12:18 so we can write an email to Thierry, Marc, Jonathan, Ildiko just to get their feelings. 15:12:36 Once we get their feedbacks and according to their answers we can send an email on the dev mailing list? 15:12:52 ok I like that idea 15:12:56 who wants to take that on? 15:12:58 :) 15:13:03 I can do it 15:13:07 cross WG meeting isn't happening yet. I wonder hat happened. 15:13:34 (I mean I plan to have an informal meeting with ttx to deal with all those questions, including the cross wg meeting Shintaro is highlighting) 15:13:55 we can use the next slot and invite TTX 15:14:05 or we can iterate by mail and I can put you in CC 15:14:06 ? 15:14:21 so ask him to come to the next occurance of this meeting? 15:14:51 yes, this can be the solution (keeping in mind that we are going to start the vacation period). Maybe the attendance/contributors issue is just related to general WGs. 15:15:09 Are Core component WGs still active? 15:15:12 hmm, perhaps email would be better 15:15:47 According to the dev mailing It seems that there is still lot of traffic/discussions/... 15:16:24 From our side (FEMDC WG), we have defined two (three) activities and things are moving forward, slowly but forward... 15:16:49 but the same, with more particpants we can do better stuff 15:17:31 LCOO is starting to push several items forward, too, but yes it would be better if we have more people 15:17:49 ok, I think this is good timing to make some changes 15:17:51 This cross meeting is really something that can help us to move forward 15:17:56 I think it would be best to start some kind of email exchange 15:18:04 and not try to get people to a meeting 15:18:57 It would be great to get more information from jamey 15:19:01 I think jamemcc should have some idea 15:19:20 he mentioned he would be here today but doesn't seem to have quite made it 15:20:14 so are we suggesting that the upcoming (?) cross wg meeitng is a good place to discuss this topic as well? 15:20:27 +1 15:20:53 ok, and we don't quite have all the details on that yet, is that right? I haven't seen anything but haven't been paying great attention 15:21:37 same from my side 15:22:03 ok, so I guess our first step is to get some information on that meeting :) 15:22:25 and I suppose the vacation times will get in the way a bit too 15:22:28 jamemcc: ? 15:22:39 are you online? 15:24:01 ok, so lets do this: 1) we will find out more information about the upcomming cross-wg meeting and 2) if that is not working out we will start some kind of email thread on how to make some changes to improve attendance and communication, perhaps by merging some meetings 15:24:39 does that make sense? 15:24:41 +1 15:24:45 I can send a first informal email to TTX just to have his feedback 15:24:59 ok that's a good idea too 15:24:59 putting you (serverascode) and shintaro in CC 15:25:07 cool 15:25:10 thanks 15:25:12 I think that is a good start :) 15:25:29 anyone have anything else to discuss? thoughts? ideas? 15:25:56 otherwise I have no other topics and we can end the meeting 15:26:01 Just let him know that we gonna probably stop the WG due to the lack of attendance and we have the feeling that this is an issue that appears in several WGs (at least the one we are used to participate in) 15:26:10 no 15:26:17 from my side 15:26:27 It would be a pitty to stop this WG 15:26:28 also, thank you all for coming to these meetings, I really appreciate your time :) 15:26:29 once agin 15:26:38 I'm ok, thank you 15:27:00 I mean we all know that NFV is an important use-case 15:27:09 maybe there is another point that we should consider 15:27:18 solutions like kubernetes? 15:27:19 ad_rien_ I don't think we'll completely stop it, just change it into something that works and ha the right mission 15:27:25 *has the right mission 15:27:33 BTW I'm planning to attend OpsMeetup in Mexico and I found one session proposal for NFV 15:27:46 yeah I put that in :) 15:27:48 yes… but LCCO is also targetting extreme testing etc.... 15:28:12 I attended several workshops/events/conferences during the three last weeks 15:28:31 +1 serverascode :0 15:28:37 :) 15:28:48 Some people argued that OpenStack does not allow to deal with containers and thus is probably not the best player for NFV use-cases 15:29:17 the other aspect is that ESTI considers OpenStack just as a simple VIM (Virtual Infrastructure Manager) and wants to reimplement the wheel on top of OpenStack 15:29:25 i.e. they use OpenStack as libvirt 15:29:30 i.e. start/shutdown a VM 15:29:45 and all the advanced features is down at higher level on top of OpenStack 15:29:53 yes, more effort are put on higher layer like ONAP 15:30:02 yes… but if you dive into details 15:30:18 you will see that they have to reimplement a lot of mechanisms that is already available at low levels... 15:30:22 too weird... 15:30:39 yeah my impression is that kuberentes works best on top of IaaS like OpenStack 15:30:45 because the higher level should deal with regions, load balancing, HA …. 15:30:59 ok I wil write an email to TTX 15:31:07 awesome 15:31:15 ok thanks for attending all :) 15:31:19 I will end the meeting 15:31:20 thank you! 15:31:35 #endmeeting