Starting the 5.0 charter process

[Eric.Chacron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (CHACRON ERIC)]

Hi Terence, =

 =

Since Berlin is in 2 weeks from now and Moutain View a board only meeting, =
we would rather consider Tokyo for a possible session as you described.  =

 =

I'll discuss with Timo and the board how we could follow-up on that.
Would it be possible for you to have such a joint session in Tokyo? =

 =

Thanks
Eric =


________________________________

De : Chen, Terence [mailto:terence.chen@xxxxxxxxx] =

Envoy=E9 : vendredi 24 ao=FBt 2007 23:35
=C0 : CHACRON ERIC; Jim Zemlin; timo.jokiaho@xxxxxxx
Cc : lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Objet : RE: Starting the 5.0 charter process



> According to the SCOPE site, the upcoming meetings are...

Sept 10-13, Berlin (Nokia Siemens Networks)
   Board meetings - Sept 10-11
   Tech meetings - Sept 12-13

Oct 23-24, Mountain View (Nokia Siemens Networks)
   Board meetings

Nov 28-30, Tokyo (NEC Corp)
   Annual General Meetings



Hi Eric,

 =


In addition to invite Markus to SCOPE meeting, will there a need for a join=
t working session between SCOPE technical leads and the TLF/CGL member comp=
any reps (usual suspects - Glenn, Dan, Peter, Mario, Troy, Tim, Terence, pl=
us John Cherry, and all other interested parties) to work out the technical=
 details?

 =


Will you consider to coordinate this joint work session along with one of y=
our next 3 SCOPE meetings either Sep at Berlin, Oct. at Mountain View, or N=
ov. at Tokyo?

 =


-Terence =


 =


________________________________

From: lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lf_carrier-boun=
ces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of CHACRON ERIC
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 5:38 AM
To: Jim Zemlin; timo.jokiaho@xxxxxxx
Cc: lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Starting the 5.0 charter process

 =


I'd like to welcome LF to setup some general meetings in Europe in the futu=
re in addition to NA. Your new office in Germany would i guess ease that.  =


 =


As SCOPE Alliance vice chair, i'd like to know if you confirm the option fo=
r Markus Rex to come to Berlin. =


In such a case we could officially invite him after our next board call sch=
eduled soon. =


 =


Eric =


 =


Alcatel-Lucent =


CTO office =


Program Manager =


+33 1 30 77 28 05

+33 6 07 24 52 81

________________________________

De : lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lf_carrier-bounc=
es@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de Jim Zemlin
Envoy=E9 : vendredi 17 ao=FBt 2007 19:42
=C0 : timo.jokiaho@xxxxxxx
Cc : lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Objet : Re: Starting the 5.0 charter process

The LF is in the process of opening a European office in Nuremberg.   Perha=
ps our new CTO Markus Rex could pop into this meeting depending on his trav=
el schedule.   Would that be helpful in terms of defining this relationship?

 =


Jim

 =


On Aug 17, 2007, at 10:26 AM, <timo.jokiaho@xxxxxxx> wrote:





 =


Yes, this is accurete ...

  TimoJ

---
Timo Jokiaho, +358 50 5002802, Mobile email powered by Nokia E61 Intellisync

-----Original Message-----
From: ext John Cherry
Sent: 17-08-2007 20:15:10
To: ext John Cherry;Chen, Terence
Cc: Jim Zemlin;Jokiaho Timo (NSN - FI/Espoo);lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Starting the 5.0 charter process


On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 10:02 -0700, Chen, Terence wrote:
> >When is the next set of SCOPE meetings?
>
> Timo,
>
> Do you have SCOPE meetings schedule?

According to the SCOPE site, the upcoming meetings are...

Sept 10-13, Berlin (Nokia Siemens Networks)
   Board meetings - Sept 10-11
   Tech meetings - Sept 12-13

Oct 23-24, Mountain View (Nokia Siemens Networks)
   Board meetings

Nov 28-30, Tokyo (NEC Corp)
   Annual General Meetings

Is this still the plan?

John

>
> -Terence
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Jim Zemlin [mailto:jzemlin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 9:43 AM
> >To: Chen, Terence
> >Cc: timo.jokiaho@xxxxxxx; lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: Starting the 5.0 charter process
> >
> >When is the next set of SCOPE meetings?
> >
> >Jim
> >
> >On Aug 17, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Chen, Terence wrote:
> >
> >> Glenn, Timo,
> >>
> >> I think the flow of what you described makes sense in high level;
> >> however, it will be good for both organizations to sit down to follow
> >> through and work out the working model to streamline the activities
> >> and
> >> logistics such as gap analysis, requirements, implementation, and LSB
> >> type of testing...
> >>
> >> The question is when and where.
> >>
> >> -Terence
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> [mailto:lf_carrier-
> >>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> timo.jokiaho@xxxxxxx
> >>> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 3:09 AM
> >>> To: lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> Subject: RE: Starting the 5.0 charter process
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Glenn et.al
> >>>
> >>> We at Nokia Siemens Networks have a firm opinion that these kind of
> >> RFPs
> >>> should come
> >>> from SCOPE Alliance (note, this is Nokia Siemens Networks opinion,
> >>> not
> >>> SCOPE at least yet).
> >>>
> >>> What we also think is that collectively we should start
> concentrating
> >> on
> >>> working towards
> >>> consistent Carrier Grade API set within Carrier Grade OS domain,
> like
> >> CG
> >>> Linux. In order
> >>> to do that, the following model is proposed:
> >>>
> >>> * LF-CGL would be primarily become implementors group with Carrier
> >> Grade
> >>> focus.
> >>>   SCOPE Alliance develops gap / requirement document and spells out
> >> the
> >>> need for APIs
> >>>   related to the gaps / requirements. This will given to LF-CGL,
> >>> which
> >>> then starts developing
> >>>   the APIs themselves. The development process should be full
> >> consensus
> >>> based. When the
> >>>   APIs are defined, LF CGL includes the new APIs into LSB CGL module
> >>> and they would
> >>>   then be automatically included into LSB certification process.
> >>>
> >>> In addition to this SCOPE would continue to profile existing API
> >>> specs
> >>> and then provides the
> >>> profile (priorities) to LF-CGL group, which then works on those and
> >>> makes sure they will be
> >>> included into LSB CGL module. They would then be included into LSB
> >>> certification process.
> >>>
> >>> Any thoughts ?
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>>
> >>>  TimoJ
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> [mailto:lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> >> ext
> >>>
> >>>> Seiler, Glenn
> >>>> Sent: 16 August, 2007 12:45
> >>>> To: lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> Subject: Starting the 5.0 charter process
> >>>>
> >>>> We need to start this process that we agreed to back in June at
> >>>> the LF
> >>>> LinuxSummit.
> >>>>
> >>>> To that end I'll start by putting some concepts out for discussion
> >>>> before starting a draft of the charter.
> >>>>
> >>>> The first and most important thing that strikes me about the new
> >>>> charter we [loosely] agreed to in June is that it is a very
> >> fundamental
> >>>
> >>>> shift from the original charter. To be more clear; the original
> >> charter
> >>>
> >>>> was to define characteristics of a Carrier Grade system - some
> >>>> existing, some not - that must be present in order for a system
> >>>> to be
> >>>> defined as Carrier Grade.
> >>>> These requirements came directly from NEPS and Telecom platform
> >>>> providers - those most knowledgeable to provide such
> >>>> requirements. The
> >>>> result was a blueprint that distro's could map against and NEPs
> >>>> could
> >>>> use as a sort of metric.
> >>>>
> >>>> If we move to charter to essentially specify gaps - things not in
> >>>> the
> >>>> current Linux kernel and associated packages - then the document,
> or
> >>>> spec, or whatever it becomes, cannot really be used to define
> >>>> capabilities of an OS, because by definition, the requirements do
> >>>> not
> >>>> exist. Ok, so maybe a distro may have a few of the 'non-existing'
> >> gaps,
> >>>
> >>>> but for the most part it becomes a document that no one can
> >>>> really map
> >>>> against.
> >>>>
> >>>> So the charter changes significantly; rather than a document that
> >>>> defines the characteristics of a CG system, it now becomes a
> >>>> "message
> >>>> to the industry of what Telcos need and isn't available". A wish
> >>>> list.
> >>>> My fundamental question is "what value to the NEPs is a wish list"?
> >>>> Perhaps great value.
> >>>> But I am not the right person to answer that question. Now if the
> >>>> community reacts - either through LF, through distros and platform
> >>>> providers, or through grass-roots projects, then this document can
> >>>> become of great value. But if the community does not react, it
> >>>> becomes
> >>>> a nice exercise.
> >>>>
> >>>> The concept of registration, or certification, or LSB module
> >>>> essentially goes away. How do you certify or register against
> things
> >>>> that do not exist yet? I suspect that will make some very happy,
> >>>> but I
> >>>> think it is a great shame.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, with my preamble out of the way, and a basic question asked
> >>>> of the
> >>>> key consumers of this document, here are some ideas for moving
> >> forward.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) we should create the document similar to an RFP. The RFP should
> >> come
> >>>
> >>>> from LF. It should be an RFP for CG requirements not met today.
> This
> >>>> process would give equal opportunity to everyone; SCOPE Alliance,
> >>>> individuals in the community, distros and platform providers all
> >>>> would
> >>>> equal opportunity to submit requirements.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) Just like an RFP, there should be a timeframe for responding.
> >>>>
> >>>> 3) There should be a "maintainer" of the requirements that resolves
> >>>> conflicting requirements, overlaps and redundancies.
> >>>> Without a 'maintainer' the process would quickly become chaos.
> >>>>
> >>>> 4) The maintainer should be a neutral party, (..LF). If not, some
> >>>> democratic process should be created to determine a maintainer.
> >>>>
> >>>> 5) There should be a template that 'suggests' the way requirements
> >>>> should be submitted. Nothing too rigid. The template should come
> >>>> from
> >>>> LF, with input from this list of course.
> >>>>
> >>>> 6) As we discussed in June, the requirements should be "What"
> >>>> of requirements that do not exist today. Not the "how".
> >>>>
> >>>> 7) I'm not sure this process or document should be restricted to
> the
> >>>> kernel proper. I suspect there are valid requirements in user
> >>>> space as
> >>>> well.
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Ok, that is all I can think of now. I'm quite sure I am missing
> >>>> something and of course, this is an open process so I expect a lot
> >>>> comments.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> -glenn
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Glenn Seiler, General Manager Linux Solutions, Wind River direct
> >>>> +1.510.749.2122  mobile +1.831.334.4108 fax +1.510.749.2695
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Lf_carrier mailing list
> >>> Lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lf_carrier
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Lf_carrier mailing list
> >> Lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lf_carrier
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------
> >Jim Zemlin
> >Executive Director, The Linux Foundation
> >210 Fell St. Suite 16
> >San Francisco, CA 94102
> >Cell: 415-726-2284
> >Fax: 415-707-2153
> >http://www.linux-foundation.org
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lf_carrier mailing list
> Lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lf_carrier

 =


-------------------------------------------------

Jim Zemlin =


Executive Director, The Linux Foundation

210 Fell St. Suite 16

San Francisco, CA 94102

Cell: 415-726-2284

Fax: 415-707-2153

http://www.linux-foundation.org

 =


 =


 =






 =


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/lf_carrier/attachments/200=
70827/2ba64876/attachment-0001.htm