TLC F2F Meeting, 21st September 2009
9:00 Agenda Review 15min
9:15 OpenSAF Openness, Web Site & Processes 1:30h
10:45 Improving collaborative infrastructure 15min
11:00 OpenSAF Wanted Architecture 1:30h
12:30 Lunch (working)
12:45 TLC work improvements 45min
13:30 Follow up on Yang discussion 1h
14:30 Developer Days 2010 (45 min) 45min
15:15 OpenSAF Release 4 1.5h
Preparation for OpenSAF Release 4
• Jonas Arndt
• Jonathan Fournier
• Sayandeb Saha
• Uli Kleber
• Jan Lindblad (Tail-f)
• Mario Angelic (scribe)
Web Site & Processes
– How big the problem is ? Anybody has direct experience/feedback?
• Openness of TLC
– AP (TCC):
» More clear description how to get into TLC based merit.
» Downplay TLC; emphasize community
» Inviting developers for appropriate items on weekly meeting
• Openness of WGs
– Must be transparent
– Decision: We move discussion to devel list, for the time beeing; since devel mail load is not large
– ICPA/CCPA ?
» BoD is reviewing ICPA/CCPA
• Wanted Position
– Project perceived as fully open & transparent
– Anybody can get involved, or influence, everybody can see status of release and where the project
• How to achieve (proposals so far)
– Get Involved on opensaf.org owned by TLC
– TLC mailing list (we still keep private)
– Decision: TLC F2F agenda proposals on devel list
– Decision: Open TLC minutes (from now)
– Decision: Better reflection of what is going in/around OpenSAF on the dev wiki
• “Wanted Architecture” available on wiki
• Release status (+ Blog): Active Blog => Project Blog
• AP (Jonathan): Do initial proposal of which Trac sections should be removed/changed.
• AP (Jonathan): Get professional help for initial Devel page layout; and Trac.
– We will use TLC budget to finance this
– It is too static
– Not suited for “targeted users”
• Wanted Position
– Site should be easy to use by. We have to think of different target groups:
• “I heard first time for OpenSAF” group
• First time/Potential Users
• First Time/Potential OpenSAF Developers
• OpenSAF Developers
• First Time/Potential Application Developers
• Application Developers
– Use base templates from successful projects + commercial support
• Use above, target audience list, as check-list when evaluating new proposals
• How to achieve this
– Maybe the top page/s should be HTML, then more changeable part will be wiki. Dynamic
part on top page (Project Status) will be dynamic.
– Open Issue: Should opensaf.org point to “OpenSAF Project” web page. And foundation
have opensaf-foundation.org. We should first make sure that we are happy with
Developer web-site before we could propose this.
• Get Involved must be on top page with tree-like structure addressing different groups needs
• Organize web site for easy browsing by each “group”
• Get professional advice/help (AP on previous slide)
– Initial process have not be revised from ~launch (some smaller parts are
– Lengthy documents
– Process description and practice are not aligned
– Releases work today; but would be harder to scale when involving new
• Wanted Position
– Simple processes, easy to read, use of graphical flow
– Process is aligned with practice and actively maintained
• How to achieve
– Any tool we can use to create “clickable html processes flows” ?
– Align process description with good practices
– Actively maintain
– Divide work among TLC members, involve developers (at least to review)
– Establish timeline
– Action Points on following slide.
• AP (TCC)
– Move TOP outside of developer wiki
• AP (Mario)
– Development Process
• AP (Jonathan)
– Developer Handbook
– Developer Guide
– Add search for mailing list
• AP (Sayan)
– Getting Started
• Remove recommendations for commercial Linux distribution
• AP (Murthy)
– Action Point for providing the bug categorization based on oopensource projects. I
will provide that material before F2F.
• AP (Steve)
– Create Release Checklist (for
• GA Release Checklist It should also contain the check for web
• For each GA create HTML bundle, that can be browsed online
• AP (Mario)
– Add “Documentation strategy improvement” on the issues to discuss on TLC
OpenSAF Collaborative Tools
– Improving efficiency of distributed teams (developers, WGs, TLC)
– We have mails, “devel IRC”, but we need “HP Virtual Room” like tool
available to developers as well
• Wanted Position
– Provide tools to developers that easy distributed development
– Possible to use IP telephony, no need for conf call bridges
• How to achieve
– Evaluate couple of alternatives (quality and cost aspects)
• GoTo meeting (for less the 1k$/year possible to hold webinars for upto 1000
• AP (Mario & Jonas): Check the OS support for these alternatives, check the
cost, evaluate product.
– If evaluation results with positive outcome: Ask the budget from BoD (TLC
already has several k$ budget this year so this should not be an issue).
• Define our “vision” for OpenSAF (still call it OpenSAF Wanted
• OpenSAF is default choice for solving simple and complex HA cases
• OpenSAF used for HA of C/C++ application as well as Java, Python, …
• Linux Distribution independent (Relying on LSB)
• HW platform independent (or easy “integration” with different HW
• OpenSAF is base platform middleware component that together with
other open-source/commercial components is used to build a
• There is ecosystem around OpenSAF
• Based on vision TLC should drive architecture use-cases
• Wanted Architecture should reflect “vision”, meaning it should
clarify how OpenSAF solves architecture use-cases and vision
– AP (TCC): Drive this topics in Wanted Architecture document and
sessions on weekly TLC meetings.
• So far we have focused on several architectural aspects:
– Streamline of architecture
• We need to work on overall architecture aspects:
– Deployment use-cases
– Architecture significant use-cases
Architectural Topics to Discuss
• PLM HW management plugin architecture
• OpenSAF Goal: “HW platform independent (or easy “integration” with different HW
• PLM: Delivered by SAF MW or HW Vendor? With plugin architecture responsibility is clear!
• Have internal PLM simple interface (PLM SPI) to drive PLM HE state machine
• Plugin has responsibility that based on specific HW events drive HE state machine via PLM
• TLC discussed PLM HW management pluggable architecture that could results in better
PLM and OpenSAF that can easier satisfy HW portability goal.
• Open Issue: How would PLM SPI look like?
• Open Issue: Will it be possible to have this in Release 4 (not likely for timing reasons since
PLM is on critical line)
• AP (Mario): Drive “PLM SPI” and PLM HW management plugin discussion through Wanted
Architecture work in weekly meetings.
• What about EE?
– There is already implicit plugin architecture. We should formalize it (i.e. define protocol between
PLMS and PLMc) !
• How will FM be affected with Introduction of PLM?
• OpenSAF startup (service dependency)
– Opportunity to revise/improve especially with introduction of PLM
– AP (TCC): Drive this through Wanted Architecture discussion on weekly TLC
TLC work improvements
– TLC meetings tend to become “project status” or “DD status” meetings
– Ambition was always that TLC drives/facilitates architectural discussions
– Some TLC members never participate in TLC meetings
• We have formal decision process described in operating procedures; and
most/all decisions require quorum. What will be the policy if some TLC
members are not participating for longer time-period. We can come to situation
that we never have quorum.
– Architecture/Technical Discussions
• We should establish practice that WG/developers lift up system issues to TLC
• TLC should raise system/architecture issue that it sees on developer mailing list
• Template for meetings
– Relevant also to making minutes open
– AP (TCC): Create initial template proposal and send to TLC for review
• Invite more frequently developers to participate on TLC meetings when relevant
• AP (TCC): Lift up to the BoD for TLC memebers not participating in TLC work
Preparation for OpenSAF Release 4 launch
• Release 4 is MAJOR OpenSAF Release
• Strategy/approaches how to best support "launch" of Release 4 ( what
items to emphasize) from TLC point of view
– prepare articles covering most interesting items
– select forums/conferences where to publish them
– online news sites (technical like LWN), update Wikipedia text
– prepare webinars (at least 2), etc. update datasheet,
– vmware appliances
– AP (TCC): Drive this through TLC weekly meetings
• Educating marketing workgroup of difference between Release 3 and
– AP: TLC should produce technical overview (Release Description)
document outlining differences and benefits
• API, ABI compatibility
• In-service upgradeability
• AP (TLC): vmware appliances for every GA release, for increased
Developer Days 2010
• Technical Scope
– Overview and Demo for features introduced in Release 4
– Presenting architecture changes (mapping them to real-world use cases)
– Presenting and discussing Wanted Architecture items coming after Release
– Application Demos
• At least one demo with 3pp open-source component hooked up
– Late May, Early June
– Open Issue: Problem with other conferences in same timeframe ?
– North America
– Bay area, Alameda (WR) ?
Follow-up on the Yang discussion
• Discussion on potential Yang driven Netconf agent using OpenSAF
IMM. Jan will com back to TLC with feasibility of such contribution to
OpenSAF Release 4
• For example some interesting PLM "corner" use cases
that require whiteboard to clarify, etc.
• We have discussed some PLM use-cases, mostly
related to startup issues on payloads and more
specifically on controllers.
• Discussion will continue on PLM WG