Date   

Re: [vpp-dev] New Option for fd.io mailing lists: groups.io

Edward Warnicke
 

Bump...

Would it make sense to talk about this some at the vpp-dev meeting tomorrow?

Ed

On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 2:14 PM Burt Silverman <burtms@...> wrote:
Search is somewhat painful with mailman. Otherwise I like it. Having said that, I have just learned about zgrep, and that simplifies the process, along with the fact that vim works on gzipped files.

Burt

On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Ole Troan <otroan@...> wrote:
Two points:

- What's their business model? Are we now going to be the product?
- History has shown that doing mail correctly has been too hard for many... is there any indication that these people have clue?
  Or are they just focusing on "pretty" and lockin?

Consider me skeptical,
Ole

> On 14 Dec 2017, at 16:45, Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...> wrote:
>
> A new option has become available for handling mailing lists: groups.io
>
> As a community, we need to look at this option, provide feedback, and come to a decision as to whether or not to migrate.  A critical part of that is having folks take a look, ask questions, and express opinions :)
>
> We have a sandbox example at  https://groups.io/g/lfn  you can look at
>
> And an example with active list and imported archive: https://lists.odpi.org/g/odpi-sig-bi
>
> Major benefits include searchability, better web interface, etc.
>
> The LF was kind enough to write a FAQ for us as we consider as a community whether to migrate or not:
>
> FAQs
> Q: What are the key differences between Mailman and Groups.io?
> ●Groups.io has a modern interface, robust user security model, and interactive, searchable archives
> ●Groups.io provides advanced features including muting threads and integrations with modern tools like GitHub, Slack, and Trello
> ●     Groups.io also has optional extras like a shared calendar, polling, chat, a wiki, and more
> ●     Groups.io uses a concept of subgroups, where members first join the project “group” (a master list), then they choose the specific “subgroup” lists they want to subscribe to
>
> Q: How is the experience different for me as a list moderator or participant?
> In many ways, it is very much the same. You will still find the main group at your existing URL and sub-groups equate to the more focused mailing lists based on the community’s needs. Here is an example of main group and sub-group URL patterns, and their respective emails:
>
> https://lists.fd.io/g/tsc
> https://lists.fd.io/g/discuss
> https:/lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev
> tsc@...
> discuss@...
> vpp-dev@...
>
> What is different is Groups.io’s simple but highly functional UI that will make the experience of moderating or participating in the community discussions more enjoyable.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vpp-dev mailing list
> vpp-dev@...
> https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev


_______________________________________________
vpp-dev mailing list
vpp-dev@...
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev


Re: [nsh_sfc-dev] Stepping down as NSH_SFC PTL

Wan, Qun <qun.wan@...>
 

+1 for Hongjun

 

Best Regards,

Anna

 

From: vpp-dev-bounces@... [mailto:vpp-dev-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Zhou, Danny
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 11:14 AM
To: ash@...; tsc@...; nsh_sfc-dev@...
Cc: vpp-dev@...
Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] [nsh_sfc-dev] Stepping down as NSH_SFC PTL

 

+1 for Hongjun

 

From: ash@... [mailto:ash@...]
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 9:06 AM
To: Zhou, Danny <danny.zhou@...>; tsc@...; nsh_sfc-dev@...
Cc: vpp-dev@...
Subject: Re: [nsh_sfc-dev] Stepping down as NSH_SFC PTL

 

+1

 

Thanks for all your hard work!

 

Ash

 

Ash Young

M: 408-628-7223

 

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 8:32 PM -0600, "Zhou, Danny" <danny.zhou@...> wrote:

Hi TSC,

I've been taking the NSH_SFC PTL role 1 year ago. It has been a pleasure, but also a burden as there are some personal reasons make me cannot focus on NSH_SFC anymore, so I am stepping down as NSH_SFC PTL with immediate effect. Additionally, I would like to nominate Hongjun Ni, who is the most active NSH_SFC maintainer in 2017, as new NSH_SFC PTL for his excellent contribution as below:

l  Upstreamed 42 patches totally cover Ingress Classifier, SFF, Egress Classifier, NSH-Proxy, NSH-aware NAT, MD-Type2, NSH over Ethernet and NSH TTL.

l  Published four NSH_SFC Releases: 17.01, 17.04, 17.07 and 17.10.

 

NSH_SFC maintainers,

 

Pls vote for Hongjun Ni by directly replying this email.

 

-Danny


Re: [nsh_sfc-dev] Stepping down as NSH_SFC PTL

Zhou, Danny <danny.zhou@...>
 

+1 for Hongjun

 

From: ash@... [mailto:ash@...]
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 9:06 AM
To: Zhou, Danny <danny.zhou@...>; tsc@...; nsh_sfc-dev@...
Cc: vpp-dev@...
Subject: Re: [nsh_sfc-dev] Stepping down as NSH_SFC PTL

 

+1

 

Thanks for all your hard work!

 

Ash

 

Ash Young

M: 408-628-7223



On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 8:32 PM -0600, "Zhou, Danny" <danny.zhou@...> wrote:

Hi TSC,

I've been taking the NSH_SFC PTL role 1 year ago. It has been a pleasure, but also a burden as there are some personal reasons make me cannot focus on NSH_SFC anymore, so I am stepping down as NSH_SFC PTL with immediate effect. Additionally, I would like to nominate Hongjun Ni, who is the most active NSH_SFC maintainer in 2017, as new NSH_SFC PTL for his excellent contribution as below:

l  Upstreamed 42 patches totally cover Ingress Classifier, SFF, Egress Classifier, NSH-Proxy, NSH-aware NAT, MD-Type2, NSH over Ethernet and NSH TTL.

l  Published four NSH_SFC Releases: 17.01, 17.04, 17.07 and 17.10.

 

NSH_SFC maintainers,

 

Pls vote for Hongjun Ni by directly replying this email.

 

-Danny


Re: [nsh_sfc-dev] Stepping down as NSH_SFC PTL

Zhou, Danny <danny.zhou@...>
 

You are right George and Ash.  The process, as pointed by Ed to me before, is at https://fd.io/governance/technical-community-charter/#tcc323.

 

Below are current committers of NSH_SFC project who are eligible to vote.

 

 

From: George Zhao [mailto:George.Y.Zhao@...]
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 9:52 AM
To: ash@...; Zhou, Danny <danny.zhou@...>; tsc@...; nsh_sfc-dev@...
Cc: vpp-dev@...
Subject: RE: [tsc] [nsh_sfc-dev] Stepping down as NSH_SFC PTL

 

Hi Danny,

Thanks for your contributions.

 

I will let Ed correct me if I am wrong, I don’t think PTL need TSC approval,  but an email thread from project committers voted +1 for Honghui Ni as new PTL.

 

BR,

George

 

From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of ash@...
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 9:06 AM
To: Zhou, Danny;
tsc@...; nsh_sfc-dev@...
Cc:
vpp-dev@...
Subject: Re: [tsc] [nsh_sfc-dev] Stepping down as NSH_SFC PTL

 

+1

 

Thanks for all your hard work!

 

Ash

 

Ash Young

M: 408-628-7223

 

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 8:32 PM -0600, "Zhou, Danny" <danny.zhou@...> wrote:

Hi TSC,

I've been taking the NSH_SFC PTL role 1 year ago. It has been a pleasure, but also a burden as there are some personal reasons make me cannot focus on NSH_SFC anymore, so I am stepping down as NSH_SFC PTL with immediate effect. Additionally, I would like to nominate Hongjun Ni, who is the most active NSH_SFC maintainer in 2017, as new NSH_SFC PTL for his excellent contribution as below:

l  Upstreamed 42 patches totally cover Ingress Classifier, SFF, Egress Classifier, NSH-Proxy, NSH-aware NAT, MD-Type2, NSH over Ethernet and NSH TTL.

l  Published four NSH_SFC Releases: 17.01, 17.04, 17.07 and 17.10.

 

NSH_SFC maintainers,

 

Pls vote for Hongjun Ni by directly replying this email.

 

-Danny


Re: [nsh_sfc-dev] Stepping down as NSH_SFC PTL

George Zhao
 

Hi Danny,

Thanks for your contributions.

 

I will let Ed correct me if I am wrong, I don’t think PTL need TSC approval,  but an email thread from project committers voted +1 for Honghui Ni as new PTL.

 

BR,

George

 

From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of ash@...
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 9:06 AM
To: Zhou, Danny; tsc@...; nsh_sfc-dev@...
Cc: vpp-dev@...
Subject: Re: [tsc] [nsh_sfc-dev] Stepping down as NSH_SFC PTL

 

+1

 

Thanks for all your hard work!

 

Ash

 

Ash Young

M: 408-628-7223



On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 8:32 PM -0600, "Zhou, Danny" <danny.zhou@...> wrote:

Hi TSC,

I've been taking the NSH_SFC PTL role 1 year ago. It has been a pleasure, but also a burden as there are some personal reasons make me cannot focus on NSH_SFC anymore, so I am stepping down as NSH_SFC PTL with immediate effect. Additionally, I would like to nominate Hongjun Ni, who is the most active NSH_SFC maintainer in 2017, as new NSH_SFC PTL for his excellent contribution as below:

l  Upstreamed 42 patches totally cover Ingress Classifier, SFF, Egress Classifier, NSH-Proxy, NSH-aware NAT, MD-Type2, NSH over Ethernet and NSH TTL.

l  Published four NSH_SFC Releases: 17.01, 17.04, 17.07 and 17.10.

 

NSH_SFC maintainers,

 

Pls vote for Hongjun Ni by directly replying this email.

 

-Danny


Re: [nsh_sfc-dev] Stepping down as NSH_SFC PTL

Ash Young
 

+1

Thanks for all your hard work!

Ash

Ash Young
M: 408-628-7223



On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 8:32 PM -0600, "Zhou, Danny" <danny.zhou@...> wrote:

Hi TSC,

I've been taking the NSH_SFC PTL role 1 year ago. It has been a pleasure, but also a burden as there are some personal reasons make me cannot focus on NSH_SFC anymore, so I am stepping down as NSH_SFC PTL with immediate effect. Additionally, I would like to nominate Hongjun Ni, who is the most active NSH_SFC maintainer in 2017, as new NSH_SFC PTL for his excellent contribution as below:

l  Upstreamed 42 patches totally cover Ingress Classifier, SFF, Egress Classifier, NSH-Proxy, NSH-aware NAT, MD-Type2, NSH over Ethernet and NSH TTL.

l  Published four NSH_SFC Releases: 17.01, 17.04, 17.07 and 17.10.

 

NSH_SFC maintainers,

 

Pls vote for Hongjun Ni by directly replying this email.

 

-Danny


Stepping down as NSH_SFC PTL

Zhou, Danny <danny.zhou@...>
 

Hi TSC,

I've been taking the NSH_SFC PTL role 1 year ago. It has been a pleasure, but also a burden as there are some personal reasons make me cannot focus on NSH_SFC anymore, so I am stepping down as NSH_SFC PTL with immediate effect. Additionally, I would like to nominate Hongjun Ni, who is the most active NSH_SFC maintainer in 2017, as new NSH_SFC PTL for his excellent contribution as below:

l  Upstreamed 42 patches totally cover Ingress Classifier, SFF, Egress Classifier, NSH-Proxy, NSH-aware NAT, MD-Type2, NSH over Ethernet and NSH TTL.

l  Published four NSH_SFC Releases: 17.01, 17.04, 17.07 and 17.10.

 

NSH_SFC maintainers,

 

Pls vote for Hongjun Ni by directly replying this email.

 

-Danny


Re: [vpp-dev] New Option for fd.io mailing lists: groups.io

Burt Silverman <burtms@...>
 

Search is somewhat painful with mailman. Otherwise I like it. Having said that, I have just learned about zgrep, and that simplifies the process, along with the fact that vim works on gzipped files.

Burt

On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Ole Troan <otroan@...> wrote:
Two points:

- What's their business model? Are we now going to be the product?
- History has shown that doing mail correctly has been too hard for many... is there any indication that these people have clue?
  Or are they just focusing on "pretty" and lockin?

Consider me skeptical,
Ole

> On 14 Dec 2017, at 16:45, Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...> wrote:
>
> A new option has become available for handling mailing lists: groups.io
>
> As a community, we need to look at this option, provide feedback, and come to a decision as to whether or not to migrate.  A critical part of that is having folks take a look, ask questions, and express opinions :)
>
> We have a sandbox example at  https://groups.io/g/lfn  you can look at
>
> And an example with active list and imported archive: https://lists.odpi.org/g/odpi-sig-bi
>
> Major benefits include searchability, better web interface, etc.
>
> The LF was kind enough to write a FAQ for us as we consider as a community whether to migrate or not:
>
> FAQs
> Q: What are the key differences between Mailman and Groups.io?
> ●Groups.io has a modern interface, robust user security model, and interactive, searchable archives
> ●Groups.io provides advanced features including muting threads and integrations with modern tools like GitHub, Slack, and Trello
> ●     Groups.io also has optional extras like a shared calendar, polling, chat, a wiki, and more
> ●     Groups.io uses a concept of subgroups, where members first join the project “group” (a master list), then they choose the specific “subgroup” lists they want to subscribe to
>
> Q: How is the experience different for me as a list moderator or participant?
> In many ways, it is very much the same. You will still find the main group at your existing URL and sub-groups equate to the more focused mailing lists based on the community’s needs. Here is an example of main group and sub-group URL patterns, and their respective emails:
>
> https://lists.fd.io/g/tsc
> https://lists.fd.io/g/discuss
> https:/lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev
> tsc@...
> discuss@...
> vpp-dev@...
>
> What is different is Groups.io’s simple but highly functional UI that will make the experience of moderating or participating in the community discussions more enjoyable.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vpp-dev mailing list
> vpp-dev@...
> https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev


_______________________________________________
vpp-dev mailing list
vpp-dev@...
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev


Re: [vpp-dev] New Option for fd.io mailing lists: groups.io

Ole Troan <otroan@...>
 

Two points:

- What's their business model? Are we now going to be the product?
- History has shown that doing mail correctly has been too hard for many... is there any indication that these people have clue?
Or are they just focusing on "pretty" and lockin?

Consider me skeptical,
Ole

On 14 Dec 2017, at 16:45, Ed Warnicke <hagbard@gmail.com> wrote:

A new option has become available for handling mailing lists: groups.io

As a community, we need to look at this option, provide feedback, and come to a decision as to whether or not to migrate. A critical part of that is having folks take a look, ask questions, and express opinions :)

We have a sandbox example at https://groups.io/g/lfn you can look at

And an example with active list and imported archive: https://lists.odpi.org/g/odpi-sig-bi

Major benefits include searchability, better web interface, etc.

The LF was kind enough to write a FAQ for us as we consider as a community whether to migrate or not:

FAQs
Q: What are the key differences between Mailman and Groups.io?
●Groups.io has a modern interface, robust user security model, and interactive, searchable archives
●Groups.io provides advanced features including muting threads and integrations with modern tools like GitHub, Slack, and Trello
● Groups.io also has optional extras like a shared calendar, polling, chat, a wiki, and more
● Groups.io uses a concept of subgroups, where members first join the project “group” (a master list), then they choose the specific “subgroup” lists they want to subscribe to

Q: How is the experience different for me as a list moderator or participant?
In many ways, it is very much the same. You will still find the main group at your existing URL and sub-groups equate to the more focused mailing lists based on the community’s needs. Here is an example of main group and sub-group URL patterns, and their respective emails:

https://lists.fd.io/g/tsc
https://lists.fd.io/g/discuss
https:/lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev
tsc@lists.fd.io
discuss@lists.fd.io
vpp-dev@llists.fd.io

What is different is Groups.io’s simple but highly functional UI that will make the experience of moderating or participating in the community discussions more enjoyable.


_______________________________________________
vpp-dev mailing list
vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev


Re: fd.io TSC meetings during holidays

Ray Kinsella
 

+1

 

From: George Zhao [mailto:George.Y.Zhao@...]
Sent: Monday 18 December 2017 23:14
To: 'Ed Warnicke' <hagbard@...>
Cc: Kinsella, Ray <ray.kinsella@...>; Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbarach@...>; tsc@...
Subject: RE: [tsc] fd.io TSC meetings during holidays

 

Happy holidays.

 

George

 

From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagbard@...]
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 2:33 PM
To: George Zhao <George.Y.Zhao@...>
Cc: Kinsella, Ray <ray.kinsella@...>; Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbarach@...>; tsc@...
Subject: Re: [tsc] fd.io TSC meetings during holidays

 

It's looking to me like consensus on canceling both 21 and 28, so next TSC meeting would be Thu Jan 4.  See you guys then.

 

Ed

 

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 5:21 AM George Zhao <George.Y.Zhao@...> wrote:

+1 cancel 28th
0 cancel 21st

George

发件人:Kinsella, Ray

收件人:Dave Barach (dbarach),Ed Warnicke,tsc@...,

时间:2017-12-15 01:19:07

主 题:Re: [tsc] fd.io TSC meetings during holidays

 

 

+1 to Daves comments.

 

Ray K

 

From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Dave Barach (dbarach)
Sent: Friday 15 December 2017 02:01
To: Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...>; tsc@...
Subject: Re: [tsc] fd.io TSC meetings during holidays

 

The 28th is a no-go for sure. I’d be just as happy to cancel on the 21st as well.

 

Thanks… Dave

 

From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Ed Warnicke
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 6:04 PM
To: tsc@...
Subject: [tsc] fd.io TSC meetings during holidays

 

We are entering the holiday season.

 

Do we want to cancel fd.io TSC meetings on 

 

Dec 21

 

Dec 28

 

or both?

 

Ed


Re: fd.io TSC meetings during holidays

George Zhao
 

Happy holidays.

 

George

 

From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagbard@...]
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 2:33 PM
To: George Zhao <George.Y.Zhao@...>
Cc: Kinsella, Ray <ray.kinsella@...>; Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbarach@...>; tsc@...
Subject: Re: [tsc] fd.io TSC meetings during holidays

 

It's looking to me like consensus on canceling both 21 and 28, so next TSC meeting would be Thu Jan 4.  See you guys then.

 

Ed

 

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 5:21 AM George Zhao <George.Y.Zhao@...> wrote:

+1 cancel 28th
0 cancel 21st

George

发件人:Kinsella, Ray

收件人:Dave Barach (dbarach),Ed Warnicke,tsc@...,

时间:2017-12-15 01:19:07

题:Re: [tsc] fd.io TSC meetings during holidays

 

 

+1 to Dave’s comments.

 

Ray K

 

From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Dave Barach (dbarach)
Sent: Friday 15 December 2017 02:01
To: Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...>; tsc@...
Subject: Re: [tsc] fd.io TSC meetings during holidays

 

The 28th is a no-go for sure. I’d be just as happy to cancel on the 21st as well.

 

Thanks… Dave

 

From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Ed Warnicke
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 6:04 PM
To: tsc@...
Subject: [tsc] fd.io TSC meetings during holidays

 

We are entering the holiday season.

 

Do we want to cancel fd.io TSC meetings on 

 

Dec 21

 

Dec 28

 

or both?

 

Ed


Re: fd.io TSC meetings during holidays

Edward Warnicke
 

It's looking to me like consensus on canceling both 21 and 28, so next TSC meeting would be Thu Jan 4.  See you guys then.

Ed

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 5:21 AM George Zhao <George.Y.Zhao@...> wrote:
+1 cancel 28th
0 cancel 21st

George

发件人:Kinsella, Ray
收件人:Dave Barach (dbarach),Ed Warnicke,tsc@...,
时间:2017-12-15 01:19:07
主 题:Re: [tsc] fd.io TSC meetings during holidays

 

+1 to Dave’s comments.

 

Ray K

 

From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Dave Barach (dbarach)
Sent: Friday 15 December 2017 02:01
To: Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...>; tsc@...
Subject: Re: [tsc] fd.io TSC meetings during holidays

 

The 28th is a no-go for sure. I’d be just as happy to cancel on the 21st as well.

 

Thanks… Dave

 

From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Ed Warnicke
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 6:04 PM
To: tsc@...
Subject: [tsc] fd.io TSC meetings during holidays

 

We are entering the holiday season.

 

Do we want to cancel fd.io TSC meetings on 

 

Dec 21

 

Dec 28

 

or both?

 

Ed


Re: fd.io TSC meetings during holidays

George Zhao
 

+1 cancel 28th
0 cancel 21st

George

发件人:Kinsella, Ray
收件人:Dave Barach (dbarach),Ed Warnicke,tsc@...,
时间:2017-12-15 01:19:07
主 题:Re: [tsc] fd.io TSC meetings during holidays

 

+1 to Dave’s comments.

 

Ray K

 

From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Dave Barach (dbarach)
Sent: Friday 15 December 2017 02:01
To: Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...>; tsc@...
Subject: Re: [tsc] fd.io TSC meetings during holidays

 

The 28th is a no-go for sure. I’d be just as happy to cancel on the 21st as well.

 

Thanks… Dave

 

From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Ed Warnicke
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 6:04 PM
To: tsc@...
Subject: [tsc] fd.io TSC meetings during holidays

 

We are entering the holiday season.

 

Do we want to cancel fd.io TSC meetings on 

 

Dec 21

 

Dec 28

 

or both?

 

Ed


Re: fd.io TSC meetings during holidays

Ray Kinsella
 

 

+1 to Dave’s comments.

 

Ray K

 

From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Dave Barach (dbarach)
Sent: Friday 15 December 2017 02:01
To: Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...>; tsc@...
Subject: Re: [tsc] fd.io TSC meetings during holidays

 

The 28th is a no-go for sure. I’d be just as happy to cancel on the 21st as well.

 

Thanks… Dave

 

From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Ed Warnicke
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 6:04 PM
To: tsc@...
Subject: [tsc] fd.io TSC meetings during holidays

 

We are entering the holiday season.

 

Do we want to cancel fd.io TSC meetings on 

 

Dec 21

 

Dec 28

 

or both?

 

Ed


Re: fd.io TSC meetings during holidays

Dave Barach
 

The 28th is a no-go for sure. I’d be just as happy to cancel on the 21st as well.

 

Thanks… Dave

 

From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Ed Warnicke
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 6:04 PM
To: tsc@...
Subject: [tsc] fd.io TSC meetings during holidays

 

We are entering the holiday season.

 

Do we want to cancel fd.io TSC meetings on 

 

Dec 21

 

Dec 28

 

or both?

 

Ed


fd.io TSC meetings during holidays

Edward Warnicke
 

We are entering the holiday season.

Do we want to cancel fd.io TSC meetings on 

Dec 21

Dec 28

or both?

Ed


Re: [csit-dev] New Option for fd.io mailing lists: groups.io

Thomas F Herbert
 

I have found the UI for moderation on Mailman a little difficult.

Both systems require authentication via email to join. I would think that would reduce most bots/SPAM.

So the advantage if any of Groups.io is that it has a better gui. Do we se have use for  its wiki or calendar?

I have found the moderation view of the mailman gui a little confusing and maybe this I think may be the best advantage of groups.io. At least from the standpoint of a somewhat light user of moderation.

I think it would be transparent to participants.

--Tom


On 12/14/2017 10:45 AM, Ed Warnicke wrote:
A new option has become available for handling mailing lists: groups.io

As a community, we need to look at this option, provide feedback, and come to a decision as to whether or not to migrate.  A critical part of that is having folks take a look, ask questions, and express opinions :)

We have a sandbox example at  https://groups.io/g/lfn  you can look at

And an example with active list and imported archive: https://lists.odpi.org/g/odpi-sig-bi

Major benefits include searchability, better web interface, etc.

The LF was kind enough to write a FAQ for us as we consider as a community whether to migrate or not:

FAQs
Q: What are the key differences between Mailman and Groups.io?
●Groups.io has a modern interface, robust user security model, and interactive, searchable archives
●Groups.io provides advanced features including muting threads and integrations with modern tools like GitHub, Slack, and Trello
Groups.io also has optional extras like a shared calendar, polling, chat, a wiki, and more
Groups.io uses a concept of subgroups, where members first join the project “group” (a master list), then they choose the specific “subgroup” lists they want to subscribe to

Q: How is the experience different for me as a list moderator or participant?
In many ways, it is very much the same. You will still find the main group at your existing URL and sub-groups equate to the more focused mailing lists based on the community’s needs. Here is an example of main group and sub-group URL patterns, and their respective emails:


What is different is Groups.io’s simple but highly functional UI that will make the experience of moderating or participating in the community discussions more enjoyable.




_______________________________________________
csit-dev mailing list
csit-dev@...
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/csit-dev

--
Thomas F Herbert
NFV and Fast Data Planes
Networking Group Office of the CTO
Red Hat


Re: draft for new membership selection and transition procedures

George Zhao
 

I would start from 1. -J

 

From: Joel Halpern [mailto:joel.halpern@...]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 10:31 AM
To: George Zhao; Dave Barach (dbarach); Kinsella, Ray; 'tsc@...'
Subject: RE: [tsc] draft for new membership selection and transition procedures

 

Deferring final resolution on the size makes good sense to me. 

We should decide for the phase 2 transition how many at large members we want to add, 1, 2, or 3.

 

Yours,

Joel

 

From: George Zhao [mailto:George.Y.Zhao@...]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 1:27 PM
To: Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@...>; Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbarach@...>; Kinsella, Ray <ray.kinsella@...>; 'tsc@...' <tsc@...>
Subject: RE: [tsc] draft for new membership selection and transition procedures

 

Got your points, I agree with you that we don’t have to force the size to be big unless we see needs. Since during transition, most likely there would be 7 TSC (I assume 2 core PTL + 1 CAL TSC), at the end of the transition, we should have a better feeling about TSC size,  then TSC can vote how many of those 4 company reserved seats to be put into CAL category.

 

BR,

George

 

From: Joel Halpern [mailto:joel.halpern@...]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 10:03 AM
To: George Zhao; Dave Barach (dbarach); Kinsella, Ray; 'tsc@...'
Subject: RE: [tsc] draft for new membership selection and transition procedures

 

I guess I am more worried about the balance between Core and at-large than I am about the TSC size.  Part of our disagreement is that given the limited role of the TSC, I do not see making it larger a benefit in and of itself.  The TSC lists and meetings are open to all, so I do not want to turn membership into a proxy for information distribution.

 

So while the transition will result in an 8 or 9 member TSC for some period of time, I am concerned about aiming for 8 members after the Platinum members no longer hold reserved seats.  That would be 2 Core projects and 6 or 7 at large members.

I am also concerned that with the size of our active pool, and the intended limitations on the number of people from any single company, it can seems likely to be hard to fill 7 at large TSC seats.

 

Yours,

Joel

 

From: George Zhao [mailto:George.Y.Zhao@...]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 12:41 PM
To: Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbarach@...>; Kinsella, Ray <ray.kinsella@...>; Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@...>; 'tsc@...' <tsc@...>
Subject: RE: [tsc] draft for new membership selection and transition procedures

 

Joel did a very good draft.

As I said in the TSC meeting, DPDK has 9 technical board members, I think FD.io TSC probably should or would grow to that size, personally, I think 7-9 TSC is a reasonable number.

 

During transition time period, we can have platinum designates(4) + Core PTL(2) + CAL (?0-3), after transition period we can determine how many of the 4 seats to be put to CAL pool if not all, and there might be more projects promoted as core project. I think transition period should be one TSC term.

 

Just my 2 cents.

Thanks,

George

 

 

From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Dave Barach (dbarach)
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 6:32 AM
To: Kinsella, Ray; Joel Halpern; 'tsc@...'
Subject: Re: [tsc] draft for new membership selection and transition procedures

 

+1... Thanks… Dave

 

From: Kinsella, Ray [mailto:ray.kinsella@...]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 9:06 AM
To: Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbarach@...>; Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@...>; 'tsc@...' <tsc@...>
Subject: RE: [tsc] draft for new membership selection and transition procedures

 

Hi Dave,

 

I stand corrected on pruning on VPP (and I imagine CSIT as well).

 

I do think a general revision of committers status in fd.io sub-projects in advance of a TSC election is warranted.

 

Ray K

 

From: Dave Barach (dbarach) [mailto:dbarach@...]
Sent: Thursday 14 December 2017 13:41
To: Kinsella, Ray <ray.kinsella@...>; Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@...>; 'tsc@...' <tsc@...>
Subject: RE: [tsc] draft for new membership selection and transition procedures

 

Dear Ray,

 

We have pruned vpp project committers who stopped contributing by soliciting resignations. In these cases, we waited a good long time; by the time we asked the question, folks were perfectly OK with it.

 

Thanks… Dave

 

From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Kinsella, Ray
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 7:01 AM
To: Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@...>; 'tsc@...' <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [tsc] draft for new membership selection and transition procedures

 

Hi Joel,

 

Thank for this – this is really good work.

Some additional questions/points I would add for discussion.

 

  1. Over the past year FD.io VPP added a MAINTAINERS file, listing those folks responsible for maintaining different functional areas in VPP and as a stepping stone to ‘COMMITTER’ status.

    Should consider giving some formal recognition to the role and allow MAINTAINERS to have an equal vote in which COMMITTER is elected from a given core project? In practice I think it ends up being largely the same set of folks, but my feeling it is fair for MAINTAINERS to have an equal say in which COMMITTER is appointed from a core project.

 

  1. On the aging out of COMMITTERS – to the best of my knowledge in the lifespan FD.io we have never actually pruned any committers from a project. In addition there is a small a number of committers that got added at a sub-project inception – that have never actually made any commits to that sub-project.

    Should we consider asking each sub-project to consider revising their committer list to just those folks currently actively contributing and those who have substantial historical commits?

 

Thanks,

 

Ray K

 

From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Joel Halpern
Sent: Monday 11 December 2017 21:31
To: 'tsc@...' <tsc@...>
Subject: [tsc] draft for new membership selection and transition procedures

 

Can be found at:

https://wiki.fd.io/view/TSC/draft_election_procedures

 

Please comment here.

Please fix typographic and grammatical errors on the wiki.

 

Thank you,

Joel


Re: draft for new membership selection and transition procedures

Joel Halpern
 

Deferring final resolution on the size makes good sense to me. 

We should decide for the phase 2 transition how many at large members we want to add, 1, 2, or 3.

 

Yours,

Joel

 

From: George Zhao [mailto:George.Y.Zhao@...]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 1:27 PM
To: Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@...>; Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbarach@...>; Kinsella, Ray <ray.kinsella@...>; 'tsc@...' <tsc@...>
Subject: RE: [tsc] draft for new membership selection and transition procedures

 

Got your points, I agree with you that we don’t have to force the size to be big unless we see needs. Since during transition, most likely there would be 7 TSC (I assume 2 core PTL + 1 CAL TSC), at the end of the transition, we should have a better feeling about TSC size,  then TSC can vote how many of those 4 company reserved seats to be put into CAL category.

 

BR,

George

 

From: Joel Halpern [mailto:joel.halpern@...]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 10:03 AM
To: George Zhao; Dave Barach (dbarach); Kinsella, Ray; 'tsc@...'
Subject: RE: [tsc] draft for new membership selection and transition procedures

 

I guess I am more worried about the balance between Core and at-large than I am about the TSC size.  Part of our disagreement is that given the limited role of the TSC, I do not see making it larger a benefit in and of itself.  The TSC lists and meetings are open to all, so I do not want to turn membership into a proxy for information distribution.

 

So while the transition will result in an 8 or 9 member TSC for some period of time, I am concerned about aiming for 8 members after the Platinum members no longer hold reserved seats.  That would be 2 Core projects and 6 or 7 at large members.

I am also concerned that with the size of our active pool, and the intended limitations on the number of people from any single company, it can seems likely to be hard to fill 7 at large TSC seats.

 

Yours,

Joel

 

From: George Zhao [mailto:George.Y.Zhao@...]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 12:41 PM
To: Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbarach@...>; Kinsella, Ray <ray.kinsella@...>; Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@...>; 'tsc@...' <tsc@...>
Subject: RE: [tsc] draft for new membership selection and transition procedures

 

Joel did a very good draft.

As I said in the TSC meeting, DPDK has 9 technical board members, I think FD.io TSC probably should or would grow to that size, personally, I think 7-9 TSC is a reasonable number.

 

During transition time period, we can have platinum designates(4) + Core PTL(2) + CAL (?0-3), after transition period we can determine how many of the 4 seats to be put to CAL pool if not all, and there might be more projects promoted as core project. I think transition period should be one TSC term.

 

Just my 2 cents.

Thanks,

George

 

 

From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Dave Barach (dbarach)
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 6:32 AM
To: Kinsella, Ray; Joel Halpern; 'tsc@...'
Subject: Re: [tsc] draft for new membership selection and transition procedures

 

+1... Thanks… Dave

 

From: Kinsella, Ray [mailto:ray.kinsella@...]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 9:06 AM
To: Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbarach@...>; Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@...>; 'tsc@...' <tsc@...>
Subject: RE: [tsc] draft for new membership selection and transition procedures

 

Hi Dave,

 

I stand corrected on pruning on VPP (and I imagine CSIT as well).

 

I do think a general revision of committers status in fd.io sub-projects in advance of a TSC election is warranted.

 

Ray K

 

From: Dave Barach (dbarach) [mailto:dbarach@...]
Sent: Thursday 14 December 2017 13:41
To: Kinsella, Ray <ray.kinsella@...>; Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@...>; 'tsc@...' <tsc@...>
Subject: RE: [tsc] draft for new membership selection and transition procedures

 

Dear Ray,

 

We have pruned vpp project committers who stopped contributing by soliciting resignations. In these cases, we waited a good long time; by the time we asked the question, folks were perfectly OK with it.

 

Thanks… Dave

 

From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Kinsella, Ray
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 7:01 AM
To: Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@...>; 'tsc@...' <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [tsc] draft for new membership selection and transition procedures

 

Hi Joel,

 

Thank for this – this is really good work.

Some additional questions/points I would add for discussion.

 

  1. Over the past year FD.io VPP added a MAINTAINERS file, listing those folks responsible for maintaining different functional areas in VPP and as a stepping stone to ‘COMMITTER’ status.

    Should consider giving some formal recognition to the role and allow MAINTAINERS to have an equal vote in which COMMITTER is elected from a given core project? In practice I think it ends up being largely the same set of folks, but my feeling it is fair for MAINTAINERS to have an equal say in which COMMITTER is appointed from a core project.

 

  1. On the aging out of COMMITTERS – to the best of my knowledge in the lifespan FD.io we have never actually pruned any committers from a project. In addition there is a small a number of committers that got added at a sub-project inception – that have never actually made any commits to that sub-project.

    Should we consider asking each sub-project to consider revising their committer list to just those folks currently actively contributing and those who have substantial historical commits?

 

Thanks,

 

Ray K

 

From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Joel Halpern
Sent: Monday 11 December 2017 21:31
To: 'tsc@...' <tsc@...>
Subject: [tsc] draft for new membership selection and transition procedures

 

Can be found at:

https://wiki.fd.io/view/TSC/draft_election_procedures

 

Please comment here.

Please fix typographic and grammatical errors on the wiki.

 

Thank you,

Joel


Re: draft for new membership selection and transition procedures

George Zhao
 

Got your points, I agree with you that we don’t have to force the size to be big unless we see needs. Since during transition, most likely there would be 7 TSC (I assume 2 core PTL + 1 CAL TSC), at the end of the transition, we should have a better feeling about TSC size,  then TSC can vote how many of those 4 company reserved seats to be put into CAL category.

 

BR,

George

 

From: Joel Halpern [mailto:joel.halpern@...]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 10:03 AM
To: George Zhao; Dave Barach (dbarach); Kinsella, Ray; 'tsc@...'
Subject: RE: [tsc] draft for new membership selection and transition procedures

 

I guess I am more worried about the balance between Core and at-large than I am about the TSC size.  Part of our disagreement is that given the limited role of the TSC, I do not see making it larger a benefit in and of itself.  The TSC lists and meetings are open to all, so I do not want to turn membership into a proxy for information distribution.

 

So while the transition will result in an 8 or 9 member TSC for some period of time, I am concerned about aiming for 8 members after the Platinum members no longer hold reserved seats.  That would be 2 Core projects and 6 or 7 at large members.

I am also concerned that with the size of our active pool, and the intended limitations on the number of people from any single company, it can seems likely to be hard to fill 7 at large TSC seats.

 

Yours,

Joel

 

From: George Zhao [mailto:George.Y.Zhao@...]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 12:41 PM
To: Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbarach@...>; Kinsella, Ray <ray.kinsella@...>; Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@...>; 'tsc@...' <tsc@...>
Subject: RE: [tsc] draft for new membership selection and transition procedures

 

Joel did a very good draft.

As I said in the TSC meeting, DPDK has 9 technical board members, I think FD.io TSC probably should or would grow to that size, personally, I think 7-9 TSC is a reasonable number.

 

During transition time period, we can have platinum designates(4) + Core PTL(2) + CAL (?0-3), after transition period we can determine how many of the 4 seats to be put to CAL pool if not all, and there might be more projects promoted as core project. I think transition period should be one TSC term.

 

Just my 2 cents.

Thanks,

George

 

 

From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Dave Barach (dbarach)
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 6:32 AM
To: Kinsella, Ray; Joel Halpern; 'tsc@...'
Subject: Re: [tsc] draft for new membership selection and transition procedures

 

+1... Thanks… Dave

 

From: Kinsella, Ray [mailto:ray.kinsella@...]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 9:06 AM
To: Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbarach@...>; Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@...>; 'tsc@...' <tsc@...>
Subject: RE: [tsc] draft for new membership selection and transition procedures

 

Hi Dave,

 

I stand corrected on pruning on VPP (and I imagine CSIT as well).

 

I do think a general revision of committers status in fd.io sub-projects in advance of a TSC election is warranted.

 

Ray K

 

From: Dave Barach (dbarach) [mailto:dbarach@...]
Sent: Thursday 14 December 2017 13:41
To: Kinsella, Ray <ray.kinsella@...>; Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@...>; 'tsc@...' <tsc@...>
Subject: RE: [tsc] draft for new membership selection and transition procedures

 

Dear Ray,

 

We have pruned vpp project committers who stopped contributing by soliciting resignations. In these cases, we waited a good long time; by the time we asked the question, folks were perfectly OK with it.

 

Thanks… Dave

 

From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Kinsella, Ray
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 7:01 AM
To: Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@...>; 'tsc@...' <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [tsc] draft for new membership selection and transition procedures

 

Hi Joel,

 

Thank for this – this is really good work.

Some additional questions/points I would add for discussion.

 

  1. Over the past year FD.io VPP added a MAINTAINERS file, listing those folks responsible for maintaining different functional areas in VPP and as a stepping stone to ‘COMMITTER’ status.

    Should consider giving some formal recognition to the role and allow MAINTAINERS to have an equal vote in which COMMITTER is elected from a given core project? In practice I think it ends up being largely the same set of folks, but my feeling it is fair for MAINTAINERS to have an equal say in which COMMITTER is appointed from a core project.

 

  1. On the aging out of COMMITTERS – to the best of my knowledge in the lifespan FD.io we have never actually pruned any committers from a project. In addition there is a small a number of committers that got added at a sub-project inception – that have never actually made any commits to that sub-project.

    Should we consider asking each sub-project to consider revising their committer list to just those folks currently actively contributing and those who have substantial historical commits?

 

Thanks,

 

Ray K

 

From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Joel Halpern
Sent: Monday 11 December 2017 21:31
To: 'tsc@...' <tsc@...>
Subject: [tsc] draft for new membership selection and transition procedures

 

Can be found at:

https://wiki.fd.io/view/TSC/draft_election_procedures

 

Please comment here.

Please fix typographic and grammatical errors on the wiki.

 

Thank you,

Joel

821 - 840 of 1472