[Ofa_boardplus] Logo Program Discussion
jgunthorpe at obsidianresearch.com
Thu Aug 31 19:13:50 PDT 2017
I broke the thread and revised the subject so it is easier to
follow. Thanks for suggesting it Paul.
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 05:28:04PM -0700, Jim Ryan wrote:
> Ok, I think I see your point. Your consciously blending membership dues with
> interop program participation to make a point. I don't want to argue that
> point, but I do want to be painfully clear about something. The approach we
> take is conscious and, for example, specifically contrary to, for example the
Yes, I at least, have always understood this is how IWG operates.
> IBTA. We view interop as a program of value to participants who make the biz
> decision to fund it.
> actual components are, AFAIK, left behind after testing. I have requested
> another call for donations but, for whatever reason, that hasn't happened.
Ignoring donations, a logo program that pretty much exclusively
certifies discontinued equipment has deeply malfunctioned.
> I *do* have to ask you to not use terms along the lines of "membership
> funding"; there is no such thing.
When I use that term, I am refering to the direct funding from the
membership of the OFA to the OFA treasury in the form of general dues,
IWG particpation fees, special contributions, and sponsorship
opportunities. There certainly is such a thing :)
> Re the quality of testing, that's a challenge for the IWG. One of, if not *the*
> most important thing they're responsible for is quality of testing. If
> something is broken there, I'm not aware of it, and we need to come to
> understand this.
As far as granting logos to the submitted devices, it could be
As far as testing the OFED software and the open source stack around
it, it is vastly inadequate. I can say that confidently just from the
list of hardware being tested: It simply does not cover a very useful
(to end users) portion of the stack any longer.
So, again, I would like to see the OFA refocus this funding on better
testing. Scrap the logo program and ask the participating membership
to redirect the funding to direct software stack testing. Test the
software stack. Figure out how to directly buy modern hardware if
donations are not forthcoming. I hope this is the shape of the
discussion that is ongoing with the distros.
IMHO, this is how to get end-user orgs like RH, suse, LANL, etc to
particpate financially in the testing process.
> Finally, I realized I failed to respond to a point you made earlier. It's kinda
> delicate, but important. The OFA is specifically not "chartered" to develop
> specs and the IBTA and others are. There are IP provisions that need to exist
> if this is part of our mission or not. I can give you boring details if you
> want to hear more.
Yes, as I said, I've argued this semantic point with Paul before ...
I think this is something to fix in the new bylaws..
> The reason this is delicate is because the OFIWG has had to go right
> to the edge of what we can do, to use MAN pages to document expected
> API functionality. We have agreed this is short of a spec, but you
> get the point; it's a fine but important distinction.
.. because IP protections exist for a reason. Just because you call
the spec a MAN page, doesn't remove the need to be careful of IP
Safeguarding against IP issues is an important role for an open source
More information about the Ofa_boardplus