[Ofa_boardplus] Logo Program Discussion

[Jim Ryan]

Jason, because of my idiot gmail  system, I have to copy/paste your
comments below. I apologize for the redundancy this will likely present:
> 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.

>>>[JR] if that were the case, I'd have to agree, and I hope it's not. My
best info is there are new devices coming in for testing. If that's not the
case, I have no defense or further arguments.

> 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 :)

>>>[JR] I'm sorry, but I continue to disagree. OFA members make a specific
decision to pay dues and they make a separate decision as to whether to pay
logo/interop participation fees. I'm asking you to respect that and I'm
perplexed as to why you want to remove that option from them

> 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
fine.

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.

>>>[JR] I'm asking you to not lose this train of thought. I think this
could be really useful, w/o prejudging the outcome of the discussion. Plz
continue

> 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 ...

>>>[JR] yes, again, we've walked this thin line. We can certainly address
this as part of our Bylaws review and that, of course, is the right way to
address this issue. Please don't give up; this could be extremely important
to us

Jim

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
issues :)

Safeguarding against IP issues is an important role for an open source
foundation.
x

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Jason Gunthorpe <
jgunthorpe at obsidianresearch.com> wrote:

> 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
> fine.
>
> 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
> issues :)
>
> Safeguarding against IP issues is an important role for an open source
> foundation.
>
> Jason
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/ofa_boardplus/attachments/20170831/d570793a/attachment.html>