[Ofa_boardplus] 20 July 2017 Board minutes Corrected
Coulter, Susan K
skc at lanl.gov
Mon Jul 24 10:33:17 PDT 2017
Please lets not re-discuss the Intel funds as part of the minutes correction.
The only corrections I see at this time are
1. Correct spelling of Christoph’s name
2. Correct comment from Lilia
3. The LANL motion is correct as it was presented, but the negotiations were between JimR and myself, not JimP and myself.
4. Christoph’s comment about the need to review should also include: "There is concern regarding the value of paying for an ED at this time. There is concern that the legality of Intel’s funding is suspect."
> On Jul 24, 2017, at 10:55 AM, Christoph Lameter <christoph at lameter.com> wrote:
> How much is Intel contributing? Available means something needs to be
> done to actually get these funds?
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Pappas, Jim <jim.pappas at intel.com> wrote:
>> The intent was to provide bridge funding until OFA could support an ED out of its own budget. The rationale was that Intel had been effectively providing an ED function through the volunteer efforts. With the retirement of Jim Ryan, Intel was unable to continue this volunteer support. No other company was stepping up to provide that level of support.
>> My only concern at the beginning was to be sure that if Intel was providing bridge funding, it would have been for a person qualified to do the job. I certainly did not want to contribute this much money if it would be wasted. It was not tied to Jim Ryan specifically.
>> At this point, we have provided one year of support. I budgeted 18 months. If OFA can support an ED on its own, then I would be happy to discontinue to funding… but it is available for 2 additional quarters… through Q4 CY’17.
>> On 7/24/17, 9:15 AM, "christoph at graphe.net on behalf of Christoph Lameter" <christoph at graphe.net on behalf of christoph at lameter.com> wrote:
>> It was also not tied to any specific purpose in the OFA. It seems that
>> the initial commitment to provide funds from Intel has ended? What is
>> the offer of continuing that? I think that discussions needs to be
>> completely separate from where we will be doing going forward with the
>> ED position. Otherwise the tie in exists.
>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Pappas, Jim <jim.pappas at intel.com> wrote:
>>> I agree that it was not tied to Jim Ryan.
>>> On 7/24/17, 7:02 AM, "Ofa_boardplus on behalf of Christoph Lameter" <ofa_boardplus-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org on behalf of christoph at lameter.com> wrote:
>>> Ummm my name is spelled incorrectly. I also objected to Intel tying
>>> its payment to the employment of Jim Ryan. The minutes stated that
>>> Intel is paying for Jim Ryan at OFA. We have determined with legal
>>> counsel before that this is illegal. The arrangement is that Intel is
>>> donating to the OFA without additional conditions. That is what I
>>> voted for. There cannot be a tie in to the employment of Jim Ryan as
>>> suggested by Jim Pappas
>>> Ofa_boardplus mailing list
>>> Ofa_boardplus at lists.openfabrics.org
> Ofa_boardplus mailing list
> Ofa_boardplus at lists.openfabrics.org
Susan Coulter / HPC-DES
Network Capability Lead
“Once in a while you get shown the light
In the strangest of places if you look at it right” Robert Hunter
More information about the Ofa_boardplus