[Ofa_boardplus] Logo Program Discussion

[Stephen Poole]

Again, +1.

On 8/31/17 20:13, Jason Gunthorpe 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
> _______________________________________________
> Ofa_boardplus mailing list
> Ofa_boardplus at lists.openfabrics.org
> http://lists.openfabrics.org/mailman/listinfo/ofa_boardplus

-- 
Regards,
Steve...

May you be able to pursue what you love, yet excel at what you
must do.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/ofa_boardplus/attachments/20170901/4bd9b7af/attachment.sig>