[Ofa_boardplus] Logo Program Discussion

Fri Sep 1 04:07:48 PDT 2017

So, I did not receive a copy of the slides, but I will pose some overall
questions/comments to OFA.

Who do you think your customer base is?
What is your value add to your customer base?
How is this value perceived by your customer base?
Do you have buy-in from your customer base? (Obvious by their
participation/commitment)
What is your "product"?
Why do I want your product?
Who supports your product?
Will it run on all of my HW/SW?
Do you have a support model?
Is it vendor supported?
Does it have a strong/vibrant community behind it?
Do I have a good "brand-name?"
How rapidly can you adapt to new HW offerings?

If OFA considers themselves the guardian of an API/Spec. they why would
they worry about
a "plug-fest" or funding it? You HAVE to be vendor neutral. If you are
not, then you should
either disband or rename yourself to "vendor-Y-Spec".

If you look at something like MPI. They have a spec/man pages/API...
There are several
implementations. They do actually have V&V capabilities and a very
vibrant community.
The last I knew, they did not "fund" directly a plug-fest. The users
sort this out by not
using things that are not compatible.

What/how is OFA going to address things like CCIX/GENZ/... My assumption
is that we will
rely on "vendor" support. But for what? The entire stack? Hooking into
some API/Spec?

IMHO, if OFA is to survive, it needs to learn to be agile and know
exactly what its offerings
are to be, and they should be very focused.

Steve...

On 8/31/17 21:47, Jim Ryan wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/ofa_boardplus/attachments/20170901/24c89eb7/attachment.html>
-------------- 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/20170901/24c89eb7/attachment.sig>