[Ofa_boardplus] Logo Program Discussion

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 08:47:53PM -0700, Jim Ryan wrote:
>> Ignoring donations, a logo program that pretty much exclusively
>> certifies discontinued equipment has deeply malfunctioned.
> 
> 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'm stating it as fact. The last several iterations of the logo
program certified almost exclusively discountined or legacy
hardware. Why is this a surprise???

>> 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 :)
> 
> 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

Sure, the members do, but the OFA does not work on a restricted
funding model. IWG dues go into the general treasury like everything
else. Past boards have set the IWG dues level at 100% of the program
cost, but future boards are free to change that. Talking about the
total budget of the OFA and how it proportions is a legimate analysis,
and the fact that 50% of the incoming member funding is directed
toward UNH *is relevant*

>> 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.
> 
> 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

Looks like several voting board members have +1'd this concept, so
Susan, can we move to an agenda, or do you want me to talk to the IWG
group or????

> 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

Yes, please address this during the bylaws review. For everyone's
safety the IP protections should be described as iron clad not 'walked
this thin line' :(

Jason