[Ofa_boardplus] logo program discussion

[Jim Ryan]

I would like very much to create the summary I think you're entirely
correct to ask for. I'll have to go to some resources w/n the OFA because I
know enough to be dangerous and I want to be sure I add light and not heat
;^))

OK

tx, j

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Coulter, Susan K <skc at lanl.gov> wrote:

>
> My only concern with discussing this on email is someone at some point
> needs to try and summarize what was said, agreed to, decided.
> (if anything)
> I think the discussion is valuable, so even if nothing is “decided” the
> discussion has been valuable.
>
> So far it seems that there is a difference of opinion on the value of the
> logo program, and the value of it to the larger membership.
> The fine points of who pays and how they pay are difficult ones because
> “we have always done it this way”.
> The OFA has existed for many years and pretty much chugged along and
> nothing much changed, so perhaps it feels like “we will always do it this
> way”.  If the OFA moves into a new model, the membership may change and be
> more dynamic going forward.  So those fine points may come back to bite us.
>
> You are correct that the OFA has a lot on its plate.  That is a massive
> understatement actually.
> That said, I do think we will need to discuss this at an XWG meeting in
> the near future - regardless of any ongoing email thread.
>
> Rock on ;)
>
>
> > On Sep 1, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason Gunthorpe <
> jgunthorpe at obsidianresearch.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 10:06:14AM -0700, Jim Ryan wrote:
> >> There has been a good deal of discussion on this since yesterday's Board
> >> meeting in two now lengthy threads "Logo Program Discussion" and
> "Jason's draft
> >> preso...". I'm getting some heated comments this has gone on too long
> and this
> >> isn't the right forum.
> >
> > Then what is the right forum?
> >
> > The XWG and Board meetings routinely go over time and fail to reach
> > all the items, if the board specific mailing list is not an
> > appropriate forum to discuss board buisness between meetings then what
> > is?
> >
> > The OFA has *ALOT* on it's plate. Making progress on items through the
> > mailing list is, in my view, a completely acceptable way for the board
> > to do buisness. I am disappointed by the idea that some people do not
> > agree.
> >
> >> Therefore I'm going to suggest starting a new thread including those
> who've
> >> spoken up or are known to have an interest in this area, including
> myself, Paul
> >
> > I already started a new thread :)
> >
> >> BTW, I accept the criticism that this ran on too long here. I want to
> explain
> >> without being defensive I continued because:
> >
> > I do not accept that criticism.
> >
> > In fact I think it is out of line and deeply inappropriate for some
> > parties to privately try and shut down an open and productive
> > discussion between members of the board.
> >
> > It is email, if you don't want to read the thread then mute it in your
> > mail client.
> >
> > And thanks to Jim for showing better judgement and continuing to
> > provide very valuable information and perspective..
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jason
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ofa_boardplus mailing list
> > Ofa_boardplus at lists.openfabrics.org
> > http://lists.openfabrics.org/mailman/listinfo/ofa_boardplus
>
> ==================================================
> Susan Coulter / HPC-DES
> Network Capability Lead
> (505) 667-8425
> “Once in a while you get shown the light
>     In the strangest of places if you look at it right”  Robert Hunter
> ==================================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/ofa_boardplus/attachments/20170901/66689f71/attachment.html>