[Ofa_boardplus] logo program discussion

[Coulter, Susan K]

Jim,
My apologies … I’m not really asking for someone to create a summary.  (even though I said that)

The conversation was fairly free-flowing and covered a lot of aspects.
That is all great.
At some point we need to decide what to do with that information and feedback.

We cannot simply say “Logo program be gone” - even if there is some consensus among the folks contributing to the thread that it is useless.
( I am being somewhat flippant with my language - so please don’t take this too seriously )

The following companies are active participants in the Logo program and only Woody from Intel has spoken as a representative of any of these companies.  Therefore, without input from the organizations below - we don’t have the full picture.

Chelsio
DDN
IBM 
Intel
Mellanox
NetApp

So far ... the summary, IMO, is that some folks have said that while they have been intimately involved with purchasing IB/OPA equipment for years they have never used this program or looked at the list.  It contains mostly old hardware.  The history of the program and its funding was clarified.  Some feel it is useless and absurd. It is being paid for in a manner that results in a zero-sum situation - but that is only because the OFA has decided to do that and there is no guarantee of that going forward.  

Feel free to continue the conversation … and we’ll discuss in person as well.
(  that is what I meant by “rock on” in my previous post  :)


> On Sep 1, 2017, at 1:31 PM, Jim Ryan <jimdryan at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
> ==================================================
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

==================================================
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
==================================================