[Ofa_boardplus] OFA XWG Agenda 9/14

[Coulter, Susan K]

> On Sep 14, 2017, at 5:12 PM, Paul Grun <grun at cray.com> wrote:
> 
> I am not particularly interested in the case where all, or substantially all, our members flee.  IMHO, that case is pretty easy...there is no OFA.  No reserves required at all. 
> 
> The much more likely scenario, IMHO, is one where we suffer a slump in income over a relatively extended period of time.  As I mentioned, there is precedence for this to be found in other trade organizations.  We should hold enough reserves to get us through those storms.   
> 
> I am not suggesting keeping a two year operating reserve.  But I am suggesting a one year reserve which can be used to carry us through a protracted slump in income.  Not ZERO income, just reduced income.  Big difference.

Sorry - I guess I read that wrong - we are on the same page wrt reasonable reserve level then.

> 
> -Paul
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Coulter, Susan K [mailto:skc at lanl.gov]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 3:48 PM
>> To: Paul Grun <grun at cray.com>
>> Cc: Fields, Parks M <parks at lanl.gov>; Coulter, Susan K <skc at lanl.gov>;
>> ofa_boardplus at lists.openfabrics.org, <ofa_boardplus at lists.openfabrics.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Ofa_boardplus] OFA XWG Agenda 9/14
>> 
>> 
>> From the 2018 draft budget:
>> Our projected operating expenses without the conference or interop (as they are
>> supposed to break even) and without the $10k optional expenditure for
>> maintainer travel/support is $129,798.
>> 
>> Reserving 2 years operating expenses in the face of zero income is not
>> reasonable in my opinion.
>> If every member did not renew for 2 years - there is no OFA.
>> If every member did not renew for 1 year - there is no OFA.
>> If 1/2 the members did not renew for 1 year - the OFA continues, but our survival
>> would be seriously in doubt.
>> Slumps are one thing - mass exodus is another.
>> 
>> I contend that 1 full year of operating expenses as our Operating Reserves is
>> plenty.
>> 
>> As for how to spend the operating reserves:
>> 
>> Being conservative in our approach is commendable, but there is a time to be
>> conservative and there is a time to be bold.
>> 
>> Both of these “positions” were are talking about funding are contract positions.
>> Neither one is enough to be a full time job for anyone with the skills we are
>> looking for.
>> So, these positions are not that different from what Sean suggests as “specific
>> development” work.
>> They will more than likely be filled by someone looking for part-time or adjunct
>> work.
>> 
>> If we do not fund these 2 positions in FY18, I fear the OFA will lose even more
>> ground.
>> If we lose our current ED, progress on various projects will stall.
>> There is not enough participation from the volunteer board members to keep this
>> boat fully afloat.
>> 
>> If we do not hire a maintainer (or at the least contract for specific development
>> work) the code base may suffer and our standing in the community will stall or
>> regress.
>> 
>> We cannot wait an entire year to make this move.
>> 
>> For those who do not want to spend reserves on these positions - please
>> immediately start a conversation with whomever is funding the OFA membership
>> for your organization.  As I said on the call - I have done this at LANL and I have
>> tentative approval for a doubling of the membership fee.
>> 
>> As promised, I have attached the talking points I used, and the modified contracts
>> used to ballpark the “doubling” of the fee.
> 

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