Re: Akraino Charter
Georg Kunz <georg.kunz@...>
Following up on Margaret’s a very good point here: assuming that (for whatever reasons) OPNFV was not able to attract enough developers in the long run, I am wondering if creating a second community with a very similar objective does not stretch resources even further – again, in the long run, i.e. after an initial phase of high attention.
It needs to be clearly defined if Akraino shall be an evolution of OPNFV or not (and then be honest about it). In any case, following this discussion, there is a huge overlap in the objectives of both communities, so it is fundamentally important to *jointly* i) consider lessons learned, ii) build on top of what has successfully been established, and iii) discuss gaps and how to close them and where.
From: main@... <main@...> On Behalf Of Margaret Chiosi
Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2018 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: [akraino] Akraino Charter
This may initially be an integration project like OPNFV – but not clear long term this is what we all agree on. I feel like OPNFV debate all over again.
The reason why OPNFV turned into integration is because we could NOT attract enough developers.
If we have the same challenge here (we need to be honest with ourselves) – then we should just then realize it will only be integration. If so, then we should take our learning on OPNFV to build akraino charter, labs, etc.
Or maybe just build on OPNFV labs.
VP Open Ecosystem Team
Admin: Sophie Johnson
+1 (908) 541-3590
Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
Fixed Network Solution CC
400 Crossing Blvd
Bridgewater, NJ 08807
It is confusing, yes. And it confirms that we've not made explicit whether Akraino is mainly an integration, development, or specification/standardization project.
I hope we can agree that Akraino is an *integration project*, whose mission it is (paraphrasing from Charter) to make it easier for our users to design/customize, build, and operate edge stacks for their given use case.
And no, this does not exclude us doing software development, e.g. testing tools&frameworks, adding auxiliary functionality for which no suitable upstream exists yet, etc.
And no, this does not exclude us doing specifications, e.g. of Edge APIs where no suitable APIs exist yet.
All it says is that such software development and specification work would be subordinate to the goal of enabling integration.
Secondly, I hope we can further agree that Akraino's goal is to *enable* integration, *not prescribe* a given integration.
Means, if our goal is to enable Akraino users to build an edge stack for Industrial IoT, Network Access Edge, etc., we'll ensure that the upstream components have the required functionality for those use cases and that this functionality also works end-to-end to meet those use cases, e.g. CPU resource management or GPU/TPU device management across app, middleware, Kubernetes and OpenStack. Or cross-stack operations.
We are (I hope) not trying to create "Akraino distributions" and spend large amounts of engineering resources on redoing integration, stabilization, hardening, etc. work that's already done by upstream projects and downstream products.
In that sense, I kind of disagree with calling Akraino a "mid-stream" project, because that would imply an expectation that downstream products that take source from upstreams like Kubernetes *via* Akraino instead of directly from them... which only makes sense if we envision to fork the upstreams or extend them in ways not acceptable to the upstreams...
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 10:15 PM <ildiko@...> wrote: