TSC Members in attendance:

on-site:

Timo Perala Magnus Buhrgard (Unlicensed) Gervais-Martial Ngueko Paweł Pawlak

Remote:

N.K. Shankaranarayanan Andreas Geißler Dong Wang Keguang He

Minutes:

TSC members cannot be expected to invest at the same level of the previous TSC chair
TSC members should divide the responsibilities among them. The focus should be on higher level, strategic topics, not the day-2-day housekeeping
One of the most important tasks for the TSC is to recruit new contributors. Need to think out of the box - Academic collaboration could be one way to increase contribution
It could be beneficial to identify the “core” project under ONAP
ONAP is on a low point currently on the ‘hype curve’ - need to work together to transform that perception.
The large size of ONAP as a platform is a burden. Need to find ways to address this.
We should start by listing the existing roles/tasks of the chair. That way TSC members could device the work between them
Whoever steps up to the chair role should feel they have the support of the rest of the TSC members who are willing to carry out some of the tasks.
The TSC should have a unified messaging to the outside world. There should be one message pushed and made visible by all TSC members.
The topic for discussion here is the role of the chair. There are many other decisions to be made, but focus on #8 above should be first goal
Proposal to have two vice-chairs who will help the chair and focus on specific topics
The role of the chair and vice-chair should be part of the strategic ONAP taksforce (led by Magnus)
The TSC needs to decide how to use the time during meetings, and what tasks could be covered in the PTL meetings
We may have a TSC member willing to step up to this challenge, but only if they feel the workload will be shared with the rest of the TSC members
It is important to have an Integration project leader. Without it ONAP cannot really move forward. @Andreas and his team are doing everything they possibly can to fix the integration gating issues
Integration team itself may be a candidate for splitting responsibility. They currently have more on their plate than they can handle
The TSC needs to agree ho to split the work
It is important to re-think the scope of ONAP, and potentially choose more humble goals that are achievable (in terms of use cases, modules). The question to be asked is “how much should be expected from an open source software project?” Does ONAP really need to be a platform that integrates all the sub-projects? Other open source initiatives (e.g. CNCF) share a common set of principles, but their projects are loosely-coupled.
Some technical points of onap can be more easily used and integrated by others, rather than users needing to introduce the whole onap, which is too heavy for users. I hope that under the leadership of the tsc, can provide more integration guidance for some existing excellent technologies. At the same time, we hope to cooperate with more standards organizations to expand the influence of ONAP in the field of standards.
Points to focus on moving forward:

ONAP Software Platform

Software Releases

Use Cases/Core Applications

Liaisons

Publicity

Membership/Usage

Action items

Paweł Pawlak sill self-nominate for the role, assuming he will get support from the rest of the TSC according to the proposed R&R document that he will propose.
Paweł Pawlak will circulate a proposal for the role of chair and vice chair(s). It will include a set of expectations from TSC members
Ranny Haiby will work with Kenny Paul to find good examples of TSC chair role definitions

Browser not supported