1. Topics
  2. What's the point? (or,"What's the Emperor wearing?")

What's the point? (or,"What's the Emperor wearing?")

Nick Chase
 

First off, please take this in the sprit in which it's intended. It's not meant to be snarky or argumentative, (though it will probably sound that way), it's just meant to start a conversation.

I've been thinking a lot about the conversation about working groups from this morning's meeting, and I think we're missing a fundamental issue.

What I heard was a lot of talk about how "we don't want to be kingmakers" and "people put more importance on being a CNCF project than they should".  Well, if being a CNCF project doesn't mean anything ... why do it?

In fact, why have a foundation at all?

If the purpose of the CNCF is just to foster cloud native computing, and not to validate a project's existence, then why handle projects at all?  Why not just create standards, or even just recommendations, as W3C did/does(?).

I guess what I'm saying is that while nobody likes politics -- and believe me I DESPISE them -- if you're going to have a foundation that is supposed to mean something, then ... it should mean something.

So my feeling is that we either bite the bullet and get tough about letting projects in -- even if that means asking them to perhaps work together, or create a joint API and then manage the API -- or we drop the pretenses and just create a directory anybody can add themselves to.

See, I told you it would sound snarky, but really, I am only trying to start the discussion.

Somebody please, tell me what I'm missing here.

----  Nick
Jessica Frazelle <me@...>
 



On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 18:04 Nick Chase <nchase@...> wrote:
First off, please take this in the sprit in which it's intended. It's
not meant to be snarky or argumentative, (though it will probably sound
that way), it's just meant to start a conversation.

I've been thinking a lot about the conversation about working groups
from this morning's meeting, and I think we're missing a fundamental issue.

What I heard was a lot of talk about how "we don't want to be
kingmakers" and "people put more importance on being a CNCF project than
they should".  Well, if being a CNCF project doesn't mean anything ...
why do it?

In my opinion the foundations role should be a space for shared IP.

And I agreed that people are putting too much importance on being in the foundation. You can do open source without a foundation. The foundations role should not be marketing projects and creating non-organic growth but helping the projects have a space to work without worrying about IP or licensing. It should also help the communities of those projects get things they need like money for CI infrastructure or other things and making sure those projects communities are healthy.

thats what a foundation is in imho.


In fact, why have a foundation at all?

If the purpose of the CNCF is just to foster cloud native computing, and
not to validate a project's existence, then why handle projects at all? 
Why not just create standards, or even just recommendations, as W3C
did/does(?).

I guess what I'm saying is that while nobody likes politics -- and
believe me I DESPISE them -- if you're going to have a foundation that
is supposed to mean something, then ... it should mean something.

So my feeling is that we either bite the bullet and get tough about
letting projects in -- even if that means asking them to perhaps work
together, or create a joint API and then manage the API -- or we drop
the pretenses and just create a directory anybody can add themselves to.

See, I told you it would sound snarky, but really, I am only trying to
start the discussion.

Somebody please, tell me what I'm missing here.

----  Nick



--


Jessie Frazelle
4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC  511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
pgp.mit.edu
Joseph Jacks <j@...>
 

I agree with Jessie!

On Sep 18, 2018, at 3:30 PM, Jessica Frazelle via Lists.Cncf.Io <me=jessfraz.com@...> wrote:



On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 18:04 Nick Chase <nchase@...> wrote:
First off, please take this in the sprit in which it's intended. It's
not meant to be snarky or argumentative, (though it will probably sound
that way), it's just meant to start a conversation.

I've been thinking a lot about the conversation about working groups
from this morning's meeting, and I think we're missing a fundamental issue.

What I heard was a lot of talk about how "we don't want to be
kingmakers" and "people put more importance on being a CNCF project than
they should".  Well, if being a CNCF project doesn't mean anything ...
why do it?

In my opinion the foundations role should be a space for shared IP.

And I agreed that people are putting too much importance on being in the foundation. You can do open source without a foundation. The foundations role should not be marketing projects and creating non-organic growth but helping the projects have a space to work without worrying about IP or licensing. It should also help the communities of those projects get things they need like money for CI infrastructure or other things and making sure those projects communities are healthy.

thats what a foundation is in imho.


In fact, why have a foundation at all?

If the purpose of the CNCF is just to foster cloud native computing, and
not to validate a project's existence, then why handle projects at all? 
Why not just create standards, or even just recommendations, as W3C
did/does(?).

I guess what I'm saying is that while nobody likes politics -- and
believe me I DESPISE them -- if you're going to have a foundation that
is supposed to mean something, then ... it should mean something.

So my feeling is that we either bite the bullet and get tough about
letting projects in -- even if that means asking them to perhaps work
together, or create a joint API and then manage the API -- or we drop
the pretenses and just create a directory anybody can add themselves to.

See, I told you it would sound snarky, but really, I am only trying to
start the discussion.

Somebody please, tell me what I'm missing here.

----  Nick



--


Jessie Frazelle
4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC  511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
pgp.mit.edu
Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>
 


I agree with Jessie -- and for whatever it's worth, here were my reasons to be involved with the CNCF during its inception over three years ago:


I expanded on that ~five months later:


Three years later, that's still the appeal for me: serving our industry by serving the open source projects that represent the foundation for cloud-native infrastructure.  I think we have had some successes in that regard -- but not without our share of stumbles.  The conversation this morning was a promising start to a conversation that sorely needs to be had -- and is likely without easy answers.

       - Bryan




On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 3:30 PM, Jessica Frazelle via Lists.Cncf.Io <me=jessfraz.com@...> wrote:


On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 18:04 Nick Chase <nchase@...> wrote:
First off, please take this in the sprit in which it's intended. It's
not meant to be snarky or argumentative, (though it will probably sound
that way), it's just meant to start a conversation.

I've been thinking a lot about the conversation about working groups
from this morning's meeting, and I think we're missing a fundamental issue.

What I heard was a lot of talk about how "we don't want to be
kingmakers" and "people put more importance on being a CNCF project than
they should".  Well, if being a CNCF project doesn't mean anything ...
why do it?

In my opinion the foundations role should be a space for shared IP.

And I agreed that people are putting too much importance on being in the foundation. You can do open source without a foundation. The foundations role should not be marketing projects and creating non-organic growth but helping the projects have a space to work without worrying about IP or licensing. It should also help the communities of those projects get things they need like money for CI infrastructure or other things and making sure those projects communities are healthy.

thats what a foundation is in imho.


In fact, why have a foundation at all?

If the purpose of the CNCF is just to foster cloud native computing, and
not to validate a project's existence, then why handle projects at all? 
Why not just create standards, or even just recommendations, as W3C
did/does(?).

I guess what I'm saying is that while nobody likes politics -- and
believe me I DESPISE them -- if you're going to have a foundation that
is supposed to mean something, then ... it should mean something.

So my feeling is that we either bite the bullet and get tough about
letting projects in -- even if that means asking them to perhaps work
together, or create a joint API and then manage the API -- or we drop
the pretenses and just create a directory anybody can add themselves to.

See, I told you it would sound snarky, but really, I am only trying to
start the discussion.

Somebody please, tell me what I'm missing here.

----  Nick



--


Jessie Frazelle
4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC  511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
pgp.mit.edu
alexis richardson
 

The foundation exists to foster cloud native technology and adoption by end users 

The basis for this is that certain open source projects solve problems specific to cloud native, as defined by the cncf 

Being a neutral home for those projects and providing core services and help has to be the absolute baseline.  All projects however nascent have the right to ask for that.

Helping with adoption requires users and the cncf to have a conversation in which technologies are recommended, as are patterns and other best practices eg for interop, scale, what have you 

If you combine the above then you need:

1. a high bar for projects that are being recommended to customers.  Incubation and graduation have a high bar.  It could be higher 

2. a low bar for new (sandbox) projects that are high risk but need a neutral venue and core services

3. commitment to prune failures out of the sandbox, in a timely manner

4. clarity around this model

We continue to fail at 4.

Marketing of projects is something everyone will debate.  It is hard to separate user engagement from marketing - the activities are so similar.

I recommend review of the Sandbox marketing language.  If you feel the CNCF is handling this badly please speak out.  Sandbox is a very limited blessing but the projects are entitled to be excited about joining the Sandbox.

Today's discussion was about how we scale CNCF and the TOC.  The WGs and Categories are possible ways to federate work.  That all obviously need more thought and care.  Even if we had no sandbox we would still have to resolve this issue.








On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 00:02 Joseph Jacks, <j@...> wrote:
I agree with Jessie!

On Sep 18, 2018, at 3:30 PM, Jessica Frazelle via Lists.Cncf.Io <me=jessfraz.com@...> wrote:



On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 18:04 Nick Chase <nchase@...> wrote:
First off, please take this in the sprit in which it's intended. It's
not meant to be snarky or argumentative, (though it will probably sound
that way), it's just meant to start a conversation.

I've been thinking a lot about the conversation about working groups
from this morning's meeting, and I think we're missing a fundamental issue.

What I heard was a lot of talk about how "we don't want to be
kingmakers" and "people put more importance on being a CNCF project than
they should".  Well, if being a CNCF project doesn't mean anything ...
why do it?

In my opinion the foundations role should be a space for shared IP.

And I agreed that people are putting too much importance on being in the foundation. You can do open source without a foundation. The foundations role should not be marketing projects and creating non-organic growth but helping the projects have a space to work without worrying about IP or licensing. It should also help the communities of those projects get things they need like money for CI infrastructure or other things and making sure those projects communities are healthy.

thats what a foundation is in imho.


In fact, why have a foundation at all?

If the purpose of the CNCF is just to foster cloud native computing, and
not to validate a project's existence, then why handle projects at all? 
Why not just create standards, or even just recommendations, as W3C
did/does(?).

I guess what I'm saying is that while nobody likes politics -- and
believe me I DESPISE them -- if you're going to have a foundation that
is supposed to mean something, then ... it should mean something.

So my feeling is that we either bite the bullet and get tough about
letting projects in -- even if that means asking them to perhaps work
together, or create a joint API and then manage the API -- or we drop
the pretenses and just create a directory anybody can add themselves to.

See, I told you it would sound snarky, but really, I am only trying to
start the discussion.

Somebody please, tell me what I'm missing here.

----  Nick



--


Jessie Frazelle
4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC  511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
pgp.mit.edu
Matt Farina
 

In addition to what Jess said, a foundation provides a vendor neutral (or as close as we can get) location for a project. Competitors on products and services have a place to work together on projects that are not controlled by a single vendor in its governance.

I think this is one of the biggest reasons for a foundation. Not everything needs this. But, some foundational things benefit from it.

Then there is being frank on the politics. People are trying to game the system for career advancement, getting money for startups, more tag lines in marketing campaigns, for bragging rights, and more. In this highly competitive marketplace with money being thrown to the degree it is, I don’t know if we can avoid this all together.

But, we can put a target on being useful and building useful things. For this I mean Jakob Nielsen’s definition whose gist is useful = usability + utility. Projects and people can be promoted for the useful.

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com
Jessica Frazelle <me@...>
 

Yeah that was what I meant with shared IP.

I think there are ways to limit the effect of gamification of the
system and I think you all have done a great job of this so far
especially with the format for sandbox projects....

I think this is more a culture problem in that, if people see the
leaders of projects and in the community pushing for more projects to
be added to the foundation at a very past pace then we have lost a
culture of "making the best tool of high quality for the job" and we
lost a culture of innovation.... we merely have the culture of
"winning". Which I am still unsure as to what people seek to win but I
digress.

Regardless, I think the right measures are in place with the sandbox
to limit kingmaking. I think the focus should now be put on promoting
(and I don't mean marketing) but leading the ecosystem to focus on
building tools that innovate technology in the cloud native space with
a high importance on quality and fostering collaboration. Then when
those projects need help with things the foundation can offer, money
for infrastructure, a place for shared IP it seems like it would be
obvious that they should be projects in the foundation, of course they
need to qualify etc.

Just my 2 cents.

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 1:12 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

In addition to what Jess said, a foundation provides a vendor neutral (or as close as we can get) location for a project. Competitors on products and services have a place to work together on projects that are not controlled by a single vendor in its governance.

I think this is one of the biggest reasons for a foundation. Not everything needs this. But, some foundational things benefit from it.

Then there is being frank on the politics. People are trying to game the system for career advancement, getting money for startups, more tag lines in marketing campaigns, for bragging rights, and more. In this highly competitive marketplace with money being thrown to the degree it is, I don’t know if we can avoid this all together.

But, we can put a target on being useful and building useful things. For this I mean Jakob Nielsen’s definition whose gist is useful = usability + utility. Projects and people can be promoted for the useful.

--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



--


Jessie Frazelle
4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC 511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
pgp.mit.edu
Matt Klein <mklein@...>
 

Then when
those projects need help with things the foundation can offer, money
for infrastructure, a place for shared IP it seems like it would be
obvious that they should be projects in the foundation, of course they
need to qualify etc.

Beyond neutral IP, I agree this is the most important thing the foundation provides, and IMHO CNCF does not do enough of it (there are so many things that high velocity projects need I could go on and on and on). Unfortunately, this is the area in which decisions will need to be made. There are limited funds and they will need to be allocated across the increasing portfolio of projects in the foundation, so clearly some decision criteria will need to be developed (whether based on graduation level or something else) to decide how funds are allocated and for what purpose (and unfortunately this in and of itself will involve politics).

I'm happy to see this conversation happening, as I ultimately I do believe that some level of choosing "favorites" is going to be required for the foundation to realize its full benefit to its most popular member projects.

 

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Jessica Frazelle via Lists.Cncf.Io <me=jessfraz.com@...> wrote:
Yeah that was what I meant with shared IP.

I think there are ways to limit the effect of gamification of the
system and I think you all have done a great job of this so far
especially with the format for sandbox projects....

I think this is more a culture problem in that, if people see the
leaders of projects and in the community pushing for more projects to
be added to the foundation at a very past pace then we have lost a
culture of "making the best tool of high quality for the job" and we
lost a culture of innovation.... we merely have the culture of
"winning". Which I am still unsure as to what people seek to win but I
digress.

Regardless, I think the right measures are in place with the sandbox
to limit kingmaking. I think the focus should now be put on promoting
(and I don't mean marketing) but leading the ecosystem to focus on
building tools that innovate technology in the cloud native space with
a high importance on quality and fostering collaboration. Then when
those projects need help with things the foundation can offer, money
for infrastructure, a place for shared IP it seems like it would be
obvious that they should be projects in the foundation, of course they
need to qualify etc.

Just my 2 cents.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 1:12 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
>
> In addition to what Jess said, a foundation provides a vendor neutral (or as close as we can get) location for a project. Competitors on products and services have a place to work together on projects that are not controlled by a single vendor in its governance.
>
> I think this is one of the biggest reasons for a foundation. Not everything needs this. But, some foundational things benefit from it.
>
> Then there is being frank on the politics. People are trying to game the system for career advancement, getting money for startups, more tag lines in marketing campaigns, for bragging rights, and more. In this highly competitive marketplace with money being thrown to the degree it is, I don’t know if we can avoid this all together.
>
> But, we can put a target on being useful and building useful things. For this I mean Jakob Nielsen’s definition whose gist is useful = usability + utility. Projects and people can be promoted for the useful.
>
> --
> Matt Farina
> mattfarina.com
>
>
>
>



--


Jessie Frazelle
4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC  511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
pgp.mit.edu






--

alexis richardson
 

Matt

I kicked off a new thread on the "helping projects" topic you & Jessie have homed in on.

Re: "favourites"

I think this ought to be simple:
1) Graduated & Incubated projects get lots of help & pref.  
2) Sandbox get much less, and zero marketing, per the guidelines

I hope we can scale (1) in line with overall CNCF growth & budget.

I think Sandbox projects will be many, for a number of reasons that I am happy to bore everyone with.  So their budget needs to be limited.  They are not "favourites".  They may fail to get to incubation.  But, they need a neutral home & various forms of help that I think can be boxed into Categories/WGs

Incubated / Graduated projects ARE favoured.  There is real DD, and TOC care here.  The CNCF is making bets & should back them up.  "But you say you are not a kingmaker organisation", some people complain.  On the contrary - we do not pick winners, and can back more than one horse.  The clear example right now is in service mesh where we see multiple high quality projects.  There are and will be others.  

a




On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 5:20 AM Matt Klein via Lists.Cncf.Io <mklein=lyft.com@...> wrote:
Then when
those projects need help with things the foundation can offer, money
for infrastructure, a place for shared IP it seems like it would be
obvious that they should be projects in the foundation, of course they
need to qualify etc.

Beyond neutral IP, I agree this is the most important thing the foundation provides, and IMHO CNCF does not do enough of it (there are so many things that high velocity projects need I could go on and on and on). Unfortunately, this is the area in which decisions will need to be made. There are limited funds and they will need to be allocated across the increasing portfolio of projects in the foundation, so clearly some decision criteria will need to be developed (whether based on graduation level or something else) to decide how funds are allocated and for what purpose (and unfortunately this in and of itself will involve politics).

I'm happy to see this conversation happening, as I ultimately I do believe that some level of choosing "favorites" is going to be required for the foundation to realize its full benefit to its most popular member projects.

 

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Jessica Frazelle via Lists.Cncf.Io <me=jessfraz.com@...> wrote:
Yeah that was what I meant with shared IP.

I think there are ways to limit the effect of gamification of the
system and I think you all have done a great job of this so far
especially with the format for sandbox projects....

I think this is more a culture problem in that, if people see the
leaders of projects and in the community pushing for more projects to
be added to the foundation at a very past pace then we have lost a
culture of "making the best tool of high quality for the job" and we
lost a culture of innovation.... we merely have the culture of
"winning". Which I am still unsure as to what people seek to win but I
digress.

Regardless, I think the right measures are in place with the sandbox
to limit kingmaking. I think the focus should now be put on promoting
(and I don't mean marketing) but leading the ecosystem to focus on
building tools that innovate technology in the cloud native space with
a high importance on quality and fostering collaboration. Then when
those projects need help with things the foundation can offer, money
for infrastructure, a place for shared IP it seems like it would be
obvious that they should be projects in the foundation, of course they
need to qualify etc.

Just my 2 cents.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 1:12 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
>
> In addition to what Jess said, a foundation provides a vendor neutral (or as close as we can get) location for a project. Competitors on products and services have a place to work together on projects that are not controlled by a single vendor in its governance.
>
> I think this is one of the biggest reasons for a foundation. Not everything needs this. But, some foundational things benefit from it.
>
> Then there is being frank on the politics. People are trying to game the system for career advancement, getting money for startups, more tag lines in marketing campaigns, for bragging rights, and more. In this highly competitive marketplace with money being thrown to the degree it is, I don’t know if we can avoid this all together.
>
> But, we can put a target on being useful and building useful things. For this I mean Jakob Nielsen’s definition whose gist is useful = usability + utility. Projects and people can be promoted for the useful.
>
> --
> Matt Farina
> mattfarina.com
>
>
>
>



--


Jessie Frazelle
4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC  511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
pgp.mit.edu






--

Alena Prokharchyk
 

Sandbox is a great model that enforces collaboration and cloud native ecosystem growth. But it feels that the main CNCF goal of "fostering a community around a constellation of high-quality projects" in a way contradicts the current sandbox rule - "CNCF Sandbox projects can stay in the sandbox indefinitely". Indefinite membership - even with limited CNCF investment - is not sustainable without raising a quality bar at the acceptance level and beyond. Also the reasons why the sandbox candidate is found technically interesting/innovative, what advantages it has over similar projects (having a great community qualifies too) or/and why it is considered to be a high risk, can be delivered to the CNCF community with more clarify to reduce the chances of kingmaking blame
Chris Aniszczyk
 

There was a lot of discussion regarding the sandbox (especially with the k8s incubator dissolving https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/95#issuecomment-376940995) but the idea is that there was a need for a place for experimentation so projects can grow into high quality incubating/graduated projects as this process takes time if it does at all (https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md#caveat-utilitor):

"Encourage public visibility of experiments or other early work that can add value to the CNCF mission and build the ingredients of a successful Incubation level project"

All sandbox projects get reviewed on an annual basis and may archived from the foundation. I expect to potentially see our first projects archived over the next 12 months but it's hard to predict the future.

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Alena Prokharchyk <alena@...> wrote:
Sandbox is a great model that enforces collaboration and cloud native ecosystem growth. But it feels that the main CNCF goal of "fostering a community around a constellation of high-quality projects" in a way contradicts the current sandbox rule - "CNCF Sandbox projects can stay in the sandbox indefinitely". Indefinite membership - even with limited CNCF investment - is not sustainable without raising a quality bar at the acceptance level and beyond. Also the reasons why the sandbox candidate is found technically interesting/innovative, what advantages it has over similar projects (having a great community qualifies too) or/and why it is considered to be a high risk, can be delivered to the CNCF community with more clarify to reduce the chances of kingmaking blame




--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
Zhipeng Huang
 

I think Sandbox is important for building a vibrant ecosystem, if the community could provide an excellent open source infrastructure (such as CI) then having sandbox project functioning like Chris mentioned is a great thing.

The word constellation caught my eye from Alena's response. I think one way the foundation could be helpful is that in addition to the landscape we have now, ToC could coordinate the projects (incubated, graduated, sandboxed) to provide guides on various scenarios of integrations among these projects. AFAIK this type of thing is only maintained by specific projects or written on a blog by specific project contributors (e.g "How to use envoy together with kubernetes")

Since many cloud native users will need to utilize a bunch of CNCF projects for various purposes, if they could easily find documentation on how these projects interact with each other if needed to, it would be beneficial for adoption and then broaden the ecosystem.



On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 3:39 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
There was a lot of discussion regarding the sandbox (especially with the k8s incubator dissolving https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/95#issuecomment-376940995) but the idea is that there was a need for a place for experimentation so projects can grow into high quality incubating/graduated projects as this process takes time if it does at all (https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md#caveat-utilitor):

"Encourage public visibility of experiments or other early work that can add value to the CNCF mission and build the ingredients of a successful Incubation level project"

All sandbox projects get reviewed on an annual basis and may archived from the foundation. I expect to potentially see our first projects archived over the next 12 months but it's hard to predict the future.

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Alena Prokharchyk <alena@...> wrote:
Sandbox is a great model that enforces collaboration and cloud native ecosystem growth. But it feels that the main CNCF goal of "fostering a community around a constellation of high-quality projects" in a way contradicts the current sandbox rule - "CNCF Sandbox projects can stay in the sandbox indefinitely". Indefinite membership - even with limited CNCF investment - is not sustainable without raising a quality bar at the acceptance level and beyond. Also the reasons why the sandbox candidate is found technically interesting/innovative, what advantages it has over similar projects (having a great community qualifies too) or/and why it is considered to be a high risk, can be delivered to the CNCF community with more clarify to reduce the chances of kingmaking blame




--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



--
Zhipeng (Howard) Huang

Standard Engineer
IT Standard & Patent/IT Product Line
Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd
Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen

(Previous)
Research Assistant
Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Lab, Calit2
University of California, Irvine
Office: Calit2 Building Room 2402

OpenStack, OPNFV, OpenDaylight, OpenCompute Aficionado
1 - 12 of 12