This is a reminder that all OpenPOWER Foundation activities are subject to strict compliance with the OpenPOWER Foundation’s Antitrust Guidelines. Each individual participant and attendee at this meeting is responsible for knowing the contents of the Antitrust Guidelines, and for complying with the Antitrust Guidelines. Copies of the Antitrust Guidelines are available at: Antitrust Guidelines in Google Drive or Antitrust Guidelines OPF in OpenPOWER Foundation member area
Diagram of all open tools, how they fit together, what is missing, what needs significant improvement - FuseSoc, OpenLane, Symbiflow, Yosys, openroads, etc https://github.com/hdl
Used by Google’s XLS team -> http://github.com/google/xls
Add current projects that you are working on that relate to LibreBMC or opentools. Plan would be to schedule presentations on them to stir conversation and collaboration. This will highlight areas where technical issues can be worked across projects.
Next Meeting Agenda Items
Future topics
Arjun to present
Tim Pearson to give update on where Raptor is going with Kestrel
WEBEX CHAT HISTORY:
from Toshaan Bharvani (External) to Everyone: 10:03 AM
Anybody coming in late, please note that this meeting is being recordered
from Lance Albertson (External) to Everyone: 10:07 AM
Are you able to hear me?
from Timothy Pearson (External) to Everyone: 10:07 AM
No
from Lance Albertson (External) to Everyone: 10:07 AM
Let me reconnect my audio
from Tim 'mithro' Ansell (External) to Everyone: 10:09 AM
Larger shared storage area to save meeting recordings
Files.openpower.foundation
from Alexey Stepanov YADRO (External) to Everyone: 10:19 AM
kind of welcome thread, good idea!
from Alexander Amelkin [YADRO] (External) to Everyone: 10:19 AM
OpenBMC has moved from FreeNode to Discord. Did you consider moving there as well?
from Toshaan Bharvani (External) to Everyone: 10:22 AM
No, I did not, I will need to look into Discord, I did consider OFTC and we do have a channel there, but not official
from Timothy Pearson (External) to Everyone: 10:23 AM
Discord requires people either run a binary on their machine (no open source client) or keep a Web browser open. On this side, it has the same issues as Slack without significant advantages
from Timothy Pearson (External) to Everyone: 10:24 AM
In our experience, there's a lot of the dev community prefers IRC or mailing list, and if not then Github or similar where the Web tooling is designed for asynchronous work
from Alexander Amelkin [YADRO] (External) to Everyone: 10:27 AM
I understand this point. However, I personally think IRC is completely obsolete in 2021, and the only way to more or less efficiently use it is connecting to it via Matrix / Riot, which also imlies running a binary. :)
from Timothy Pearson (External) to Everyone: 10:28 AM
If it's a matter of functionality, there's also open source options for the more centralized model. :)
from Timothy Pearson (External) to Everyone: 10:29 AM
e.g. Mattermost
from Toshaan Bharvani (External) to Everyone: 10:29 AM
We want to maintain an IRC solution and we have mattermost also on chat.openpower.foundation
from Timothy Pearson (External) to Everyone: 10:30 AM
yes, agreed
from Timothy Pearson (External) to Everyone: 10:30 AM
just saying I don't want things to move in a direction that requires proprietary clients for effective collaboration.
from Timothy Pearson (External) to Everyone: 10:31 AM
appreciate all the integration work toshaan!
from Toshaan Bharvani (External) to Everyone: 10:32 AM
I do not know Discord, I will look at it just for informational purposes
from Alexander Amelkin [YADRO] (External) to Everyone: 10:32 AM
Why do we need that scratch space for OpenBMC ? OpenBMC uses Gerrit Review, which can (and does) effectively serve as a scratch space.
from Toshaan Bharvani (External) to Everyone: 10:33 AM
for staging new functions and checking compatibility
from Alexander Amelkin [YADRO] (External) to Everyone: 10:34 AM
I'm just worried that we could end up like Intel with their Intel-BMC that diverges quite significantly from OpenBMC and is rarely merged back.
from Timothy Pearson (External) to Everyone: 10:35 AM
That's always a concern if a primary goal isn't to upstream the work on a regular basis. It's something we've had to struggle with as well; the only solution to it is resources that are available and ready / willing to quickly rewrite any of the new code to upstream's expectations or desires.
from Timothy Pearson (External) to Everyone: 10:36 AM
Basically, we can either move fast and break things (add functionality rapidly) or move at the speed of upstream merges.
from Timothy Pearson (External) to Everyone: 10:36 AM
So which one is the primary goal? :)
from Toshaan Bharvani (External) to Everyone: 10:37 AM
No, we will monitor that
from Alexander Amelkin [YADRO] (External) to Everyone: 10:38 AM
I guess, unless we set up a policy for upstreaming our changes from "the scratch" on a regular basis, we will inevitably diverge.
from Timothy Pearson (External) to Everyone: 10:39 AM
In our experience yes, and that would have to basically include a stop work until the merges are complete. Maybe something like the Linux merge windows -- devs can keep additional changes local / out of staging, but no further changes / enhancements accepted that aren't directly related to upstreaming accepted until upstream merges?
from Toshaan Bharvani (External) to Everyone: 10:40 AM
Ok, we will document some policy around that
from Alexander Amelkin [YADRO] (External) to Everyone: 10:41 AM
Sounds good
from Alexander Amelkin [YADRO] (External) to Everyone: 10:50 AM
You're discussing some diagram, but I can't see any media shared. Is it just me?
from Toshaan Bharvani (External) to Everyone: 10:51 AM
That is in the google docs for the moment
from Alexander Amelkin [YADRO] (External) to Everyone: 10:52 AM
Oh, ok
from Karol Gugala (External) to Everyone: 11:00 AM
I have to switch to another meeting
from Karol Gugala (External) to Everyone: 11:00 AM
