Hi all,
Sorry I didn't put this on a table yesterday - for some reason Skype
decided I must be in listen-only mode through the better part of the
meeting.
On 26.09.2017 02:19, Gasparakis, Joseph wrote:
Hi all,
As we all know we are planning to have an ARB at least for the first
public release.
We had a discussion in the TSC call today and it seems we came up with
two options: ARB being part of TSC and ARB not being part of the TSC.
Here is the compare and contrast as described in
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dxTTU9a6P9wdu4Vd1tkonHp-D4xRbW_DyoDMZ0WDD1M/edit
ARB part of TSC:
* ARB is standing subcommittee of TSC and PTLs with delegates or
elected members of one of these bodies constituting ARB.
* TSC explicitly delegates ARB charter and provides oversight to ARB
* Clear separation of powers would be necessary to avoid bogging down
TSC. For example TSC controls release schedule, use cases,
definition of release, schedule, high level quality requirements.
While ARB controls all API’s (external and inter components),
overall product architecture, reviews individual blueprints, and can
selectively review (and -2) critical code segments.
Not exactly a separate option, but: I feel reviewing individual
blueprints should be out of ARB scope. Yes, ARB should be involved in
blueprints which introduce architecture changes (eg new API), but not
individual features.
The initial TSC charter lets the body to make "decisions on networking,
hardware technologies but also platform software". If we introduce ARB
this way, and if it will stand for more than one release (which also
wasn't the initial goal IMO), the TSC scope seems to be rather limited
compared to the initial WG proposal.
Or am I missing anything?
Cheers,
Valentine
ARB not part of TSC:
* Works under an independent charter. Members are elected at large
they do not have to be members of the TSC or PTL body.
* At least one core member from the project should be part of ARB review
* TSC and ARB operate under separate charters, but division of
responsibilities is similar to the proposal above. For example TSC
controls release schedule, use cases, definition of release,
schedule, high level quality requirements. While ARB controls all
API’s (external and inter components), overall product architecture,
reviews individual blueprints, and can selectively review (and -2)
critical code segments
At the point I am polling for any other options to put on the table.
*_Please reply all to this thread if you have a 3^rd or 4^th option that
you would like to propose by end of Wednesday 9/27_*. I will be
consolidating any new options and send out a voting poll on Thursday,
hoping to close this decision by end of the week.
Regards,
Joseph
--
intel-logo-small
Joseph Gasparakis
Intel Corporation
Networking Platforms Group
Architecture Division
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org
