Greetings Bin, Thanks for your sharing your thinking on how the process works. There are a couple items I wanted to ask you to address: 1. "Step 2, third bullet" uses the word "consensus", without a clear definition of what that means. Can one objection hold up a project request? 2. In "Step 3", the process defines the tech-discuss meeting as a gate OR decision making body? My understanding of the charter and founding docs is only the TSC has been granted decision making powers. I looked for documentation on the tech-discuss forum and was unable to find their specific responsibilities/operational policy? I believe it is a weekly forum for discussion of technical matters relating to OPNFV. 3. It is my understanding that anyone can request an item for vote by the TSC at any time. Is that your understanding as well? Jim
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 10:54 PM HU, BIN <bh5...@att.com> wrote: > Hello community, > > > > Fresh blood is joining us. New project proposals are coming. I want to > take this opportunity to give an overview of the process of bringing a > project to OPNFV. > > > > 1. History of Process > > > > General Project Lifecycle is documented in [1]. Project promotion, and > demotion, across states can only be done by TSC review and voting. During > the reviews, the candidate projects are evaluated based on predefined > metrics and KPIs. The target numbers may vary for the different levels. In > order for creation review in TSC, proposals need to be emailed to TSC > mailing list, and posted for two weeks. Various review criteria are > available in [1]. > > > > In practice, after OPNFV was founded, we started to discuss new project > proposals in TSC meeting on 10/21/2014 [1]. TSC spent 2 hours to discuss > several projects. None could be agreed. TSC realized that a separate > community discussion was needed to discuss project proposals, help > proposals get mature before it could go to TSC for creation review. See > minutes [1] regarding the topic “Recurring weekly calls on general > technical content” and the action to create a separate weekly meeting on > wiki dedicated to discussing project proposals. > > > > The first weekly technical discussion started on 10/30/2014, and history > maintained in [3]. Project proposals were reviewed and discussed on > 10/30/2014, 11/06/2014, 11/13/2014 and 11/20/2014. And the first project > was approved by TSC on 11/25/2014 after that project got community > feedback, made best effort to resolve community comments, made several > revisions and discussed in those 4 weekly meetings. > > - Note: due to wiki upgrade in March 2016, all details of records of > agenda and minutes of weekly technical discussion [3] before 03/24/2016 > were lost. > > > > 1. Process Overview > > > > Step 1: create your proposal in wiki [4], and email to TSC and > Tech-Discussion mailing list > > Step 2: schedule a community review and discussion in weekly technical > discussion. The review process is documented in [3]. > > - This community review is the major part of the process, and it may > take several weeks and iterate several rounds. > - 2-week review period is the minimum period, i.e. a “necessary > condition”, but NOT a “sufficient condition” to bring to TSC for creation > review > - A consensus from community review is normally expected to recommend > the project proposal for TSC creation review. > - This process was designed by Founding TSC and its leadership, > started with the 1st project (reviewed for 4 rounds based on available > record), and a case study below. > - All approved projects have followed this process. > > Step 3: once TSC receives the recommendation from community review in > weekly technical discussion, TSC will schedule a creation review, and vote > to approve or disapprove this proposal. > > > > 1. A Case Study > > > > Let us look at a case study based on available details of wiki record [3]. > The examples are 2 projects proposed in May 2016 – the earliest time that > details of wiki record are available [3]: > > - VNF Event Stream > - Announced in early May 2016 > - Discussed in weekly technical discussions on 05/12/2016, > 05/19/2016 and 05/26/2016 (3 rounds). > - Founders worked with community, revised proposal based on > feedback, resolved all comments and get consensus from community for TSC > creation review > - “The group reached the consensus to recommend it for TSC > Creation Review.” [5] > - TSC (2015-2016) did Creation Review on 05/31/2016 and approved it > [6]. > - Daisy > - Announced in early May 2016 > - Discussed in weekly technical discussions on 05/12/2016, > 05/19/2016 and 06/02/2016 (3 rounds). > - Founders worked with community, revised proposal based on > feedback, resolved all comments and get consensus from community for TSC > creation review > - “The group reached the consensus to recommend *Daisy for NFV > <https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/PROJ/Daisy+Nfv> *for TSC > Creation Review next week” [7] > - TSC (2015-2016) did Creation Review on 06/07/2016 [8] and > 06/14/2016 [9] (2 rounds), and eventually approved it on 06/14/2016 [9]. > > > > 1. Essence of Process > > > > The essence of process is to foster community review and fulfill the > metric of “Proposal has been socialized with potentially interested or > affected projects and/or parties” [1] in a more realizable and achievable > way. This process was designed by Founding TSC and its Leadership, started > with the initial set of project proposals including the 1st approved > project in OPNFV. All approved projects have followed this process as far > as I remember. And the community consensus is expected in order to be able > to bring to TSC for creation review, i.e. “reached consensus to recommend > for TSC creation review” or similar conclusion at the end of community > review in weekly technical discussions. The community review may last > several rounds as shown in the example of 1st approved project and 2 > projects in case study. The founder of a project, either new or promotion, > is expected to work with community, and make the best effort and attempt to > resolve community comments, such as necessary revision based on community > feedback, and achieve consensus within community. > > > > Certainly, there is always room for process improvement. So any suggestion > is welcome to improve the process. > > > > Thank you > > Bin > > > > [1] > https://www.opnfv.org/software/technical-project-governance/project-lifecycle > > [2] > http://meetbot.opnfv.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2014/opnfv-meeting.2014-10-21-14.01.html > > [3] https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/PROJ/Weekly+Technical+Discussion > > [4] https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/PROJ/Project+Proposals > > [5] https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/PROJ/tc+minutes+20160526 > > [6] > http://meetbot.opnfv.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2016/opnfv-meeting.2016-05-31-14.00.html > > [7] https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/PROJ/tc+minutes+20160602 > > [8] > http://meetbot.opnfv.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2016/opnfv-meeting.2016-06-07-13.59.html > > [9] > http://meetbot.opnfv.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2016/opnfv-meeting.2016-06-14-13.59.html > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. > > View/Reply Online (#5509): > https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tsc/message/5509 > Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/33019054/1635201 > Group Owner: opnfv-tsc+ow...@lists.opnfv.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tsc/unsub [ > jba...@linuxfoundation.org] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > -- Jim Baker Linux Foundation Networking - Technical Program Manager mobile: +1 970 227 6007
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#23491): https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/23491 Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/33037584/21656 Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
