Hi TSC,
First of all, thanks Bin for the description. I personally did not know how
this meeting got created.
I think we can all agree that currently the only way for new projects to get
the stamp "you have community consensus" is through the decision of the weekly
technical discussion. Therefore, projects must go to the weekly technical
discussion and get the approval from it to reach the next level, the TSC. I see
some potential improvements in this process because there are some problems
that I personally see:
* We have a geographically widespread community. The time for this meeting
is never good for everyone and most of the times not even half of the TSC
participates, thus I don't think this meeting is a good way to measure the
"community consensus" because we are indirectly excluding TSC members and other
community members and we would like to hear their opinions too, right?
* Even if the project has been up for review in the wiki for 2 weeks, most
of the opinions, feedback, reviews are first time raised in that meeting and
not in the comments of the wiki. Therefore, most of the times, there is not
time to confront the points raised thus delaying everything
* Things can only move once a week, when this meeting takes place. This
adds an extra delay which could be avoided, or?. Let alone holidays, etc.
* Non native speakers might have difficulties to respond to feedback,
especially when comments are not raised before the meeting
* How the meeting decides if a project gets the approval is not clearly
settled. Currently, we don't vote and if there are no further questions, the
moderator of the meeting decides that the project is good to go to the TSC.
I'd like to suggest a new way for this which I think servers better the purpose
of "foster community review and fulfill the metric of “Proposal has been
socialized with potentially interested or affected projects and/or parties”".
Actually I have two similar alternatives, just the tool changes:
## Alternative 1 ## (preferred)
Upload the proposal to github (or gerrit or gitlab) and then allow TSC members
to comment on this and do the reviews online. Same procedure that CNTT is
following for its documents and a very common procedure in other open source
communities. We give 2 weeks and during that time TSC members must write their
concerns, questions, feedback, etc in the comments. Our PM or the person
proposing the project should actively take care of reminding it to the TSC
members, this way we will hopefully get reviews from the whole TSC. Things
could be of course delayed in case of need, e.g. a TSC person is on vacation,
comments were not addressed, etc... but in general, after 2 weeks, the project
is voted in the TSC and everyone had a chance to review it and raise concerns.
## Alternative 2 ##
Same as alternative 1 but uploading it to the wiki instead of github and review
the proposal in the comments.
The benefits I see:
* Everyone in the TSC can participate in the review 24h a day, 7 days a week
* We get opinions and comments from most of the TSC thus reaching what we
want: "community consensus"
* The person proposing the project will have space to think about the
concerns and reviews that were raised
* This eases a lot the participation of non-native speakers
* The project could still go and present in the weekly technical discussion
and of course clarify comments that were raised. However, the decision that it
has community consensus will be made by checking that TSC members reviewed it
and are fine with it
* From process perspective, I think this is clearer and it scales better
What you guys think? Any feedback is welcome!
Regards,
Manuel
________________________________
From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org <opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org> on behalf of HU,
BIN <bh5...@att.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 6:54 AM
To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>;
opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org <opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: [opnfv-tsc] Process Overview - How to Bring a Project into OPNFV
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 (#23497):
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/23497
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/33019055/21656
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
