Thank you Christian for your comments. Some questions is for Thiago and others for me. Regardless of who should answer, let me talk my opinion.
We currently may have about a total of 15 active developers/maintainers in IoTivity (at least seen on this list). Spreading these out on all the roles as defined in the proposal on project leaders, maintainers and technical leaders and so on seems to introduce quite an overhead. ? There could be Overhead but currently there is no connection or communication channel or decision or management path. This hierarchy may encourage the responsibility for each position, I expect. subcommittees will have a ?committee leader?/chair - so the project governance is done by 13 people (as seen on slide 4)? ? Just categorization as like project, I imagined, But further detail is required I admit. Also - the first three subcommittee blocks make immediate sense, as these define building blocks/tasks for any software development, but what is meant by ?Smart Home? and ?Industrial?. These two do not seem to really fit here? ? I think this people can advocate or defense some architectural change or API from its biz perspective. A kind of requirement review channel I can see. Furthermore, they can bring the biz requirement from stack to sdk views. BR, Uze Choi From: isg-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Christian Gran Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 6:07 PM To: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; isg at lists.iotivity.org Subject: [isg] commenst on reorg proposals Hi, in my opinion Uze/Samsung captured the current problem very well as * current IoTivity development is not well aligned with OCF * OCF requires an easy to use solution with documentation * OCF requires product quality code for released versions and proof of concept code for draft specifications * not enough developers participating in IoTivity (we even have not one maintainer per component in Jira!!!) Thiago - could you please explain, why you think that moving to a more detailed structure as seen in your proposal would help with any of these points? We currently may have about a total of 15 active developers/maintainers in IoTivity (at least seen on this list). Spreading these out on all the roles as defined in the proposal on project leaders, maintainers and technical leaders and so on seems to introduce quite an overhead. This said, I lean much more to the proposal from Samsung. The four blocks mentioned as subcommittees look good, and these should be represented in OCF as well. We need the tight OCF relation with IoTivity, because OCF is mainly funding the project and OCF is the reason why IoTivity code is/will be used in products. However I do not understand the differentiation between projects and subcommittees on slide 4. Will the projects each have a project leader/maintainer (as of today) - and each of the subcommittees will have a ?committee leader?/chair - so the project governance is done by 13 people (as seen on slide 4)? Also - the first three subcommittee blocks make immediate sense, as these define building blocks/tasks for any software development, but what is meant by ?Smart Home? and ?Industrial?. These two do not seem to really fit here? thanks Christian -------------- next part -------------- HTML ?????? ??????????????... URL: <http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20170425/e976e013/attachment.html>
