I agree that the actual API details have to come from the projects, however, somebody has to coordinate the API level flows. I think if you “just leave them to the projects” as a pairwise exercise they won’t get done in a timely fashion. So the logical place for me would be the integration project or the release coordinator. On the call this morning it seemed the majority was for having the integration project (PTL) do that.
To be honest I am open to any approach as long as responsibilities are clear. I am not sure though that I see the architecture committee be agile enough to deliver the detailed (API) level flows for release planing this week for release 1. Am I wrong? We really have to have a clear process flow and roles and responsibilities otherwise this will go sideways … . Thx Oliver > On Jun 19, 2017, at 1:44 PM EDT, Stephen Terrill > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I wasn't in the use case subcommittee meeting today, so I was wondering what > is meant by "integration project leads (coordinates) effoerts to get detailed > flows ..." If these are information flows between the components, then we > have 3 places that would be doing such flows: UC subcommittee, Architecture > sub-commiteed, integration project. It seems like too many. > > Can we have the use-case sub-committee doing the high level flows for the use > case, only sufficient level to identify the requirements on the components. > The architecture group is having the flows to show the general principles, > then the APIs are done in the proejcts? > > BR, > > Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of SPATSCHECK, OLIVER > (OLIVER) > Sent: 19 June 2017 16:31 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [onap-discuss] Use Case Subcommittee Flow > > > Based on the discussion in the subcommittee meeting my understanding on how > use cases get worked from the beginning to the end is like follow: > > 1. Use case subcommittee discuses new use cases 2. Use case subcommittee gets > feedback from community including integration team on feasibility 3. Iterate > back to 1. > 4. TSC approval > 5. Integration project leads (coordinates) effort to get detailed flows with > the help of the other projects and the release manager 6. Detailed flows are > defined and projects write there user stories/implement them 7. Integration > team tests flows and use case > > Did I capture this correctly? Does that make sense to everybody? > > Thx > > Oliver > _______________________________________________ > onap-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.onap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Ddiscuss&d=DwIFAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=9iyuArzgyekj47PZSPfIijI2cSHsUJtAlcTA0X_udNI&m=DKA6HqHvRLeyHWkge2TOhR6ScIdihAqwgJsTRLmlp84&s=rs-tOjgA2yqQb09gStU3NORnkYLgmzuWxFYW4gs0mYs&e= > _______________________________________________ onap-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss
