Brian, How would one be able to point to demonstration of meritocratic contribution for non-code contribution for the purpose of committer promotion? For code contribution (and test case automation, which also then turns out to be code) one can point to the gerrit history. For these other kinds of contribution, what would be the analog demonstration?
Ed On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 10:12 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L <bs3131 at att.com> wrote: > Chris, > > > > Not sure I can post to the TSC list, but here are some comments in the > draft: > > ? Each project will have its own code *repositories (one or > multiple)*,? > > o The concept of an umbrella project may address this, but that?s an > overhead that should be optional. It may be more effective in some cases > for projects just to have multiple repos. > > ? A Contributor is someone who contributes code or other > artifacts to a project*, and reviews the contributions of others*. > Contributors are not necessarily from Member companies. > > o We should encourage and recognize all forms of contribution, > especially reviews. IMO contributors may provide **no** code but still > contribute valuable advice on architecture, quality, testability, or other > contributions of a non-code/artifact nature. > > ? Committer rights for a project are earned via code contribution > ? > > o The potential pool of committers should go beyond just code > contribution, given the merit of their other types of contributions > > ? (description of Incubation phase) Project has resources, but is > recognized to be in early stages of development, having yet to achieve a > MVP (Minimum Viable Product) that is (or can be) used in production > environments. > > o Clarification as to what an MVP is as the target for the end of the > incubation phase. > > ? Other editorial items > > > > > > Thanks, > > Bryan Sullivan | AT&T > > > > *From:* onap-tsc-bounces at lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-bounces@ > lists.onap.org] *On Behalf Of *Christopher Donley (Chris) > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 19, 2017 8:45 AM > *To:* onap-tsc at lists.onap.org > *Cc:* Ed Warnicke <eaw at cisco.com> > *Subject:* [onap-tsc] Updated TSC Charter > > > > Dear TSC, > > > > On behalf of the Charter drafting team, please find attached an updated > version of the TSC Charter incorporating your suggestions and feedback from > the last review. We have attempted to highlight the open issues that need > a decision from the TSC. We are sending this draft with the intention that > you review it in preparation for discussion and voting during our next TSC > meeting. > > > > Chris, Steve, Ed, Lingli, Alla, and Phil > > _______________________________________________ > ONAP-TSC mailing list > ONAP-TSC at lists.onap.org > https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.onap.org/pipermail/onap-tsc/attachments/20170419/fd972f81/attachment.html>
