Hi, Thanks for brining this up Jason. Maybe it would be useful that we develop and share our expectations in more detail about what is required to move to mature (i.e. what we look for in a review) in the form of .e.g a TSC policy or detailed maturity review checklist.
BR, Steve From: Jason Hunt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 13 December 2017 01:21 To: Stephen Terrill <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] P <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Existing project reviews Stephen, this proposal makes sense. Thanks. On a related note, I'd like to refresh everyone's memory about the project lifecycle outlined in the TSC charter: https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/ONAP+TSC+Charter#ONAPTSCCharter-3.3.3ProjectLifecycleStatesandReviews [cid:[email protected]] Briefly: Incubation -- "Project has resources, but is recognized to be in the early stages of development." Mature -- "Project is fully functioning and stable, has achieved successful releases." Core -- "Project provides value to and receives interest from a broad audience." Also, states that core projects meet S3P/Platform Maturity requirements. Note that approved projects start as Incubation, so all current ONAP projects are in Incubation stage. Questions for the TSC: - should we promote projects that participated in Amsterdam to mature? (understanding that each needs to go through an official maturity review) - after Beijing, if mature projects meet a level of S3P/Platform Maturity (which may be the same as the Beijing maturity requirements), should they be promoted to Core? - while we used an ad-hoc "MVP" definition in Amsterdam to prioritize resources for the release, might we use these official definitions in future releases to prioritize resources? Welcome the TSC's thoughts here. Regards, Jason Hunt Executive Software Architect, IBM Phone: 314-749-7422 Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Twitter: @DJHunt From: Stephen Terrill <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: "[email protected] P<mailto:[email protected]%20P>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: 12/12/2017 05:21 PM Subject: [onap-tsc] Existing project reviews Sent by: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> ________________________________ Hi TSC, When we first approved the projects, there was some flexibility allowed in terms of keeping release dependent information in the project definition. The projects definitions should be independent of the release. Now as we go into Beijing perhaps its time to do that. Here is a proposal for that. Comments appreciated. Best Regards, Steve STEPHEN TERRILL Technology Specialist POA Architecture and Solutions Business Unit Digital Services Ericsson Ericsson R&D Center, via de los Poblados 13 28033, Madrid, Spain Phone +34 339 3005 Mobile +34 609 168 515 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> www.ericsson.com Legal entity: Ericsson España S.A, compay registration number ESA288568603. This Communication is Confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ericsson.com_email-5Fdisclaimer&d=DwMFAw&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=oMOO2HmZ8JJWvUc1M7SklmdX3xn2mSb9tP9VrdTjcqg&m=mH25Fq9ofoQAY5qCSE1kGwAJ6KLXsQmjANXHrj9qAUs&s=imFECHFJqT3zAJOPdKV_s89KkOAdZh1o3XeAJ6T4f5c&e=> [attachment "Projects Definitions.pptx" deleted by Jason Hunt/St Louis/IBM] _______________________________________________ ONAP-TSC mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.onap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Dtsc&d=DwICAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=oMOO2HmZ8JJWvUc1M7SklmdX3xn2mSb9tP9VrdTjcqg&m=mH25Fq9ofoQAY5qCSE1kGwAJ6KLXsQmjANXHrj9qAUs&s=t-O5ZSBOmR3CxgGi594vlNghZzAiiHYzukipMkor3zo&e=
_______________________________________________ ONAP-TSC mailing list [email protected] https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc
