Krzysztof,
Great point. There are two options to address it:
1. The TSC votes to amend the Technical Community Document to include security in the criteria for the mature state
2. We modify the template for the maturity reviews to allow for security information to be included under the "mature artifacts" criteria. The TSC would then include that in its decision whether a project has met the "mature artifacts" portion of the criteria.
I would prefer the latter and am happy to make the update. Please let me know if there is suggested input you would like to see from projects so that we can update the template accordingly.
By the way, for the "core" state of projects (which comes after "mature"), the criteria in the Technical Community Document include:
"Stability, Security, Scalability and Performance levels have reached a high bar."
Regards,
Jason Hunt
Distinguished Engineer, IBM
Phone: +1-314-749-7422
Email: [email protected]
Twitter: @DJHunt
----- Original message -----
From: "Krzysztof Opasiak via lists.onap.org" <[email protected]>
Sent by: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected], Jason Hunt <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "ZWARICO, AMY" <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP Project Lifecycle: recommended actions
Date: Fri, Jun 5, 2020 9:05 AM
Hi Jason,
On 05.06.2020 00:13, Jason Hunt wrote:
> TSC and PTLs,
> Per the discussion in today's TSC meeting, we wanted to make everyone
> aware of the ONAP project lifecycle and encourage projects to consider
> their status and any changes.
> The current lifecycle is depicted in this diagram:
>
> The suggestion is that we use this lifecycle to place the ONAP project
> portfolio into three buckets:
>
> -*Mature projects:*for projects with active release participation &
> solid artifacts; they should submit for a "maturity review"
>
> - *Inactive (Archived) projects*: for projects where there is no longer
> any contributions, they should follow the termination review
>
> -*Other (Incubation) projects*: for those projects that are still active
> but not ready for move to "mature" phase
>
> For *mature projects*, the TSC encourages qualifying projects to submit
> for a maturity review. They do this by filling out the template in the
> wiki (https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Project+Maturity+Review+Template
> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=54d370d1-091d739c-54d2fb9e-000babff24ad-19c6b140cc54f247&q=1&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.onap.org%2Fdisplay%2FDW%2FProject%2BMaturity%2BReview%2BTemplate >)
> and send an email to the TSC list. In order to accelerate reviews (and
> free up time on the TSC calls), we may want to form a working group to
> do a preliminary maturity review for the projects. The group
> would submit their recommendations to the TSC who would then vote
> +1/0/-1 for promotion to the mature phase.
Shouldn't we have any security review before we move project to the
mature state? There is no single question regarding security in this
template...
>
> For the*inactive projects*, there is no guidance on who should initiate
> a termination review. Because there may not be a PTL, perhaps the TSC
> could initiate a termination review for a project. Again, we may want a
> working group to conduct the steps of the termination review. This
> group should consist of people who are familiar with the project or at
> least interface with/depend upon the project. This working group will
> need to walk through the steps of the termination review as outlined
> here: (scroll down)
>
> https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/ONAP+Project+and+Component+Lifecycle
> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=ba539477-e79d973a-ba521f38-000babff24ad-e719a6ce77842878&q=1&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.onap.org%2Fdisplay%2FDW%2FONAP%2BProject%2Band%2BComponent%2BLifecycle >
>
> All other projects need no action.
>
> Background slide deck on project lifecycle reviews:
> https://wiki.lfnetworking.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=25364127&preview=/25364127/28738708/ONAP%20Proj%20Lifecycle%20and%20Review%2015Jan2020%20v1.pdf
> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=4b2f2f99-16e12cd4-4b2ea4d6-000babff24ad-5d861846fa71adf4&q=1&u=https%3A%2F%2Fnam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwiki.lfnetworking.org%252Fpages%252Fviewpage.action%253FpageId%253D25364127%2526preview%253D%252F25364127%252F28738708%252FONAP%252520Proj%252520Lifecycle%252520and%252520Review%25252015Jan2020%252520v1.pdf%26data%3D02%257C01%257Cchaker.al.hakim%2540futurewei.com%257C8a2529fdf0fb43e0b9e108d7f80c6f32%257C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%257C1%257C1%257C637250604601001932%26sdata%3DemcJR3xAixRLzzkLjydj2G57uTiv1pwcYEOr%252BdsNGVQ%253D%26reserved%3D0 >
>
> Please reply with any questions on the process.
>
> Regards,
> Jason Hunt
> Distinguished Engineer, IBM
>
> Phone: +1-314-749-7422
> Email: [email protected]
> Twitter: @DJHunt
>
>
--
Krzysztof Opasiak
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
_._,_._,_
Links:
You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#6487) |
Reply To Group
| Reply To Sender
|
Mute This Topic
| New Topic
Your Subscription |
Contact Group Owner |
Unsubscribe
[[email protected]]
_._,_._,_
