Thanks for the detail explanation. As many test-wg members are on holiday, I think we may not able to arrive at a consensus on the process soon.
The modification is actually not affecting any other projects but yardstick and QTIP. It reflects my understanding of QTIP projects, for the past and also for the future. And I didn't see any objection on the modification content (not the process) in the past week. Reverting it to previous version will mislead the community. So I would like to keep the modified version unless we have a scope change requested from the working group and approved by TSC. Do you think it will work? We may discuss about process in testperf meeting. But to my understanding, community wiki is open for editing unless locked. This is a way to show open spirit and improve efficiency. Of course that people who abuse this right shall be banned. My two cents. On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 4:50 PM Gaoliang (kubi) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Yujun, > > To my knowledge, the Draft Testperf Ecosystem Diagram was discussed and > published at the first plugfest. Its orientation is to avoid overlap works > between our testing projects and also to reflect the relations. Then after > a lot of discussion within the community which leads to common consensus, > the Diagram was updated during the OPNFV Berlin Summit (please refer to the > presentation "Conversation with the Testing community"[1]). > > Now, the Updated Diagram has been published in WIKI page for 6 months and > perceived stable community-wide. I believe if some modifications of the > Diagram are expected, we should discuss first, then we do the changes. > After all, we are working as a community. > > In addition, since any change to the Diagram may result in different > relations between our testing projects, direct changes to the original > Diagram will make things more complicated. It's better to have our > discussion based on the summit version of our Testperf Ecosystem Diagram > for changes. > > I'd like to work together with you to improve the modification process and > keeping things in order. For this purpose, I would like help add a topic in > the Testperf Weekly Meeting. I believe we can make further progress > together! > > [1] > https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/gitweb?p=functest.git;a=blob;f=docs/com/img/OPNFV_testing_group.png;h=4b8c2c053e0143b1a9abc7e54fd9e7671ccfcee8;hb=HEAD > > Thanks, > > Kubi > > > > > > *发件人:* Yujun Zhang [mailto:[email protected]] > > *发送时间:* 2016年12月16日 16:43 > > *收件人:* Gaoliang (kubi); test-wg > *抄送:* TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV; Morgan Richomme ([email protected]); > Jose Lausuch; [email protected]; [email protected]; Yuyang > (Gabriel) > *主题:* Re: [test-wg] [all] TestPerf EcoSystem diagram now editable > > > > See my replies inline. > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 3:43 PM Gaoliang (kubi) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Yujun, > > Thanks for your timely reply! > > > > First, it is a very praiseworthy effort of you on making the diagram > editable! > > What I concerned is the process of the modification of the Testperf > Ecosystem Diagram. As you know, Testperf Ecosystem Diagram is not only to > show what the one project will do , but also the relationship between each > projects. It is on the Testing Work Group Home Page and shows the > consensus to the whole community. Another important function of this > diagram is that It could help the test projects to avoid overlap. *We > shouldn’t modify the Ecosystem Diagram before consensus. *Otherwise it > may delivers misleading information to the whole community. > > > > I suggest to discuss the modification process of our Testperf Ecosystem > Diagram in our testperf weekly meeting. Before the discussion taking place, > *we’d > better go back to the structure[1] of ecosystem on which we have consensus > *and keep it editable. Currently, what is in my mind about the process is > that maybe a proposal first, then we could discuss together and decide how > to make the modification. > > > > > > [1] > https://wiki.opnfv.org/download/attachments/2926690/OPNFV_testing_group.png?version=1&modificationDate=1467636653000&api=v2 > > > > Regards, > > Kubi > > > > This is exactly my motivation of the modification. > > > > I hope we can find out the original agreement so we can know why it is > delivering a misleading message and we can work together to improve the > process to keep things in order. >
_______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
