updated lifecycle based on 10April2019 TAC meeting input by djhunt · Pull Request #14 · lfnetworking/process

djhunt · 2019-04-23T14:21:42Z

No description provided.

edwarnicke · 2019-04-23T14:27:20Z

docs/lifecycle/lifecycle.rst

+|               | state.                            			      |	
 +---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
-| TAC           | Project is granted TAC representation.                      |
+| Incubation    | Project has matured beyond sandbox and may receive some     |


I think the consensus was that Incubation projects my receive funding, but not at the expense of TAC projects.

I see this is present below in 'Budget Guidance'. Should we make it explicit here?

Yes, I think we could make it explicit here as well

added in next commit

edwarnicke · 2019-04-23T14:28:09Z

docs/lifecycle/lifecycle.rst

 * What is the top level technical decision making body for the project,
  analogous to a TSC, to which the TAC should look for interfaces.

+Additionally, the review will confirm that the incoming project scope is within


Do we have a defined scope to apply this to? Generally, I am highly highly supportive of this requirement... but it does require us having a well defined scope.

I think this a good requirement but the actual scope is a work item for TAC and Board - the strategic direction topic

@bdfreeman1421 I agree that defining scope is the board's purview. I was curious if it has defined one. If not, we should recommend it do so.

Do we need to change the wording here or just make sure that TAC & Board work on a scope definition for LFN?

djhunt · 2019-04-23T17:26:50Z

docs/lifecycle/lifecycle.rst

 +---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
-| TAC           | Project is granted TAC representation.                      |
+| Incubation    | Project has matured beyond sandbox and may receive some     |
+|               | funding but does not yet have a representative on the TAC.  |


Suggested change

| | funding but does not yet have a representative on the TAC. |

| | funding (while not impacting TAC projects). The project also does not yet have a representative on the TAC. |

"some" funding is pretty vague...shall we have recommendations/rules to be more explicit here.
Is there any board basic funding guidance/rules (even for TAC approved project, I assume these are Board decisions but I am not sure it is fully clear - conversation of budget allocated for project X on stat not really allocated)
Minimum or incubation funding would be maybe more realistic

I might suggest removing "some" as neither that nor "minimum" is very specific. The budget guidance below just says not to impact existing projects and I'm not sure we want to get more prescriptive, since budget is the board's responsibility.

updated in next commit

djhunt · 2019-04-23T19:57:37Z

docs/lifecycle/lifecycle.rst

-
-.. _tf-condit-induct-email: https://lists.lfnetworking.org/g/TAC/message/250
+OpenDaylight, OPNFV, FD.io, and ONAP are in state TAC. PNDA, SNAS, and Tungsten
+Fabric are in state Incubation (?).


We need to resolve where the current non-TAC projects fall in the new structure. Are they all Incubation?

put all current non-TAC projects in as incubation in the next commit

morganrOL · 2019-04-24T05:59:04Z

docs/lifecycle/lifecycle.rst

 +---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
-| Non-TAC       | Project is admitted to the LFN but does not have a          |
-|               | representative on the TAC.                                  |
+| Sandbox       | Project is admitted to LFN but does not have direct funding |


maybe a stupid question but who/which entity is responsible to decide whether a project is admitted or not in LFN?

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but the board has the decision but has asked the TAC to come up with a project lifecycle and recommendations to the board.

The TAC recommends to the Governing Board. The GB has the final say.

morganrOL · 2019-04-24T06:17:17Z

docs/lifecycle/lifecycle.rst

 +---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
-| TAC           | Project is granted TAC representation.                      |
+| Incubation    | Project has matured beyond sandbox and may receive some     |
+|               | funding but does not yet have a representative on the TAC.  |


"some" funding is pretty vague...shall we have recommendations/rules to be more explicit here.
Is there any board basic funding guidance/rules (even for TAC approved project, I assume these are Board decisions but I am not sure it is fully clear - conversation of budget allocated for project X on stat not really allocated)
Minimum or incubation funding would be maybe more realistic

morganrOL · 2019-04-24T06:25:18Z

docs/lifecycle/lifecycle.rst

+
+Budget Guidance: The TAC recommends that the governing board allocate no funding 
+to Sandbox projects and that those projects cannot use cross-project funding
+buckets.


OK with that
we may maybe just imagine some indirect funding such as invitation to summits to introduce a new project

yes, and things like having their logo on marketing materials. Open to suggestions on wording to that effect.

updated in next commit

morganrOL · 2019-04-24T06:26:52Z

docs/lifecycle/lifecycle.rst

+Incubation Review
+*****************
+
+The Board and the TAC both review proposals for projects to advance to the 


2 entities reviewing at the same time => no risk of desync?

consultative review from the TAC submitted to the board for decision is precised just after this statement. why not indicating directly here.

morganrOL · 2019-04-24T06:30:34Z

docs/lifecycle/lifecycle.rst

+projects.
+
+As part of the Incubation Review, the TAC should identify how the project fits
+with other LFN projects, including any overlap or harmonization potential.


not trivial...

It seems like the TAC should have a viewpoint on the technical fit of projects within LFN... think about the CNCF landscape (https://landscape.cncf.io) though much simpler. Do you agree this should be a TAC responsibility?

morganrOL · 2019-04-24T06:32:04Z

docs/lifecycle/lifecycle.rst

+
+It is up to the Board to define its own criteria and process of the Board's 
+Incubation Review. The TAC recommends the Board make its Incubation Review 
+criteria and process public and accept design input from the public.  


I would even put "strongly" recommends

done - in next commit

morganrOL · 2019-04-24T06:40:44Z

docs/lifecycle/lifecycle.rst

+| Sandbox      | Incubation        | Incubation Review    | Incubation Review |
 +--------------+-------------------+----------------------+-------------------+
-| Non-TAC      | TAC               | TAC Admission Review |                   |
+| Incubation   | TAC               | TAC Admission Review | TAC Admission Rvw |


is there any possibility to move from TAC to Incubation

board priority review

decrease of community activity (but still some => so no exit or archive)

non respect of the criteria used for promotion (increasing overlap with other projects?)

Seems reasonable... are these the right criteria? Who should initiate it?

Added an Incubation Reversal Review, modeled after the Archive Review

…ta template

bramwelt · 2019-07-18T22:40:38Z

Hey @djhunt the CI is failing on these commits because there's not 'Signed-off-by' line in your commits. Could you please amend them git commit --amend --signoff and update this branch?

updated lifecycle based on 10April2019 TAC meeting input

3e4337f

edwarnicke reviewed Apr 23, 2019

View reviewed changes

djhunt commented Apr 23, 2019

View reviewed changes

morganrOL reviewed Apr 24, 2019

View reviewed changes

Jason Hunt and others added 3 commits May 7, 2019 15:02

updated lifecycle to address review comments

bd61207

updated lifecycle to add annual review for incubation

c54106e

added reference to infrastructure recommendations into the project da…

24cc2ea

…ta template

	\| \| funding but does not yet have a representative on the TAC. \|
	\| \| funding (while not impacting TAC projects). The project also does not yet have a representative on the TAC. \|

Conversation

djhunt commented Apr 23, 2019

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bramwelt commented Jul 18, 2019 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

7 participants

bramwelt commented Jul 18, 2019 •

edited

Loading