updated lifecycle based on 10April2019 TAC meeting input #14
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -24,12 +24,19 @@ Project States | |
| +---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------+ | ||
| | Project State | State Summary | | ||
| +===============+=============================================================+ | ||
| | none | Project does not exist or exists outside of LFN. | | ||
| +---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------+ | ||
| | Sandbox | Project is admitted to LFN but does not have direct funding | | ||
| | | from LFN. The intent is to enable new projects to gain | | ||
| | | visibility and participate in the LFN with minimal impact | | ||
| | | on existing projects until they are ready for a subsequent | | ||
| | | state. | | ||
| +---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------+ | ||
| | Incubation | Project has matured beyond sandbox and may receive | | ||
| | | funding (while not impacting TAC projects) but does not yet | | ||
| | | have a representative on the TAC. | | ||
| +---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------+ | ||
| | TAC Project | Project is granted TAC representation. | | ||
| +---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------+ | ||
| | Archived | Project is no longer active. | | ||
| +---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------+ | ||
|
|
@@ -40,13 +47,19 @@ Project State Transitions | |
| +--------------+-------------------+----------------------+-------------------+ | ||
| | From State | To State | TAC Review | Board Review | | ||
| +==============+===================+======================+===================+ | ||
| | none | Sandbox | LFN Entry Review | LFN Entry Review | | ||
| | | | Quarterly Health Rvw | | | ||
| +--------------+-------------------+----------------------+-------------------+ | ||
| | Sandbox | Incubation | Incubation Review | Incubation Review | | ||
| +--------------+-------------------+----------------------+-------------------+ | ||
| | Incubation | TAC | TAC Admission Review | TAC Admission Rvw | | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. is there any possibility to move from TAC to Incubation
There was a problem hiding this comment. Seems reasonable... are these the right criteria? Who should initiate it? There was a problem hiding this comment. Added an Incubation Reversal Review, modeled after the Archive Review |
||
| +--------------+-------------------+----------------------+-------------------+ | ||
| | TAC | Incubation | Incubation Reversal | | | ||
| | | | Review | | | ||
| +--------------+-------------------+----------------------+-------------------+ | ||
| | * | Archived | Archival Review | | | ||
| +--------------+-------------------+----------------------+-------------------+ | ||
| | * | none | LFN Exit Review | LFN Exit Review | | ||
| +--------------+-------------------+----------------------+-------------------+ | ||
|
|
||
| Project Reviews | ||
|
|
@@ -103,6 +116,9 @@ must minimally specify: | |
| * 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 | ||
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. 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. There was a problem hiding this comment. I think this a good requirement but the actual scope is a work item for TAC and Board - the strategic direction topic
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. @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.
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Do we need to change the wording here or just make sure that TAC & Board work on a scope definition for LFN? |
||
| scope of the LFN. | ||
|
|
||
| Outcome for TAC LFN Admission Review | ||
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | ||
|
|
||
|
|
@@ -117,36 +133,170 @@ Board LFN Entry Review | |
| ++++++++++++++++++++++ | ||
|
|
||
| It is up to the Board to define its own criteria and process of the Board's LFN | ||
| Entry Review. Such review may include legal, trademark, and license reviews. The | ||
| TAC strongly recommends the Board make its LFN Entry Review criteria and process | ||
| public and accept design input from the public. | ||
|
|
||
| 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. Sandbox projects should still be able to take advantage of LFN | ||
| membership that does not require additional funding, such as logo inclusion in | ||
| marketing materials or attendance at LFN events. | ||
|
|
||
| Quarterly Sandbox Health Review | ||
| +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | ||
|
|
||
| The TAC should review all projects in the Sandbox state on a quarterly basis. | ||
| The goal of the quarterly health review is to assist the projects in their | ||
| participation in LFN and ensure the project's community remains healthy. | ||
|
|
||
| Incubation Review | ||
| ***************** | ||
|
|
||
| The Board and the TAC both review proposals for projects to advance to the | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. 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. |
||
| Incubation state. | ||
|
|
||
| TAC Incubation Review | ||
| +++++++++++++++++++++ | ||
|
|
||
| TAC Incubation Reviews should happen before, and provide input into, Board | ||
| Incubation Reviews. | ||
|
|
||
| Required Information for TAC Incubation Review | ||
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | ||
|
|
||
| An up-to-date instantiation of the Project Data Template is required for an | ||
| Incubation Review. | ||
|
|
||
| Criteria for Incubation Review | ||
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | ||
|
|
||
| Mandatory criteria for successful completion of the Incubation review is | ||
| the documented demonstrable progress since induction toward open source best practices. This would include but is not limited to contributor diversity and | ||
| open governance. | ||
|
|
||
| As an additional (non-mandatory) guideline, the project should show demonstrable | ||
| progress in marketplace adoption. This may be measured by instances of the | ||
| project in production or the project being embedded in other open source | ||
| 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. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. 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? |
||
|
|
||
| Outcome for Incubation Admission Review | ||
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | ||
|
|
||
| As an outcome of the TAC's Incubation Review, the TAC will provide the following | ||
| feedback to the LFN Governing Board for use as input to the LFN Board's | ||
| Incubation Review: | ||
|
|
||
| * Summary of findings | ||
| * Recommendation to accept the project into the Incubation stage or not. | ||
|
|
||
| Board Incubation Review | ||
| +++++++++++++++++++++++ | ||
|
|
||
| It is up to the Board to define its own criteria and process of the Board's | ||
| Incubation Review. The TAC strongly recommends the Board make its Incubation | ||
| Review criteria and process public and accept design input from the public. | ||
|
|
||
| Budget Guidance: The TAC recommends to the board that any new Incubation | ||
| project not erode existing TAC project budgets. | ||
|
|
||
| Annual Incubation Health Review | ||
| +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | ||
|
|
||
| The TAC should review all projects in the Incubation state on an annual basis. | ||
| The goal of the annual health review is to assist the projects in their | ||
| participation in LFN, ensure the project's community remains healthy, and, | ||
| where appropriate, assist the project in advancing to the TAC stage (or | ||
| alternatively choose to remain in incubation). | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| TAC Admission Review | ||
| ******************** | ||
|
|
||
| The Board and the TAC both review proposals for projects to advance to the | ||
| TAC project state. | ||
|
|
||
| TAC Admission Review | ||
| ++++++++++++++++++++ | ||
|
|
||
| The TAC Admission Review is intended for the TAC to consider whether an | ||
| Incubation Project should have a representative on the TAC. It is initiated | ||
| by a TAC Admission Request from an Incubation Project. | ||
|
|
||
| Required Information for TAC Admission Review | ||
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | ||
|
|
||
| An up-to-date instantiation of the Project Data Template is required for a TAC | ||
| Admission Review. | ||
|
|
||
| Criteria for TAC Admission Review | ||
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | ||
|
|
||
| Mandatory criteria for successful completion of the TAC Admission Review are | ||
| maintenance of the mandatory criteria for LFN Entry and demonstration of | ||
| adequate project Diversity, a clear statement of how the Project will select | ||
| its TAC Representative and adherence to the LFN Principles. | ||
|
|
||
| The project should also show demonstrable progress in integrating with other | ||
| LFN projects, participating in cross-LFN initiatives and/or contributing to | ||
| extending or strengthening the total scope of the LFN. | ||
|
|
||
| As an additional (non-mandatory) guideline, the project should show continued | ||
| progress in marketplace adoption. | ||
|
|
||
| Outcome for TAC Admission Review | ||
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | ||
|
|
||
| As an outcome of the TAC Admission Review, the TAC will provide the following | ||
| feedback to the LFN Governing Board for use as input to the LFN Board's | ||
| TAC Admission Review: | ||
|
|
||
| * Summary of findings | ||
| * Recommendation to accept the project into the TAC Project stage or not. | ||
|
|
||
| Board TAC Admission Review | ||
| +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | ||
|
|
||
| It is up to the Board to define its own criteria and process of the Board's | ||
| TAC Induction Review. The TAC strongly recommends the Board make its TAC | ||
| Admission Review criteria and process public and accept design input from | ||
| the public. | ||
|
|
||
| Budget Guidance: The TAC recommends to the board that any new TAC project | ||
| receive funding through the existing board and TAC process for determining | ||
| budget priorities. | ||
|
|
||
| Incubation Reversal Review | ||
| ************************** | ||
|
|
||
| A TAC Project may be placed into the Incubation state if the TAC believes | ||
| (by majority vote) that the project no longer meets the criteria to be a | ||
| TAC Project or by a majority vote of the Project's TSC to request the | ||
| project be moved to Incubation state. Prior to TAC initiation of an Incubation | ||
| Reversal Review of a Project, a good faith effort must be made to contact the | ||
| Project's TSC and initiate a dialog about the future of the Project. | ||
|
|
||
| Criteria for Incubation Reversal Review | ||
| +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | ||
|
|
||
| Mandatory criteria for moving a TAC project to Incubation State are one of: | ||
|
|
||
| * A clear request from the Project to be moved to Incubation. | ||
| * Clear evidence of a decrease in project activity causing the project to no | ||
| longer meet TAC admission criteria, such as project diversity, adherence to | ||
| LFN principles or overall LFN participation. Additionally, demonstration of | ||
| a good faith effort by the TAC to contact the Project's TSC and come to a | ||
| positive resolution. | ||
|
|
||
| Outcome for Incubation Reversal Review | ||
| ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | ||
|
|
||
| The TAC will notify the Board immediately of any decision to move a TAC | ||
| project back to Incubation state. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Archival Review | ||
| *************** | ||
|
|
@@ -198,12 +348,8 @@ reviews. | |
| Disposition of Existing Projects | ||
| -------------------------------- | ||
|
|
||
| As of March 7, 2019, OpenDaylight, OPNFV, FD.io, and ONAP are in state TAC. | ||
| PNDA, SNAS, and Tungsten Fabric are in state Incubation. | ||
|
|
||
| Amendment of Technical Governance | ||
| --------------------------------- | ||
|
|
||
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
maybe a stupid question but who/which entity is responsible to decide whether a project is admitted or not in LFN?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The TAC recommends to the Governing Board. The GB has the final say.