|
On 11/1/19 10:50 AM, Robert Varga
wrote:
On 01/11/2019 00:48, Abhijit Kumbhare wrote:
Hi TSC members,
During the TSC meeting today (Oct 31, 2019) Robert asked the TSC how
should we deal with projects which should be under the TSC purview due
to lack of active members. Example: DLUX which is not part of the
current simultaneous release - but still need fixes for the previous
releases SRs. Robert had an excellent suggestion that since these
projects are in a way managed by the TSC but have no longer any active
members - all the TSC members should be committers on these projects.
This way we would be able to merge any absolutely needed code changes to
the project. There was an overall consensus on this - but it would be
important to have a conversation around this - followed by a vote.
I would like to note that the proposal hinges on the project being dead
and the TSC already taking an action -- DLUX is under consideration for
archival. The aim is to define an alternative to archiving the project,
but this may become useful in different situations as well -- which we
can consider when such a situation arises.
I think there are three topics here that need to be clarified via a
discussion & a vote:
*Topic 1:* What are the criteria to have a project under the TSC purview?
In my opinion, the minimum criteria would be:
* The TSC should think that the project is important enough to make it
under TSC purview. Instead of specifying specific rules for what is
an important project, I think this should be decided on a case by
case basis by a TSC vote.
* These projects have no active committers. Implicitly having no
active committers also means that the project has no objections to
be under the TSC purview.
* The above two should be the minimum criteria. Not all the projects
which satisfy the above two criteria should be put under the TSC
purview. Whether a particular project should be under the TSC
purview, should be decided by a TSC vote.
+1. I am not sure about timing -- perhaps this process can become
available sooner than the 18 month archival period?
+1
Maybe once a project goes for a single release with zero activity (I
propose gerrit
be the data we use) we can allow for TSC to become committers on
that project
and after 3 releases with no activity we'll be at the 18month period
and can decide
to archive or not.
*Topic 2*: Should the TSC be committers on a project under TSC purview?
+1, TSC members should be committers on the project, making their vote
equivalent to the decision of committers on any other project. This
should include the nomination and approval of non-TSC committers to the
project -- which would be a step towards the project coming out of TSC
purview and resuming normal life...
+1
*Topic 3*: Does the TSC agree that DLUX should be under the TSC purview?
+1.
+1
We should also consider l2switch, as it seems to be close to being in
working state here:
https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/c/l2switch/+/85209 and it is a
useful example on getting started on development.
totally agree. there are always questions about l2switch in the
wild. I2switch + dlux
was normally everyone's first introduction to ODL as a whole.
JamO
Regards,
Robert
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#18281): https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/release/message/18281
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opendaylight.org/mt/40453808/535209
Group Owner: release+owner@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/release/unsub [jluhrsen@...]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|
|
|
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 at 15:07, JamO Luhrsen < jluhrsen@...> wrote:
On 11/1/19 10:50 AM, Robert Varga
wrote:
On 01/11/2019 00:48, Abhijit Kumbhare wrote:
Hi TSC members,
During the TSC meeting today (Oct 31, 2019) Robert asked the TSC how
should we deal with projects which should be under the TSC purview due
to lack of active members. Example: DLUX which is not part of the
current simultaneous release - but still need fixes for the previous
releases SRs. Robert had an excellent suggestion that since these
projects are in a way managed by the TSC but have no longer any active
members - all the TSC members should be committers on these projects.
This way we would be able to merge any absolutely needed code changes to
the project. There was an overall consensus on this - but it would be
important to have a conversation around this - followed by a vote.
I would like to note that the proposal hinges on the project being dead
and the TSC already taking an action -- DLUX is under consideration for
archival. The aim is to define an alternative to archiving the project,
but this may become useful in different situations as well -- which we
can consider when such a situation arises.
I think there are three topics here that need to be clarified via a
discussion & a vote:
*Topic 1:* What are the criteria to have a project under the TSC purview?
In my opinion, the minimum criteria would be:
* The TSC should think that the project is important enough to make it
under TSC purview. Instead of specifying specific rules for what is
an important project, I think this should be decided on a case by
case basis by a TSC vote.
* These projects have no active committers. Implicitly having no
active committers also means that the project has no objections to
be under the TSC purview.
* The above two should be the minimum criteria. Not all the projects
which satisfy the above two criteria should be put under the TSC
purview. Whether a particular project should be under the TSC
purview, should be decided by a TSC vote.
+1. I am not sure about timing -- perhaps this process can become
available sooner than the 18 month archival period?
+1
Maybe once a project goes for a single release with zero activity (I
propose gerrit
be the data we use) we can allow for TSC to become committers on
that project
and after 3 releases with no activity we'll be at the 18month period
and can decide
to archive or not.
+1 I think this makes a lot of sense.
*Topic 2*: Should the TSC be committers on a project under TSC purview?
+1, TSC members should be committers on the project, making their vote
equivalent to the decision of committers on any other project. This
should include the nomination and approval of non-TSC committers to the
project -- which would be a step towards the project coming out of TSC
purview and resuming normal life...
+1
+1
*Topic 3*: Does the TSC agree that DLUX should be under the TSC purview?
+1.
+1
+1
We should also consider l2switch, as it seems to be close to being in
working state here:
https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/c/l2switch/+/85209 and it is a
useful example on getting started on development.
totally agree. there are always questions about l2switch in the
wild. I2switch + dlux
was normally everyone's first introduction to ODL as a whole.
Agreed.
Thanh
|
|
|
Nothing to add, I agree on the 3 bullets.
On Nov 1, 2019, at 1:33 PM, Thanh ha < zxiiro@...> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 at 15:07, JamO Luhrsen < jluhrsen@...> wrote: On 11/1/19 10:50 AM, Robert Varga wrote:
On 01/11/2019 00:48, Abhijit Kumbhare wrote:
Hi TSC members,
During the TSC meeting today (Oct 31, 2019) Robert asked the TSC how
should we deal with projects which should be under the TSC purview due
to lack of active members. Example: DLUX which is not part of the
current simultaneous release - but still need fixes for the previous
releases SRs. Robert had an excellent suggestion that since these
projects are in a way managed by the TSC but have no longer any active
members - all the TSC members should be committers on these projects.
This way we would be able to merge any absolutely needed code changes to
the project. There was an overall consensus on this - but it would be
important to have a conversation around this - followed by a vote.
I would like to note that the proposal hinges on the project being dead
and the TSC already taking an action -- DLUX is under consideration for
archival. The aim is to define an alternative to archiving the project,
but this may become useful in different situations as well -- which we
can consider when such a situation arises.
I think there are three topics here that need to be clarified via a
discussion & a vote:
*Topic 1:* What are the criteria to have a project under the TSC purview?
In my opinion, the minimum criteria would be:
* The TSC should think that the project is important enough to make it
under TSC purview. Instead of specifying specific rules for what is
an important project, I think this should be decided on a case by
case basis by a TSC vote.
* These projects have no active committers. Implicitly having no
active committers also means that the project has no objections to
be under the TSC purview.
* The above two should be the minimum criteria. Not all the projects
which satisfy the above two criteria should be put under the TSC
purview. Whether a particular project should be under the TSC
purview, should be decided by a TSC vote.
+1. I am not sure about timing -- perhaps this process can become
available sooner than the 18 month archival period?
+1 Maybe once a project goes for a single release with zero activity (I propose gerrit be the data we use) we can allow for TSC to become committers on that project and after 3 releases with no activity we'll be at the 18month period and can decide to archive or not.
+1 I think this makes a lot of sense. *Topic 2*: Should the TSC be committers on a project under TSC purview?
+1, TSC members should be committers on the project, making their vote
equivalent to the decision of committers on any other project. This
should include the nomination and approval of non-TSC committers to the
project -- which would be a step towards the project coming out of TSC
purview and resuming normal life...
+1
+1 *Topic 3*: Does the TSC agree that DLUX should be under the TSC purview?
+1.
+1
+1 We should also consider l2switch, as it seems to be close to being in
working state here:
https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/c/l2switch/+/85209 and it is a
useful example on getting started on development.
totally agree. there are always questions about l2switch in the wild. I2switch + dlux was normally everyone's first introduction to ODL as a whole.
Agreed.
Thanh
|
|
|
OK - so we seem to have either a broad approval or at least no-objection for the topics I sent. I have consolidated inputs from Robert, Jamo, etc. + some changes from my side. The changes are below in a different font color. I will let you folks comment on the changes for a couple of days and even continue the discussion in the TSC meeting if needed. I will then initiate a vote afterwards.
Topic 1: What are the criteria to have a project under the TSC purview?
The minimum criteria is: - These projects have no active committers. Implicitly having no active committers also means that the project has no objections to be under the TSC purview. In most such cases, the project would likely be archived if it was not put under TSC purview.
- The TSC should think that the project is important enough to make it under TSC purview. Instead of specifying specific rules for what is an important project, I think this should be decided on a case by case basis by a TSC vote.
- A project whose all committers are planning to become inactive - can also petition that the project be placed under the TSC purview. The TSC may or may not accept the project to be under TSC purview depending on the TSC vote.
- The above should be the minimum criteria. Not all the projects which satisfy the above two criteria should be put under the TSC purview. Whether a particular project should be under the TSC purview, should be decided by a TSC vote.
Topic 2: Should the TSC be committers on a project under TSC purview?
Topic 3: Does the TSC agree that DLUX should be under the TSC purview?
Topic 4: Does the TSC agree that L2Switch should be under the TSC purview?
Once we decide by a vote, I will create a page under confluence for the policy for putting a project under TSC purview. I believe Jamo's point on putting a project under TSC purview after a single release of zero activity is covered under the bullet of no active committers for the project. This will give the TSC the flexibility to add a project under the purview if there are no active committers without waiting for a full release of inactivity. However if you folks think that it would be better to avoid this flexibility to avoid TSC overreach - we can put in explicitly the one release inactivity requirement.
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 4:04 PM Luis Gomez < ecelgp@...> wrote: Nothing to add, I agree on the 3 bullets. On Nov 1, 2019, at 1:33 PM, Thanh ha < zxiiro@...> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 at 15:07, JamO Luhrsen < jluhrsen@...> wrote: On 11/1/19 10:50 AM, Robert Varga wrote:
On 01/11/2019 00:48, Abhijit Kumbhare wrote:
Hi TSC members,
During the TSC meeting today (Oct 31, 2019) Robert asked the TSC how
should we deal with projects which should be under the TSC purview due
to lack of active members. Example: DLUX which is not part of the
current simultaneous release - but still need fixes for the previous
releases SRs. Robert had an excellent suggestion that since these
projects are in a way managed by the TSC but have no longer any active
members - all the TSC members should be committers on these projects.
This way we would be able to merge any absolutely needed code changes to
the project. There was an overall consensus on this - but it would be
important to have a conversation around this - followed by a vote.
I would like to note that the proposal hinges on the project being dead
and the TSC already taking an action -- DLUX is under consideration for
archival. The aim is to define an alternative to archiving the project,
but this may become useful in different situations as well -- which we
can consider when such a situation arises.
I think there are three topics here that need to be clarified via a
discussion & a vote:
*Topic 1:* What are the criteria to have a project under the TSC purview?
In my opinion, the minimum criteria would be:
* The TSC should think that the project is important enough to make it
under TSC purview. Instead of specifying specific rules for what is
an important project, I think this should be decided on a case by
case basis by a TSC vote.
* These projects have no active committers. Implicitly having no
active committers also means that the project has no objections to
be under the TSC purview.
* The above two should be the minimum criteria. Not all the projects
which satisfy the above two criteria should be put under the TSC
purview. Whether a particular project should be under the TSC
purview, should be decided by a TSC vote.
+1. I am not sure about timing -- perhaps this process can become
available sooner than the 18 month archival period?
+1 Maybe once a project goes for a single release with zero activity (I propose gerrit be the data we use) we can allow for TSC to become committers on that project and after 3 releases with no activity we'll be at the 18month period and can decide to archive or not.
+1 I think this makes a lot of sense. *Topic 2*: Should the TSC be committers on a project under TSC purview?
+1, TSC members should be committers on the project, making their vote
equivalent to the decision of committers on any other project. This
should include the nomination and approval of non-TSC committers to the
project -- which would be a step towards the project coming out of TSC
purview and resuming normal life...
+1
+1 *Topic 3*: Does the TSC agree that DLUX should be under the TSC purview?
+1.
+1
+1 We should also consider l2switch, as it seems to be close to being in
working state here:
https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/c/l2switch/+/85209 and it is a
useful example on getting started on development.
totally agree. there are always questions about l2switch in the wild. I2switch + dlux was normally everyone's first introduction to ODL as a whole.
Agreed.
Thanh
|
|
|
