Open Stack

Hi Prakash,

thanks for the first input to this topic.

I tend to support Christophers feedback that we need to create a very simple structure which facilitates a fast and transparent decision making process whether a dedicated project qualifies for the different stages an OIP can have. 

From my perspective a start could be to consider the different project types; proposal could be:
Projects which have already a history outside of the Openstack community and have reached a dedicated level of maturity though
Projects in very early stages, having eg a concept or a very first spec yet but not necessarily working code
which might then need a different assessment logic

Based on that, I would suggest a structure
To define/identify/complement the bodies of the OSF as described in the bylaws which shall be involved/manage a project; 
A project can already have a good working structure which then simply continues
New/to-be-modified management structures for  projects could get advice from some best practice project management templates
To detail a stage model those projects undergo through its lifecycle and define toll gates in more detail 
To create simple check lists with not more than 10 items each giving to the members of the bodies some orientation which criteria shall be concluded whether a project may pass the toll gate; the judgement is then indeed up to the individuals and may lead to (wanted!) discussions in the bodies

The checklists should consider only some very few simple areas
Value that the project can provide to OI namespace (links to other projects, enrichments for existing projects etc.) and strengthen its mission 
Value that the OI namespace is providing to the project
Formal (technical) criteria like working structure, ecosystem competition, code quality, fit for purpose development approach etc.

I currently assume that with such a structure, a flexible, feasible, transparent and speedy process can be established to facilitate fast conclusions on OIPs; perhaps it could be a good starter and could be extended if needed at a later stage

Happy to discuss

BR C

> Am 26.11.2018 um 10:17 schrieb Christopher Price <christopher.price at est.tech>:
> 
> Hi Prakash,
>  
> Thank you for kick-starting this dialog and putting forward a proposal to get the ball rolling.
>  
> I have looked at the document and the first thing that struck me was the potentially significant amount of work involved in establishing these matrix for evaluation and determination.  I hold some concerns that such a data matrix may make it difficult for incubating projects to have an understanding on what is expected of them to achieve promotion.  I’m a big fan of simple, especially when it comes to setting expectations on a diverse group of people. :)
>  
> There would be some value in looking at these metrics and trying to boil them down to a set of principals for projects to follow, with a (hopefully) simple method of evaluating the projects adherence in order that the communities are aware of the boards expectations and there can be little confusion on how to achieve them.  I noticed your document, rightly, highlights the “four opens” as a set of expectations, this might be a good starting point for which to build consumable messaging on how “project confirmation” can be achieved and evaluated.
>  
> I feel that we will need to try and make what is a complex topic as simple as possible in order that we do not confuse or alienate potential projects.  Let’s discuss in the meetings Alan will propose, I’m keen to hear others thoughts on this topic.
>  
> Regards,
>                 Chris
>  
> From: prakash RAMCHANDRAN <pramchan at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: "pramchan at yahoo.com" <pramchan at yahoo.com>
> Date: Saturday, 24 November 2018 at 02:06
> To: "ACLARK at suse.com" <ACLARK at suse.com>, foundation-board <foundation-board at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] Call to develop the confirmation guidelines
>  
> Alan & foundation-board,
>  
>  Took some time to think over the OIP process. Confirmation guide lines as you call, needs a pipeline to identity how we reached here in first place and how would we repeat it with success for future OIP efforts 
>  
> Attached here in the first simple draft to brainstorm at next meeting. Please feel free to amend and update to arrive at a version that can be tested on one or two Pilots in pipe line to finalize the procedures before releasing first version to existing OIP pilots.
>  
>  
> Thanks
> Prakash Ramchandran
> +14084065810
>  
>  
>  
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature>
>  
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 7:28 AM, prakash RAMCHANDRAN
> <pramchan at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Alan, 
>  
> Glad to see the first Bylaws part of OIP addressed by Board successfully.
>  
> For now we can draft a document call it Best practice & Guidelines for evaluating Pilot Projects to onboard as a confirmed project within OIP.
>  
> Thus we need a simple Life cycle to be defined for an OIP project.
>  
> 1) Pilot phase
> 2) Evaluation or Reevaluation phase.
> 3) Confirmation and Graduated to be Run as OIP project.
> 4) Rating based on adaption and Define scale of Maturity
> 5) Terminate, Archive and / or merge into other OIP or OpenStack project or projects.
>  
> Each of this 5 phase can have some matrix to measure and commitee assigned can define that. Matrix should include both Technology and Market coments to qualify in all 5 phases.
>  
> I can certainly pitch in and certainly let's get Chris Price from Ericsson bring his experience from OPNFV to best on it.
>  
> This will need a private wiki page or confluence and OSF staff should be able to facilitate that.
>  
> Please go ahead and get one quick call to assign a 3-5 member committee that can include 2 SP, 2 platinum or Gold reps and 1 Semi conductor vendor like Intel to get this moving and let's get a preliminary draft before next year end.
>  
> We need to have clear road map by CYQ1 to ensure we keep the good work done and let the stats by our Branding team het us some inputs through survey.
>  
> Rest on call.
>  
> Thanks
> Prakash
>  
>  
> 
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature>
>  
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 4:03 PM, Alan Clark
> <ACLARK at suse.com> wrote:
> Please respond by November 30.
>  
> Directors, thank you for your leadership at this week's board and joint leadership meetings. The resolutions we passed will be a pivotal point for our community for years to come.
>  
> Now, as a board, we have some additional work to undertake to define guidelines that we as a board will use to help confirm pilot projects.
>  
> I would like to launch a new board work effort to define guidelines the board can use to fulfill our confirmation responsibilities as part of the strategic project process.
>  
> These guidelines will be a key tool for us to ensure that we and the OpenStack Foundation will be in a proper position to help these projects grow, thrive and succeed as an open source community driven technology.
>  
> Please let me know if you are interested in participating in this work effort.  Once I know those who are interested, I will setup a kickoff call where we can determine who would like to chair this effort and to determine a path forward.
>  
> Regards,
> AlanClark 
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation-board mailing list
> Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org <mailto:Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org>
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board>_______________________________________________
> Foundation-board mailing list
> Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation-board/attachments/20181126/e90c7c53/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3783 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation-board/attachments/20181126/e90c7c53/attachment-0001.bin>