Conversation
On-behalf-of: Radek Schekalla (SAP) <radek.schekalla@sap.com> Signed-off-by: Radek Schekalla (SAP) <radek.schekalla@sap.com>
|
WIP: first draft (TBD) Intro: Charter-Template: |
| - Escalation: 2 weeks | ||
| - Final resolution: 30 days maximum | ||
|
|
||
| ## Subprojects and Work Organization |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@dattito can u add a mermaid chart ? visualizting this?
just throwing a proposal here - but lets stress the outcome of this theoretical construct...
´´´
Platform SIG
- Core Subgroup
- Exensibility Subgroup
Content SIG
- Operator ABC Subgroup
- Provider XYZ Subgroup
....
´´´
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| ## Subprojects and Work Organization | |
| ## Subprojects and Work Organization | |
| ```mermaid | |
| graph TD | |
| OpenMCP[OpenMCP Project] | |
| OpenMCP --> Platform[Platform SIG] | |
| OpenMCP --> Provider[Provider SIG] | |
| Platform --> PlatformFoo[Foo Subproject] | |
| Platform --> PlatformBar[Bar Subproject] | |
| Platform --> PlatformBaz[Baz Subproject] | |
| Provider --> ProviderBTP[provider-btp] | |
| Provider --> ProviderCF[provider-cf] | |
| style OpenMCP fill:#2c3e50,stroke:#34495e,stroke-width:3px,color:#fff | |
| style Platform fill:#3498db,stroke:#2980b9,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff | |
| style Provider fill:#2ecc71,stroke:#27ae60,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff | |
| style PlatformFoo fill:#95a5a6,stroke:#7f8c8d,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff | |
| style PlatformBar fill:#95a5a6,stroke:#7f8c8d,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff | |
| style PlatformBaz fill:#95a5a6,stroke:#7f8c8d,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff | |
| style ProviderBTP fill:#95a5a6,stroke:#7f8c8d,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff | |
| style ProviderCF fill:#95a5a6,stroke:#7f8c8d,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff | |
| ``` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@GenosseOtt @dattito I don't get what this graph is trying to express.
IMHO, the SIG definition should not make any statements about what sub projects exist but the graph makes appear as there is already a structure. This should be part of each SIG on how they want to have it documented.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@reshnm The idea was not to outline which SIGs may exist, but rather the structure of the 1:n relationship between SIGs and sub-projects in general. The names "Platform" and "Provider" have been chosen to make it more tangible to the reader.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👎 I dont like. I have not seen that in other SIG definitions. I also think the structure is very well defined in the test.
A sig can have sub projects. I don't see what this graph solves.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should be a governance doc first and foremost and not include updates to concrete SIGs imho. ideally this doc is slow moving and rarely changing, even with new or changed SIGs
dattito
left a comment
dattito
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great read so far 🤩. This new structure will come out great! I am looking forward to have some great and insightful discussion about this topic in this thread!
| - Strategic decisions reserved for project managers | ||
| - Governance matters outside the SIG's purview | ||
|
|
||
| #### Roles and Responsibilities |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The Roles section defines roles in a SIG, but not sub-project roles.
Can a SIG Approver also approve PRs in sub-project repos?
Are there dedicated roles for sub-projects? Are they standardized or can SIGs/sub-projects define them on their own?
Looking forward for some nice discussions here in github, this is fun ^^
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When reading through the roles right now, I have the feeling that they would fit better to a sub-project than the actual SIG 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would say every SIG can specify how sub-projects are organized and what roles there are. There could be multiple sub-projects of the same SIG having different "rules" and working modes.
docs/sig/introduction.md
Outdated
| ## Subprojects and Work Organization | ||
|
|
||
| ### Subproject Definition | ||
| Subprojects are focused work efforts within a SIG, each with designated ownership and clear deliverables. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is a sub-project always one git repository? Is it a 1:1 mapping or also 1:n? Or may it be something else than a git repo?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would not infer technical requirments from SIGs and sub-projects.
A SIG and its sub-projects can work on as many git repositories as needed.
There could even be contributions from different SIGs in one git repository.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you mean that multiple SIGs/sub-projects then own one git repository?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No sig is owning a repository. It is owned by NeoNephos :-)
I just wouldn't define repository roles in SIG and sub project definitions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It should be clearly stated what a deliverable can be then.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have reverse my previous statement.
I think it makes sense to give SIGs ownership of repositories and each sig assigns the approriate permissions to approvers and owners.
On-behalf-of: Radek Schekalla (SAP) <radek.schekalla@sap.com> Signed-off-by: Radek Schekalla (SAP) <radek.schekalla@sap.com>
| - Ensure **accountability** and **transparency** across the project | ||
| - Enable **scalable governance** as the project grows | ||
|
|
||
| **Fundamental Principle**: Every component of the OpenMCP project is intended to be under the stewardship of a SIG. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is the word "component" here enough? Or should we but something in brackets behind like: "repository/non-technical component/topic/..."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe we should define what a component is?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe define component as:
A Git repository and all artifacts that are build out of it.
Co-authored-by: Maximilian Techritz <maximilian.techritz@sap.com>
Co-authored-by: Maximilian Techritz <maximilian.techritz@sap.com>
Co-authored-by: Maximilian Techritz <maximilian.techritz@sap.com>
On-behalf-of: Radek Schekalla (SAP) <radek.schekalla@sap.com> Signed-off-by: Radek Schekalla (SAP) <radek.schekalla@sap.com>
On-behalf-of: Radek Schekalla (SAP) <radek.schekalla@sap.com> Signed-off-by: Radek Schekalla (SAP) <radek.schekalla@sap.com>
Co-authored-by: Maximilian Techritz <maximilian.techritz@sap.com>
Co-authored-by: Maximilian Techritz <maximilian.techritz@sap.com>
Co-authored-by: Maximilian Techritz <maximilian.techritz@sap.com>
Co-authored-by: Maximilian Techritz <maximilian.techritz@sap.com>
Co-authored-by: Maximilian Techritz <maximilian.techritz@sap.com>
Co-authored-by: Maximilian Techritz <maximilian.techritz@sap.com>
Co-authored-by: Maximilian Techritz <maximilian.techritz@sap.com>
| - **Responsibilities:** | ||
| - Organize and facilitate SIG meetings | ||
| - Maintain charter and documentation | ||
| - Communicate with other SIGs and stakeholders |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is usually the responsibility of every member in a sig.
| - Escalate conflicts and blockers | ||
| - Report quarterly to TSC | ||
|
|
||
| - **Selection:** Appointed by TSC based on community nomination and demonstrated leadership |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/community-membership.md#community-membership why is this centralized to the TSC?
| - Escalation: 2 weeks | ||
| - Final resolution: 30 days maximum | ||
|
|
||
| ## Subprojects and Work Organization |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should be a governance doc first and foremost and not include updates to concrete SIGs imho. ideally this doc is slow moving and rarely changing, even with new or changed SIGs
docs/sig/introduction.md
Outdated
| ## Subprojects and Work Organization | ||
|
|
||
| ### Subproject Definition | ||
| Subprojects are focused work efforts within a SIG, each with designated ownership and clear deliverables. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It should be clearly stated what a deliverable can be then.
Co-authored-by: Maximilian Techritz <maximilian.techritz@sap.com>
On-behalf-of: Radek Schekalla (SAP) <radek.schekalla@sap.com> Signed-off-by: Radek Schekalla (SAP) <radek.schekalla@sap.com>
…onventient copying On-behalf-of: Radek Schekalla (SAP) <radek.schekalla@sap.com> Signed-off-by: Radek Schekalla (SAP) <radek.schekalla@sap.com>
On-behalf-of: Radek Schekalla (SAP) <radek.schekalla@sap.com> Signed-off-by: Radek Schekalla (SAP) <radek.schekalla@sap.com>
…project lifecycle parts On-behalf-of: Radek Schekalla (SAP) <radek.schekalla@sap.com> Signed-off-by: Radek Schekalla (SAP) <radek.schekalla@sap.com>
On-behalf-of: Radek Schekalla (SAP) <radek.schekalla@sap.com> Signed-off-by: Radek Schekalla (SAP) <radek.schekalla@sap.com>
On-behalf-of: Radek Schekalla (SAP) <radek.schekalla@sap.com> Signed-off-by: Radek Schekalla (SAP) <radek.schekalla@sap.com>
|
Closing this one, as we're moving the content to https://github.com/openmcp-project/community (PR #2) |
6 participants
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR adds a chapter on the definition of a Special Interest Group (SIG) in context of openMCP.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
Release note:
On-behalf-of: Radek Schekalla (SAP) radek.schekalla@sap.com