Open discussion and brainstorming on how to better align the requirements pipeline for both functional and non-functional requirements

Attendees: Alla Goldner, @Andrea Visnyei, Atsushi Makita , @Bartosz Gorski ,  Benjamin Cheung, Bill Mulligan ,  Catherine Lefevre , Ciaran Johnston, @John Keeney ,  Kamel Idir, Ken KANISHIMA, Liam Fallon, Morgan Richomme, Mukesh Paliwal, Pamela Dragosh, Pawel Pawlak, yellela nagaphanindra, Ranny Haiby, Seshu Kumar Mudiganti, Scott Blandford, Sithara Nambiar, Sonia Sangari, Thomas Kulik, Timo Perala,  @Toine Siebelink, Vijay Venkatesh Kumar , Vimal Begwani , Xin Miao

Recording

Notes

  • multiple sources of requirements 
  • Alla Goldner  routing things via Requirements subcommittee could result with duplicate work
  • Pamela Dragosh  most control-loop requirements were defined in the prior release
  • Scott Blandford  requirements + arch subc process could be adopted by other committees
  • Benjamin Cheung working on arch process weekly - https://wiki.onap.org/x/ApW4B,  Way of Working https://wiki.onap.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=79204390
  • Alla Goldner do we limit the number of input sources?
  • Scott Blandford is requirements sub a funnel or are there processes that ate always applied?
  • Vimal Begwani  aggregation  point only?
  • requirements sub currently does not set prioritization. 
  • Pamela Dragosh the control-loop sub was set up to align projects, but seeing control-loop work that is occurring without participation in the subcommittee
  • Kenny Paul subcommittees can make recommendations on priorities to TSC
  • Catherine Lefevre the requirements subcommittee become the ONAP product owner?
  • Pawel Pawlak new seccom requirements could go through requirements for alignment, best-practices once adopted should not be re-submitted for each release
  • Seshu Kumar Mudiganti technical debt can become a requirement for the next release  - may impact multiple projects. as long as internal change w/out API impact not need to route to req sub
  • Consensus:
    • any requirements- regardless of source- should go through the requirements subcommittee.
    • and euag submits requirements to req. sub where they are vetted
    • committee consolidates backlog
    • committee should make prioritization recommendations to the TSC
  • Enhance the mission of the Requirements Subcommittee:
    • Act as the ONAP Product Owners 
    • Recommend Prioritization to the TSC
    • Create the consolidated ONAP Backlog coming from the different streamlines (outside/internal + EAUG)
    • As an example, EUAG/SECCOM/Control Loops → REq Subcommittee prioritirised → (Architecture Review if required) → TSC 

Actions

  • Alla Goldner lead a "recharter" of Requirements sub to align with the new proposed mission.