Per the CNTT Governance call, by EOD Tuesday (~6pm UTC), October 8th, 2019, please enter your feedback, questions, or comments to the proposed CNTT Structure in "feedback" column below. Begin your comments by indicate your name using the @[yourusername] function. E.g. Jonathan Beltran.
THANKS,
| Slide # | Material | Feedback: comments, questions, Workstream(s) lead/co-lead role interest |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | e.g. Jonathan Beltran - (comment, questions, workstream role interest) | |
| 3 | ||
| 4 | ||
| 5 | ||
| 6 | ||
| 7 | ||
| 8 | ||
| 9 | ||
| 10 | ||
| 11 | ||
| 12 | ||
| 13 | ||
| 14 | ||
| 15 | Cédric Ollivier: Could we get additional details about these workstreams? I haven't seen any first draft/meeting in Antwerp. | |
| 16-24 | Contributions Process - See document CNTT Structure | Cédric Ollivier: I would have strongly considered an opensource model (see OPNFV) based on meritocraty instead of nominating people regarding the nature of their companies by laws. All contribution statistics (pull requests, bugs, comments on pull/requests) are available from the beginning which ease selecting the best committers. I disagree with the current 2 operators + 2 vendors requirements to merges change even if I understand we can improve the process sometimes wrong during Botrange. It seems falsy to ask for 4 committers to merge a pull regarding regarding the number of current active committers (ratio 1:1?). Then I consider once again that selecting the nature of company is not right from a meritocracy. I would proposed 2 committers only from 2 different companies excluding the author's one. (1 committer could be considered depending on the number of contributors). |
| 25-27 | Meeting Structure - See document CNTT Structure |