Open discussion and brainstorming on how to better align the requirements pipeline for both functional and non-functional requirements
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
- 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: req sub should make prioritizations recommendation and euag submits requirements to req. sub and consolidate backlog
- 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
- Type your task here, using "@" to assign to a user and "//" to select a due date