openetcs / charta Goto Github PK

Review re #2

Not a single link in "Applicable Documents" works. Even if they would, we'd need specific versions.

Please review the current document "openETCS Charta" #2

The review is open until July, 18th..

Document under review:

At the recent PCC we agreed to start an "official" review for the charta according to the process. Please, take this serious, - a decision is forseen on the upcoming PCC.

The document is available here:
(https://github.com/openETCS/Charta/blob/master/Proposal/openETCS_Project_Cooperation_Charta.pdf).

@openETCS/management
@openETCS/management-committers

Please mention #2 within your issue or contribute with a pull request to the document itself.

Your comments will be collected via issue-tracker.
Deadline is July 18th of 2014.

br
Bernd

Review re #2

The terminology should be unified, e.g. on page one: "must meet several important requirements" vs. "aims at answering these needs". openETCS is used inconsistently and ambiguously. For instance, in "IP Due Diligence" (page 6), openETCS is used, when it should be oEPG, I believe.

A glossary could help.

As a quasi-legal document, numbering each paragraph would be extremely helpful. The document has no change history or version number.

Managing this document as Latex would make collaboration much easier.

Review re #2

I would remove all references to itea throughout the text. Instead, I would summarize this information in a dedicated section.

The Development Process refers to "work packages and tasks". These have no meaning beyond the lifetime of openETCS, which the Charter is supposed to survive.

Review re #2

"SoC (System on Chip) simulation and hardware logic (VHDL, SystemC, etc.)" - Really? I thought we would cover only software?

Review re #2, to elaborate on #3

The goal and vision are the most important part of this document, everything else should be consistent with what's written here. Therefore, I suggest to make it more concise, and if possible shorter. Here are some specifics that I noticed:

"Providing a set of industry-friendly as well as user-friendly open source tools, frameworks, and components"

This seems redundant and incomplete. Suggestion:

"Providing a set of industry-strength tools for the development of the software-portion of on-board systems, as well an industry-quality methodology to go with it."

"Providing collaborative"

Make explicit that collaboration will take place across organizations. I would merge that with bullet 3.

"Providing the documents and qualification kits required for certification"

When investigating qualification for openIT4SR, we realized that such an attempt is futile, if it is not driven by a commercial entity behind a tool. Therefore, I woud replace with: "Encourage commercial entities to offer qualification and certification services"

This affects also the section "Component Management".

I would drop bulltes 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, and merge only the most relevant content in the other bullets.

Review re #2

openETCS Membership Summary:

This section lists a number of "services". This list is not consistent with the Section "Services". Can this be simlified and made consistent?

Also, I would drastrically reduce the number of Committees. I would start with Steering Committee and General Assembly, with the option to create additional committees on an as-needed basis.

Review re #2

Overall comment: To increase the chance that the Charter is actually being read, I would try to shorten it. Therefore, my review comments will contain a number of suggestions to this end.

Specifically, there seems to be some repetition. There is a chapter "Governance and Precedence" on page 2 and "Governance" on page 6, they could be unified.

There is talk about hosted projects on page 6 ("Hosting Private Projects") and page 2 ("Hosted Projects")

Page 1 contains a lot of information, that could and should be condensed. These are recorded in #4.

Concerning the review of the charta document #2:
Is there a difference between "Solutions Members" and "Participant Members" or is the naming just not consistent in the document? (see Section "Classes of Membership")

Review re #2

I find that methodology/process is missing as a crucial element throughout the document. I suggest to include and (elaborate) in the chapter "Core Domains".

Review re #2

I would remove all process descriptions. I find it very risky to prescribe a process in a Charter. Instead, we should define the properties of the outcome (e.g. for a development process, all code must be reviewed; for an IP process, all artefacts must be IP-clean. etc.).