Weekly conference call for EGI-InSPIRE SA2
Call-in details
=========
Skype: +9900827048111664 (already includes conference number)
Landlines:
Austria +43 (0) 82040115470
Belgium +32 (0) 7 0357134
France +33 (0) 826109071
Germany +49 01805009527
Ireland +353 (0) 818270968
Italy +39 848390177
Spain +34 (9) 02885791
Switzerland +41 (0) 8 48560397
United Kingdom +44 (0) 8454018081
Conference/room number: 8111664
Agenda
=====
1. Roll Call
2. Minutes approval
- Conference call 23 September 2010: http://bit.ly/bteCL8
3. Action Item review
- AI-0001: Enol to put the QC on the Wiki under the page (or a link) starting at Kosta's page [NSRW Wiki page http://bit.ly/d15Zgt]
- AI-0002: Michel to put the template on the Wiki
- AI-0003: Ales to put the technical info (provided by Milos Liska) on the Wiki page
4, Deliverables and Milestones
- MS504: EGI Spftware Repository Architecture
- MS505: Template for an SLA with a Technology Provider
4. NSRW - New Software Release Workflow
- Assign RT ticket to one person or a group of people?
- Report collection and consolidation for QC verification (TSA2.3)
- Report collection and consolidation for SR (JRA1)
5. Project Quality and Metrics
- Document: https://documents.egi.eu/document/55 (section 7.5)
- Expand or comments
- Impact on SA2
- Collecting metrics
- Regular reporting
- Targets per project year
6. SA2 F2F in Brussels, 26 October 2010
- Facilities: http://www.thonhotels.be/brusselscitycentre
- Agenda
7. AOB
- Integrating other EGI sites in the main EGI website (http://bit.ly/9OxCJL)
New AI-0004 on all: Read and comment on Carlos' template for QC verification by next week
Deliverables and Milestones
MS504: EGI Software Repository Architecture
New version out incorporating reviewers' comments
Expected to be in AMB review by end of week
MS505: Template for an SLA with a Technology Provider
Work in progress.
Expected in draft version in DocDB by end of week
NSRW - New Software Release Workflow
Ales argues the feasibility of integrating with GGUS, at least at this stage
Integration with GGUS is not critical
Agreement on postponing GGUS integration until the workflow is in place and enacted.
Michael raises the issue of scope and effectiveness of the QC verification within the workflow.
Enol explains the envisioned distinction between Technology Provider test results and QC verification
Michael raises the question whether the current scope is little more than rubber stamping tests conducted by technology providers, and whether the scope should be changed towards a true verification including certification
The discussion back and forth over the scoping question led to agreement that this is best discussed at the F2F in Brussels
Ales and Michel raise the issue of applying queue tickets to individuals or to groups of people.
Assigning to individuals raises the potential of bottlenecks, but has the benefit of clear chains or responsibility
RT provides a feature of "watchers" that are notified upon change of the ticket(s) they watch
This could be used to keep groups of people informed about the ticket progress
Assigning a ticket to an individual does not stop other individuals from taking over, or re-assigning the ticket to somebody else (or themselves).
Kostas points out that this may be used to our benefit in that workflow dispatchers (i.e. task leaders for the respective phase in the workflow) can solve temporary unavailability in close communication and collaboration with their deputies.
The group agrees to go ahead and start implementing the workflow as proposed on the Wiki pages circulated