...

Lesson Learned

Retrospective

• Identification of issues - earlier than later by tracking Risks

• Pair-wise testing performed by the project teams

...

1. When you are a mailing list moderator do not approve subscription requests from accounts with obviously pornographic domain names.  (yes, this really happened. recently.)
2. Lack of transparency on LF IT ticket raised by the community. The LF RT tools has poor capability to email properly the whole set of information. The ONAP community has no visibility on what LF IT is currently working on.
3. Feedback compiled by Kenny Paulfrom ONS-NA: (See TSC 2018-04-05 Agenda slides)

   1. Onboarding an engineer is very hard; The wiki isn’t laid out well and is confusing, needs to be cleaned up

   2. Responsiveness from existing Community members answering new contributor questions can be a challenge

   3. All approved projects should be required to post meeting minutes to the wiki

   4. The volume of untagged emails makes filtering almost impossible

4. Need absolutely clear and unambiguous validation that RocketChat can be used via https from China and most companies without requiring a VPN, or the use of an alternative device/network -kenny:. Must be secured if setup by LF (simply b/c of well known pwd).
5. Would like the Community to decide whether the use of IRC as the "official" minute mechanism is a practice worth continuing or not; very few people are using it, many can't use it and unlike other communities, virtually no one contributes to the minutes. Compare that with the fact that everyone can use zoom chat and there is always a great deal of contribution being performed there. -kenny
6. WIKI Help: things are hard to find unless you type the right keywords or have the proper URL. Some information no more accurate. Matter of organization, not matter of quantity of information. Recommendation to use ReadTheDocs to start versus the wiki?
7. WIKI: Emboarding Onboarding new community members is the challenge.
8. Is there a good enough flow of information-communication between sub-committees and projects? Overall: yes. Sub-committee feedback of to the TSC is not systematic(as we wish).
9. Expectation from sub-sub-committee back to the team and then driving the execution. Use-case owner is missing. Use-case team to fill a checklist? We may defined what that role is.

...

1. After M4 code freeze, the community is spending a lot of time to get the Health Check sanity test to pass. HealthCheck is the kind of automated test that MUST pass everyday all along the release lifecycle. 
2. Despite the effort made by some ONAP partners in providing Labs, we have reached the limit on current labs infrastructure. This is preventing further needed testing (like test job during the verify phase).
3. Need to develop a full Agile CI-CD pipeline. Full Chain to run automatically  the sanity HC, CSIT, E2E. Everything running continuously.
4. How to make better usage of XCI-CD environment (OPNFV,...)
5. CSIT tests under integration repo must branch early to support the other component branches and their test automation (at least must branch on code freeze deadline to provide enough time to fix the CSIT tests in the release branches).
6. Supporting HEAT and OOM based deployments is getting harder with duplicate maintenance of the config values (it may help if we can somehow abstract such duplication of config values).

7. More ONS-NA Feedback: The amount of time to setup the dev environment is a barrier to engagement - Developers don’t want to invest a lot of time on that. 

8. -Improve CSIT coverage to cover all features that the project delivers and to reduce manual testing (if any)

• Release Management

1. Progress check between M2 and M4 of intermediate development by release manager might help to improve the quality of the final product (for example scheduling the demos of each component to show the current progress at M3 deadline might be right choice too). This avoids any misunderstanding of the features or requirements by the dev team and can receive feedback from the usecase or architecture teams to improve them when there is still time until code freeze.
2. Lack of formality to froze freeze model and scope .increasing risks to put any milestone in jeopardy

• JIRA Management

1. Often lack of updated information in "Status" field, that prevent to know if someone is working on a defect. This issue varies depending on project and people.
2. Adopt a singe JIRA workflow. Currently 2 are in place (1 from openecomp, 1 simple from openoOpen-o).
3. PTLs are owner of the scope of iteration.
4. Review the 2 JIRA workflows and define 1 workflow for ALL.

...