search

camaraproject / Governance

Telco network capabilities exposed through APIs provide a large benefit for customers. By simplifying telco network complexity with APIs and making the APIs available across telco networks and countries, CAMARA enables easy and seamless access.
53 stars 44 forks source link

Clarify that a 'No-Go!' API can be re-submitted #88

Closed Kevsy closed 9 months ago

Kevsy commented 10 months ago

Fixes #90

hdamker commented 10 months ago

@Kevsy @jordonezlucena I have seen somewhere a discussion about this pull request, but can't find it anymore.

My understanding from it was that we don't need a new category of decision, but could formulate the "No Go" option in a way that it also allows to resubmit the proposal after the objections are addressed.

Who can take that? (the PR needs anyway to be rebased on the updated version).

hdamker commented 10 months ago

BTW: I can't find the related issue for this PR either

Kevsy commented 10 months ago

Apologies - I had not raised an issue. Now done: #90

Here is an excerpt from the email discussion with @jordonezlucena

"Thanks for this PR. I totally support the intention of this PR, though am not sure whether this constitutes a separate decision outcome (and therefore deserves to be captured into a separate bullet) or if it can be included as part of the “No-Go!” decision. Let me elaborate below.

IMHO, this “return for changes” information would be included in the justifications that objecting companies shall provide when going for “No-Go!” decision. Lack of clarity, existing gaps, or simply clarifications are examples why a API proposal might be rejected after first submission. When notified with “No-Go!” decision, if the requests (for clarification/correction/changes) are included in the justification section, the authors can address them and proceed with the re-submission for next TSC meeting. With this approach, there’d be no need to have this “return for changes” as a separate bullet. "

I agree, and have updated the commit to include the additional text within 'No-Go!' rather than a separate decision.

hdamker commented 10 months ago

@Kevsy the proposal looks good to me. I have resolved the merge conflict and replaced "Steering Committee" by "TSC"

hdamker commented 9 months ago

I suppose we are good to go, will merge it.