Difference between revisions of "Project Proposals/Template"
From fd.io
Dwallacelf (Talk | contribs) (→Meets Board Policy (including IPR, being within Board defined Scope etc)) |
|||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Project Proposal]] | [[Category:Project Proposal]] | ||
| + | <!-- Please note: fd.io code is to be licensed under the Apache 2.0 license unless an exception is approved by the board --> | ||
| + | |||
== Name == | == Name == | ||
<!-- The name of your project, for example Honeycomb BridgeDomain or NSH Advanced Features etc. --> | <!-- The name of your project, for example Honeycomb BridgeDomain or NSH Advanced Features etc. --> | ||
| Line 36: | Line 38: | ||
<!-- A list of the name/email/IRC nick of the initial project committers | <!-- A list of the name/email/IRC nick of the initial project committers | ||
| − | IMPORTANT: | + | IMPORTANT: Committers should be people who will actually write code, being a committer is an actual commitment of time. Please also note that committerness is an individual trait. If a committer changes employers, they remain a committer. New committers arise via meritocracy after the project is created, this typically involves some time of establishing history of meritocractic code contribution to the project.. Therefore, it is crucial that a committer is committed to ongoing work on the project in the longer term, not just short term. For more information on how committers are added after project creation see: |
| + | https://fd.io/sites/cpstandard/files/pages/files/exhibit_c_-_fd.io_technical_community_charter.pdf section 3.2.2.1. | ||
--> | --> | ||
== Vendor Neutral == | == Vendor Neutral == | ||
| − | + | <!-- | |
| − | + | The goal here is to capture the degree of vendor neutrality of the code. | |
| − | + | The concerns are two fold: avoiding trademark issues, and maintaining openness. | |
| + | For this reason, use of vendor names should be purely functional, and only if necessary to | ||
| + | reasonably communicate functional information to the user. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Acceptable Examples: | ||
| + | Indicating the presence of particular hardware | ||
| + | Indicating drivers for particular hardware | ||
| + | Indicating integration with particular technologies. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Unacceptable Examples: | ||
| + | Use of vendor trademarks or product names purely for marketing purposes. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Please describe any such issues here. | ||
| + | --> | ||
== Meets Board Policy (including IPR, being within Board defined Scope etc) == | == Meets Board Policy (including IPR, being within Board defined Scope etc) == | ||
| − | Meets board policy as expressed in [https://fd.io/ | + | Meets board policy as expressed in [https://fd.io/docs/tsc/FD.IO-Project-a-Series-of-LF-Projects-LLC-Technical-Charter-12-13-2017-FINAL.pdf Technical Community Charter]. The details of Section 7. Intellectual Property Policy are especially important policy-wise. |
| + | |||
| + | == Administrata == | ||
| + | * Request for Project proposal consideration | ||
| + | ** Email: (place link to email to TSC proposing project, this can be obtained from [https://lists.fd.io/pipermail/tsc/ TSC Archives] | ||
| + | ** Date: (date proposed, makes it simpler to calculate the pre-requisite 2 week time period of gestation before being permitted to be voted on) | ||
Latest revision as of 21:15, 7 April 2022
Contents
Name
Project Contact Name and Email
Repository Name
Description
Scope
Initial Committers
Vendor Neutral
Meets Board Policy (including IPR, being within Board defined Scope etc)
Meets board policy as expressed in Technical Community Charter. The details of Section 7. Intellectual Property Policy are especially important policy-wise.
Administrata
- Request for Project proposal consideration
- Email: (place link to email to TSC proposing project, this can be obtained from TSC Archives
- Date: (date proposed, makes it simpler to calculate the pre-requisite 2 week time period of gestation before being permitted to be voted on)
