New working flow - API Approval

[TEF-RicardoSerr]

Dear Governance.

In order to approve new APIs from the API Backlog WG we are proposing to be more restrictive. We propose that, in order to avoid that the subgroups die as soon as they are born or drastically reduce their activity after the first version of the API, the subprojects have to be supported (in the input stage, in Backlog) by at least 3 companies (not necessarily 3 MNOs).

The reason for having 3 and not 2 companies is because with 2 it can be only one MNO and its technology supplier, for example. With three it can be a much more versatile API.

We are aware that Camara is an open source project, so proposals can still come from any industry partner, but the idea is that the proposals always have a raison d'être and a tangible future within the industry, so we believe that it is necessary that the APIs that are proposed to Camara come with some support behind them. This should apply to all proposals (including those coming from GSMA OGW) and we want to make it clear that this is done for the health of the Camara project.

I remain at your disposal.

[hdamker]

@TEF-RicardoSerr Thanks - I will propose this on the upcoming TSC agenda for discussion.

[iamdatanick]

What about "sub-projects" of the working group require three or more supporters? The API Backlog group is very small. The "SubProjects" of an approved API seem to be the issue.

[hdamker]

What about "sub-projects" of the working group require three or more supporters? The API Backlog group is very small. The "SubProjects" of an approved API seem to be the issue.

@iamdatanick I'm not 100% sure if I understand your comment. But what is actually meant above are the supporters who commit as (initial) Maintainers of the API sub project. They don't need to come out of the API Backlog working group.

[iamdatanick]

Understood.

This update makes a lot of sense.