Hi Phil You have done well to defense the transparency of open source culture, thank you
Best regards, DENG Hui From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Phil Robb Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 9:20 AM To: Lingli Deng <denglin...@chinamobile.com> Cc: onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election Hello Lingli and the ONAP development community: First of all, please accept my apology for putting everyone in this position in the first place with regard to the election for the Use Case Subcommittee Chair position. The irregularity stemming from the fact that some new members to the sub committee were added to the vote, and some were not is a clear operational error on the part of the Linux Foundation support team. We won't let that happen again. Further comments and clarifications are inline below.... On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Lingli Deng <denglin...@chinamobile.com<mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>> wrote: Phil and all, I also agree that it is important to make up for the loopholes in the TSC charter, but I think the correction of irregularities is the key to building a truly trusting environment. Without this basic openness and fairness, the prosperity and success of the open source community is at high risk. Since when the voting is initiated, it was made clear that the vote would be carried out with reference to a specific version of membership. And hence all the new members, which China Mobile added later, did not ask to vote, but planned to participate in subsequent discussions. I strongly urge the LF to clarify the voting results, remove five votes that did not meet the clearly stated qualifications in the voting initiation email therefore gained unfair advantage to those who obeyed the regulations, and make the necessary public warning to the subject (individual or company). Lingli, you note that "when the voting is initiated, it was made clear that the vote would be carried out with reference to a specific version of membership". I don't think this is actually true. I believe the email you are referencing is here: https://lists.onap.org/mailman/private/onap-usecasesub/2017-June/000015.html While it does state that the source of the vote was taken from version 58 of the Use Case Subcommittee wiki page, it does not state that those are the only people allowed to vote. I have worked in communities, OpenDaylight being one of them, where new members to a constituency are allowed to vote while an election is in process. I have also worked in communities, where this is not allowed. Hence, I do believe the rule needs to be specified if the community feels strongly one way or another. Such a rule is not articulated in the ONAP TSC Charter, in the Use Case Subcommittee Charter, nor is it articulated in the kick-off email of the Chairperson Election. Regardless, the inconsistent implementation of allowing some new members to vote, but not all new members to vote is (as I mentioned above) an operational error on the LF, and we recognize and apologize for that. Now, as for clarifying the voting results. I am sorry but we are unable to do that. The vote was set up as anonymous within the CIVS voting system and as a result, we *do not know* how the 5 added voters actually voted. The output that we received, along with every other member who was invited to vote, shows the overall result, but it does not show the detailed ballot reporting and it keeps the actual voter information anonymous. That URL is here for reference: http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_0acddbd223a75b25 I am however able to tell you the companies from which the 5 new voters came. 4 came from Gigaspaces and 1 came from Orange. But again, these 5 did not do anything wrong by making the request to be added to the vote. We, the LF, should have either told those 5 that we were not allowing new voters, or we, the LF should have automatically included all new members to the sub-committee in the vote up until the voting ended. I.e. in the absence of a clear rule from the TSC or subcommittee, the LF makes our best guess at the desire of the community, communicates that to the community, and implements it *consistently* across all participants. We, the LF did not do that in this instance. Firstly, it is normal and healthy that there must be different opinions in any open organization composed of many members. Therefore, it is necessary to agree as far as possible on clear and unambiguous rules to specify how to reach consensus when the dispute arises, including the formation of the rule itself, the election of officials, the resolution on a specific topic, and so on. Yes, I totally agree. Second, one has to admit that any pre-established rules or statutes are not likely to enumerate all the possible situations in a complete reality. In other words, there is always a gray area where the rule cannot be covered. It is also a normal and inevitable phenomenon that someone has taken advantage of these loopholes or gray areas. When it is found that such a situation has occurred and that it should be stopped in the future, it is necessary but not sufficient to prevent the recurrence of such a phenomenon by simply amending the rule to make up for deficiencies in the rules. I agree here as well. Third, the respect for the rule itself and the faithful implementation of the resolution of a group formed by a process that is in accordance with the rules are the premises of any rule. In an organization that is composed of complex members, it is essential that its members, especially its leadership, in the process of practice, show respect the existing rules rather than disrupt the implementation of the rules. Especially if unacceptable violations to existing rules/agreement happens, if no correction is made, but blindly blame and amend the rule itself, even if they have the perfect rules in theory (that covers every situation in reality), these rules will be useless. I agree if the rule has been established and understood for a period of time and/or if there is clear malice on behalf of the actor(s) in the situation. I do not think that this is the case here though. Fourth, In the handling of this specific case, the core of the problem cannot be solved and the undesirable behavior will be undoubtedly happening again, if we only focus on the amendments to the TSC Charter, rather than emphasizing and establishing the spirit of the community to really respect and defend TSC Charter. Who will respect and implement the rules/agreement, if the violation of the rules will not be subject to any necessary warning, and once there is a problem, in any case can modify the existing rules at any time? Again, I don't think a violation occurred. I think an open request was made by some new members of the Use Case Subcommittee to be invited to the vote for Chairperson and others did not make that request. The LF incorrectly created an inconsistency in the execution of the election by inviting them to vote but not inviting all other new members to vote. Therefore, it is my firm belief that the correction of irregularities is the key to truly building a trust environment. Without this basic openness and fairness, the prosperity and success of the open source community will be at high risk. With this incident, I am personally involved and deeply troubled. As a candidate, I am under no obligation to accept unwarranted suspicion. I believe that all members who were voting in accordance with the rules regularly have the right to call for rectification of their own respect for the rules. I believe that we have a misunderstanding in that you, and undoubtedly others took the reference to election voters coming from version 58 of the Use Case Subcommittee wiki meant that version 58 locked into place those that were allowed to vote. I also believe that others on the onap-usecase...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-usecase...@lists.onap.org> email list, where that notification was sent, interpreted that email as an indication that "if you are on this email list, but you aren't on the wiki, then you weren't invited to vote, so if you want to vote, please go put your name on the wiki". As such, I do not fault the 5 new members that requested an invitation to vote, and I do not fault any other new member for *not* requesting an invitation to vote. I put the blame for the inconsistency on the LF. Therefore, I strongly call for resolute redress of those violations of the rules and the necessary public warnings of such behavior. We need more transparency and fairness in this community. I have been as transparent and fair to all involved as I believe I can be. I do think this was a misunderstanding in the community, and an operational error performed by the LF. Let's learn and move on. Please let me know your thoughts. Best, Phil. Thanks, Lingli From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org> [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>] On Behalf Of Phil Robb Sent: 2017年7月7日 23:47 To: Ed Warnicke <hagb...@gmail.com<mailto:hagb...@gmail.com>> Cc: onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election Hi Ed and Bob: Given that the Subcommittees we are talking about are technical subcommittees serving at the pleasure of the TSC, I suggest the TSC own setting the parameters for voting and company representation within these subcommittees. The TSC could punt to the Governing Board if they can't come to consensus, but otherwise, I suggest it stay within the purview of the TSC. Best, Phil. On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Ed Warnicke <hagb...@gmail.com<mailto:hagb...@gmail.com>> wrote: Bob, Your suggestion is goodness :) Perhaps the TSC should draft something to propose to the board to give them a good starting point? On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Bob Monkman <bob.monk...@arm.com<mailto:bob.monk...@arm.com>> wrote: Phil, et al, I would like to echo Ed’s observation here regarding the Charter. In Section 3.b (GB) and Section 4.a.iii (TSC), specific care is taken to tightly limit the voting influence of any one Member Company/Related Companies, for good reason, I would say. While I did not see it explicitly stated for subcommittees, one would hope that same care is taken to ensure to ensure that no one company or group of companies have undue voting influence over the decisions made. It also should not matter how quickly one gets ones participants “on the list/at the available seats at the table”. To my mind, there is a distinction between encouraging broad participation (we all know of cases where we wish we had more participants) and ensuring equity wrt to voting decisions. I believe the Governing Board should immediately consider defining the voting representation parameters for all subcommittees, putting in place limits of how many votes Company/Related Companies can have, and consider whether any votes done needed to be cancelled and redone under more equitable guidelines. One opinion…comments welcome, Bob Robert (Bob) Monkman Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs ARM 150 Rose Orchard Way San Jose, Ca 95134 M: +1.510.676.5490<tel:(510)%20676-5490> Skype: robert.monkman From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org> [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>] On Behalf Of Ed Warnicke Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 8:00 AM To: Lingli Deng <denglin...@chinamobile.com<mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>> Cc: onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election Thinking for the last few days around these issues. I think we have a flaw in our governance around subcommittees. If you look at the charter: On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Lingli Deng <denglin...@chinamobile.com<mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>> wrote: Hi Phil and all, It is a pity that we did not have time to discuss this issue yesterday on the TSC call. As for the typo in the call for nomination, I agree that this is minor and have no impact to the election, as neither of the nominees are coming from open labs subcommittee, and they are clearly stating their interest in running for Usecase subcommittee. But regarding the inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case Subcommittee during the election time-frame, I find it not acceptable and would like to ask Kenny to remove them in order to clear the result of the election, and strongly suggest to consider publish these five extra voters as a warning. Thanks, Lingli From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org> [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>] On Behalf Of Phil Robb Sent: 2017年7月6日 5:44 To: onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>> Subject: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election Hello ONAP TSC: The Use Case Subcommittee Chairperson election has just recently completed. However, there have been several irregularities/inconsistencies in the implementation of this election that warrants your attention. In particular: 1) Inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case Subcommittee during the election time-frame. There are no guidelines in the TSC Charter, nor in the call for nominations/election for this vote, indicating if individuals can add themselves to the Use Case Subcommittee during the Chairperson voting, and be allowed to vote. a) 64 individuals were members of the Use Case Subcommittee when the voting began. They were invited to vote. b) Currently (at the end of the voting period), there are 83 members of the subcommittee, hence 19 people were added during the voting timeframe c) Of those new 19 members, 5 asked to be added to the vote, and only those 5 were added. The other 14 new members were not invited to vote in the election. Hence the addition of new members was done inconsistently for this vote. 2) No guidelines on company participation within a sub-committee. While this subcommittees does not mandate, but rather advise the TSC on use-case selection/definition for a given release, we can expect the subcommittee to perform votes to get a clear resolve on what the advice to the TSC should be. While we want participation to be as open as possible in this subcommittee, we also want to ensure that the advice rendered is representative of the ONAP community as a whole and is not biased toward one, or a small group of participating organizations. Currently, the membership breakdown of Use Case Subcommittee participants looks like this: amdocs.com<http://amdocs.com> 17 att.com<http://att.com> 12 boco.com.cn<http://boco.com.cn> 6 chinamobile.com<http://chinamobile.com> 9 chinatelecom.cn<http://chinatelecom.cn> 1 ericsson.com<http://ericsson.com> 1 gigaspaces.com<http://gigaspaces.com> 4 gmail.com<http://gmail.com> 1 huawei.com<http://huawei.com> 8 intel.com<http://intel.com> 1 juniper.net<http://juniper.net> 1 nokia.com<http://nokia.com> 3 orange.com<http://orange.com> 3 raisecom.com<http://raisecom.com> 2 vmware.com<http://vmware.com> 4 zte.com.cn<http://zte.com.cn> 10 As you can see, of the 16 companies participating, the top 5 companies with the most participants (Amdocs, AT&T, China Mobile, Huawei and ZTE) hold 66% of the vote. I believe the TSC may want to provide further guidelines to ensure a more equal voting distribution across subcommittee membership 3) Typo/Error made on initial invitation to self-nominate for the Use Case Subcommittee Chairperson position. This issue is relatively small, but may have caused some confusion for some potential candidates. The original email (located here: https://lists.onap.org/mailman/private/onap-usecasesub/2017-June/000012.html) calling for self-nominations stated that "Any member of the Open Lab Subcommittee may run for this position". Some members of the Use Case Subcommittee may have been confused by that statement and chose not to self-nominate, and/or vote during this election. I would like to get feedback from the TSC during the meeting tomorrow to see if members feel that refinement is needed in populating subcommittees and/or holding votes/elections. Based on the outcome of that discussion, and the other inconsistencies documented above, we may then want to provide guidance to the Use Case Subcommittee in how to treat the outcome of this specific election. Thanks in advance for your input on this matter. Best, Phil. -- Phil Robb Executive Director, OpenDaylight Project VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation (O) 970-229-5949<tel:(970)%20229-5949> (M) 970-420-4292<tel:(970)%20420-4292> Skype: Phil.Robb _______________________________________________ ONAP-TSC mailing list ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org> https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. _______________________________________________ ONAP-TSC mailing list ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org> https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc -- Phil Robb Executive Director, OpenDaylight Project VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation (O) 970-229-5949<tel:(970)%20229-5949> (M) 970-420-4292<tel:(970)%20420-4292> Skype: Phil.Robb -- Phil Robb Executive Director, OpenDaylight Project VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation (O) 970-229-5949 (M) 970-420-4292 Skype: Phil.Robb
_______________________________________________ ONAP-TSC mailing list ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc
