Thanks Chris. I added the suggestion of "end users who are not otherwise represented on the TSC through the election process are allowed to appoint a TSC representative" as a way of ensuring that the end users have representation in the event that the statistics don't work out. I agree that the likely distribution between vendors and users via the election process is something similar to what you suggest.
Best, Phil. On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Christopher Donley (Chris) < christopher.don...@huawei.com> wrote: > Thanks Phil. > > I'd just like to mention that under the election system we proposed, > operators should have pretty good representation even without two-year > appointments. If we use the statistics on the Bitergia overview page as a > proxy for a company's voting power in ONAP, 5 operators are in the top 15 > companies just on code commits. Using the voting criteria we proposed that > measures other participation, their eligible voters and overall voting > power would be increased. From the data, I would estimate operators would > earn at least 5 elected seats (likely 6-7) plus another 3 appointed seats > for newly joined operators. This puts operators and vendors roughly at > parity without having to call out different classes of members (since it's > an elected system, there will be some variation based on the nominees > involved). Based on the data, the operator representation should be the > same regardless of whether the per-company cap is one or two. > > Chris > From: Phil Robb <pr...@linuxfoundation.org> > Date: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 3:59 PM > To: Chris Donley <christopher.don...@huawei.com> > Cc: "Vul, Alex" <alex....@intel.com>, "Haiby, Ranny (Nokia - US/San > Jose)" <ranny.ha...@nokia.com>, "onap-tsc@lists.onap.org" < > onap-tsc@lists.onap.org> > > Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Composition Proposal > > Hello ONAP TSC: > > I would like to keep the discussion moving regarding how and when we might > choose to change the method of populating the TSC. > > From the discussions thus far, I do not believe I heard much pushback on > the population method suggested by Chris D. and Stephen T. at last week's > TSC meeting. In general, it called for a TSC where anyone can > self-nominate to run for a TSC seat, and those that are allowed to vote > must have demonstrated some form of previous participation in the project > including code contributions, wiki contributions, subcommittee > participation/leadership, etc. > > If we were to do something like that, the one significant concern is end > user representation, in particular since several of our end users have just > joined the project recently and are ramping up their plans, and developer > capabilities to directly participate in the project. Mazin has called for > 50% end-user participation in the TSC, others have just expressed the > general concern that the end users should still be represented "well" in > the new structure. > > We have also heard from several of the TSC members that now is not the > right time to change the makeup of the TSC and we should leave it the same > at least until Casablanca (Nov. 2018). A vote was held on this with a > significant number of voters indicating that they would like the TSC to > remain the same until Casablanca. The vote did not pass however because > such a change (which affects the ONAP Charter) must pass with a > super-majority of 2/3s of the votes. > > We have agreed to vote on this postponement again to see if it will pass > the super-majority. However, several TSC members have requested that such > a vote not occur in a vacuum and instead be voted on along side other > proposal(s) to populate the TSC differently than it is done today. > > In the spirit of compromise, there are two ways in which we might ensure > end-user representation on the TSC. One of the ways was suggested by Chris > and Stephen during their presentation last week, whereby: > In addition to 15 elected TSC members, each end-user Platinum Member of > LFN that had been a part of ONAP and/or LFN for less than 12 months from > the time of the election, would be allowed to appoint a representative to > the TSC. If we were to put this in place, then Turk Telecom, Verizon, and > Vodafone would be allowed to appoint a TSC representative while China > Mobile, China Telecom, AT&T, Bell Canada, Orange, and Reliance Jio would > not get an appointment because they have been members of ONAP/LFN for more > than 12 months. If we were to change this appointment time period from 12 > months to 24 months, then all current LFN Platinum members who are end > users would be allowed to appoint a representative for this year's TSC > election, and Verizon, Vodafone, and Turk Telecom would be allowed to > appoint a representative in the 2019 TSC election as well. > > Another way we could ensure Operator participation in the TSC during our > first 2 years would be to say that we will elect a TSC of 13 or 15 members, > then for all end-user Platinum members who do not otherwise have a > representative (elected) on the TSC, they would be allowed to appoint a > representative. If we were to elect 13 and then have a potential addition > of the 9 Platinum end users, that would make the TSC size 22. However, I > am confident that some community members from our heavily engaged end users > will be elected to the TSC as part of the 13 count and as such, there will > be no need for that company to appoint a representative. > > Finally, I will reiterate that from my vantage point, there will be > significant benefit from having our developers who are much closer to the > code have TSC leadership positions. We have a lot of room for improvement > in how we work collectively and collaboratively to produce ONAP and > empowering our leading developers to identify and overcome those issues > will benefit the project substantially. > > I would like to facilitate this [re]vote with potential TSC-population > options at the TSC meeting next week (4/19) If that sounds like a > reasonable target to everyone, then please provide your comments and > suggestions on the proposals I've listed above and/or propose another > alternative method of populating the TSC. Let's see if we can form up what > will be the best options to vote on via email before the TSC meeting next > week. > > Thanks in advance for your feedback. > > Best, > > Phil. > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Christopher Donley (Chris) < > christopher.don...@huawei.com> wrote: > >> Alex, >> >> That’s the intention (same with use case, etc.). We want a way to >> measure it, and have it included under wiki. People who make presentations >> are uploading their slides or adding wiki pages, which can be measured >> using Bitergia. >> >> Chris >> >> From: "Vul, Alex" <alex....@intel.com> >> Date: Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 7:58 AM >> To: Chris Donley <christopher.don...@huawei.com>, "Haiby, Ranny (Nokia - >> US/San Jose)" <ranny.ha...@nokia.com>, "onap-tsc@lists.onap.org" < >> onap-tsc@lists.onap.org> >> >> Subject: RE: TSC Composition Proposal >> >> Chris, >> >> >> >> Given that the TSC is a leadership body, I think that architectural >> subject matter expertise and industry experience should count for a lot as >> well… >> >> >> >> Alex Vul >> >> Intel Corporation >> >> >> >> *From:*onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-bounces@lists >> .onap.org <onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>] *On Behalf Of *Christopher >> Donley (Chris) >> *Sent:* Thursday, April 5, 2018 6:23 AM >> *To:* Haiby, Ranny (Nokia - US/San Jose) <ranny.ha...@nokia.com>; >> onap-tsc@lists.onap.org >> *Subject:* Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Composition Proposal >> >> >> >> Ranny, >> >> >> >> First, everyone currently on the TSC would be eligible to run under this >> structure. Second, we are not just counting code contributions for >> determining voters. We also propose counting a number of areas where >> operators have been active, such as presenting a use case to the use case >> or security subcommittee, presenting architecture proposals, or working on >> security in the security subcommittee (to name a few). These are captured >> in the contributions to the wiki bullet. The full list is: >> >> -Code contributions/commits >> >> -Code reviews >> >> -Submitting Jira tickets (project management) >> >> -Readthedocs (documentation) >> >> -Subcommittee leadership >> >> -Contributions to the wiki (files or wiki pages) >> >> >> >> Also, since the window for measuring participation hasn’t closed, there >> is still time for other operators to get involved. >> >> >> >> Chris >> >> *From: *"Haiby, Ranny (Nokia - US/San Jose)" <ranny.ha...@nokia.com> >> *Date: *Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 2:47 PM >> *To: *Chris Donley <christopher.don...@huawei.com>, " >> onap-tsc@lists.onap.org" <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org> >> *Subject: *RE: TSC Composition Proposal >> >> >> >> Chris and Steve, >> >> >> >> Thanks for the time and effort put into this proposal. >> >> >> >> One thing I do not see in the proposal is explanation of the “Support >> operators with high interest in ONAP (regardless of development resources >> involved) to be active in the TSC” item from the first slide. Reading the >> next slides it seems that only active contributors will be able to vote, so >> there is no guarantee operators who did not contribute yet will get a seat >> at the TSC. Would you care to elaborate on this please? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Ranny. >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:*onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org <onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org> *On >> Behalf Of *Christopher Donley (Chris) >> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 4, 2018 1:58 PM >> *To:* onap-tsc@lists.onap.org >> *Subject:* [onap-tsc] TSC Composition Proposal >> >> >> >> Dear TSC, >> >> >> >> Steve Terrill and I have put together a proposal to transition the TSC to >> its “steady state” by June 30, as required in the ONAP Technical Charter. >> We have tried to incorporate feedback from previous TSC discussions on this >> topic, and are proposing a structure that encourages diversity of companies >> and roles, while recognizing contributions in the community and interested >> operators who may have joined later, but who want to take an active role in >> ONAP. See attached. >> >> >> >> Under our proposal, the TSC will be composed of 15 elected >> representatives, with a cap of no more than two people per company. Anyone >> who is interested may run for a seat on the TSC. Voters in the election >> will consist of people who have been active in the community over the >> previous six month period, as demonstrated by one or more of {code >> contributions, code reviews, lira ticket submissions, readthedocs, wiki >> (pages or file uploads), or subcommittee leadership}. >> >> >> >> We are interested in feedback on our proposal (including community >> feedback), and would like to discuss this on tomorrow’s TSC call. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Chris & Steve >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ONAP-TSC mailing list >> ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org >> https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc >> >> > > > -- > Phil Robb > VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation > (O) 970-229-5949 > (M) 970-420-4292 > Skype: Phil.Robb > -- Phil Robb 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
