Hello ONAP TSC Members:

Regarding the timing of this vote, we will postpone this topic until next
Thursday, the 26th of April.  This Thursday is a national holiday in Israel
and as such impedes on some of our community's ability to participate in
the discussion and vote.

Best regards,

Phil.

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Phil Robb <pr...@linuxfoundation.org>
wrote:

> Hello ONAP TSC Members:
>
> There has not been much discussion on this thread, so I assume that all
> relevant questions and comments have already been expressed regarding this
> topic of how best to populate the TSC and when to do it.  To that end, I
> will be calling for a vote on this topic during the TSC meeting on
> Thursday, April 19th, 2018.  Please review the material below and provide
> comments or questions if you have any.  Also, please be prepared to vote on
> this topic, or have a delegate ready to vote in your stead on Thursday.
> The format of the vote will be similar to the following:
>
> First, we will vote on if we want to change the way we populate the TSC
> after Beijing or after Casablanca.  Remember that in order to change the
> date to after Casablanca (Nov. 2018), we will need a 2/3 super majority to
> modify the Charter with the new date.  So the first vote will be:
>
> Shall the TSC modify the ONAP Charter to change the date in which the
> "Startup Period" ends (as defined in Section 2.b.i) to be November 16th,
> 2018? -1, 0, +1
>
> If this vote passes, we are done for now.  If it does not pass with a 2/3
> approval, we will populate a new TSC shortly after Beijing is released.  To
> do so, we will vote on the following proposals:
>
> Proposal #0
> Abstain from voting on population method.
>
> Proposal #1:
> The TSC Accepts the "TSC Composition Proposal" presented by Chris Donley
> and Stephen Terrill during the TSC Meeting held on April 5th 2018.  The
> proposal in it's entirety is located here: https://wiki.onap.org/
> download/attachments/25439857/TSC%20Composition%20proposal%
> 20v2.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1522934062000&api=v2
>
> Proposal #2:
> The TSC Accepts the "TSC Composition Proposal" presented by Chris Donley
> and Stephen Terrill during the TSC Meeting held on April 5th 2018 with the
> following amendment:
> ​That i​
> n addition to
> ​ the​
> 15 elected TSC members
> ​ in the original proposal​
> , each end-user Platinum Member of LFN that ha
> ​s​
> been a part of ONAP and/or LFN for less than 12 months from the time of
> the election,
> ​is​
> allowed to appoint a representative to the TSC.
>
> ​Proposal #3:
> The TSC Accepts the "TSC Composition Proposal" presented by Chris Donley
> and Stephen Terrill during the TSC Meeting held on April 5th 2018 with the
> following amendment:
> ​That in addition to the 15 elected TSC members in the original proposal,
> ​each end-user Platinum Member of LFN who does not otherwise have a
> representative (elected) on the TSC, is allowed to appoint a representative
> to the TSC.
>
> Shall the TSC approve one of the above proposed methods of populating the
> TSC? 0, 1, 2, 3
>
> Please let me know if this sounds reasonable or if there is another way
> you would like to vote on these options or others for this topic.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Phil.
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:59 PM, Phil Robb <pr...@linuxfoundation.org>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>



-- 
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

Reply via email to