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