Hi Chris,
Sorry if my approach was misguided. I'm not trying to frame up what the composition should be. Quite to the contrary I'm only attempting to get what I see as some of the potential sticking points out on the table for discussion so they don't need to be hashed out next week. With regards to composition, my perspective aligns with what you've presented. Best Regards, -kenny Kenny Paul, Technical Program Manager, The Linux Foundation kp...@linuxfoundation.org, 510.766.5945 San Francisco Bay Area, Pacific Time Zone From: "Christopher Donley (Chris)" <christopher.don...@huawei.com> Date: Friday, April 20, 2018 at 10:24 AM To: Kenny Paul <kp...@linuxfoundation.org>, Phil Robb <pr...@linuxfoundation.org>, "onap-tsc@lists.onap.org" <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Composition Proposal Kenny, I think that's the wrong way to frame this. I don't object to any company being represented on the TSC, but I think we need to look at the needs of the community and what leadership structure would best support it. Earlier, Mazin expressed his principles for the new TSC. Here are mine: Everyone on the TSC needs to have 'skin in the game'. Everyone needs to be engaged and making a contribution. Further, we all need to be accountable to the community. As Alex mentioned on one of our calls, ONAP is a large and complicated project, and we need different contributions from people with different skill sets. I think that is valid and important, and and we should recognize myriad contributions. Also, in your feeback slide, you wrote that the TSC was perceived to be: · Company Centric - Not Community Focused · Only a few engage beyond their own company walls or organizational silos · One-way conversations are common versus interactive dialogs with the Community Decisions seem to be made in private by a small subset of people · Opposing Community viewpoints or concerns are often marginalized I think holding elections, where the TSC is accountable to the community, will help with this. 2. The TSC should be of reasonable size to make timely decisions. From my past experience, this is somewhere between 12-15 people. As it is now, we're having trouble reaching quorum with 18. I don't want to see the size of the TSC expanded where it reduces effectiveness. Also, looking at Bitergia, it appears that only 20 companies are contributing to ONAP. I don't want to see the TSC larger than that – then we're starting to get into companies with negligible (or no) contributions. I suggest we target 15 for steady-state, while allowing additional seats for a year for newly-joined platinum members. 3. I have no objections to allowing platinum members who joined less than a year ago to maintain their seat while they formulate their strategy and begin to make contributions. Chris From: <onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org> on behalf of Kenny Paul <kp...@linuxfoundation.org> Date: Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 6:37 PM To: Phil Robb <pr...@linuxfoundation.org>, "onap-tsc@lists.onap.org" <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Composition Proposal Hi TSC Members, I am attempting to get my head around a couple aspects of the discussion. I think that there are a few things we can knock down in advance of next week, which is all I am trying to accomplish here. NOTE- THESE ARE NOT VOTES, but if there are objections or concerns, let's discuss them as they tie into Phil's voting proposals. When considering each of these please DO NOT worry about any potential "order of operations" logic. Each question should be considered as a unique, independent, stand-alone question. If you have no objection to the question you are reading, just move along to the next one. If you have an objection simply state why you think it is a bad idea. :-) Are there any objections to the former ONAP Platinum Service Provider Members that joined the Program after the launch (specifically Turk Telekom, Verizon, and Vodafone), being allowed to keep an appointed representative on the TSC for [election date] plus 12 months? Are there any objections to any former ONAP Platinum Service Provider Members (specifically AT&T, Bell Canada, China Mobile, China Telecom, Orange, Reliance Jio, Turk Telekom, Vodafone & Verizon) being able to appoint a representative to the TSC for [election date] plus 12 months if someone from their company does not get elected? Are there any objections to any former ONAP Platinum Members (i.e all of the existing TSC Companies + Verizon) being able to appoint a representative to the TSC for [election date] plus 12 months if someone from their company does not get elected? Are there any objections to a service provider LFN Platinum Member that joins the ONAP Program from being able to appoint a representative to the TSC from the time they join ONAP until the first scheduled TSC election following 12 months of ONAP TSC membership? Are there any objections to any LFN Platinum Member that joins the ONAP Program from being able to appoint a representative to the TSC from the time they join ONAP until the first scheduled TSC election following 12 months of ONAP TSC membership? Are there any objections to a service provider LFN Member at any membership level that joins the ONAP Program from being able to appoint a representative to the TSC from the time they join ONAP until the first scheduled TSC election following 12 months of ONAP TSC membership? -kenny
_______________________________________________ ONAP-TSC mailing list ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc
