Hi Chris, Comments inline >>>
Thanks! -kenny From: "Christopher Donley (Chris)" <[email protected]> Date: Friday, May 4, 2018 at 11:21 AM To: Kenny Paul <[email protected]>, onap-tsc <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Members Composition Survey RFC - Respond by 18:00 Pacific time, May 7 Kenny, Thanks for starting this. Three things: I have some comments/suggestions on the wording of the questions. In particular, aspects of the proposal Steve and I submitted are not included (I'm attaching it for your reference). Please see in-line in red. >>> My apologies. Extremely embarrassed about that. Thank You! Some of these items are closely related. Depending on the results of the survey, the options might not make sense as a standalone proposal, but might represent two (or more) separate proposals that need to be voted on in their entirety. I thought this was Mazin's point from yesterday. >>> Indeed this is the case. If so we will put together the appropriate >>> conflicting/contrasting votes. I thought our agreement on yesterday's call was that we would separate the "what" of the TSC composition from the "when", and that this survey would only address the "what". We were going to address the "when" after we voted on the "what". >>> The results of "When" will not be shared until the "What" decisions are >>> made. Having that data a quick transition to a timing discussion when >>> appropriate. Thanks, Chris From: <[email protected]> on behalf of Kenny Paul <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 5:35 PM To: onap-tsc <[email protected]> Subject: [onap-tsc] TSC Members Composition Survey RFC - Respond by 18:00 Pacific time, May 7 As per today's TSC meeting, here is the list of questions proposed for the TSC Composition Survey THIS IS NOT THE SURVEY – SOLICITING INPUT ONLY - DO NOT VOTE - Timing: Mon. May 7, 18:00 Pacific: provide comments to Kenny & Phil Wed. May 9: Survey to be published using Surveymonkey Wed. May 16: Survey closes Thur. May 17: Survey results presented and voting on highest ranked survey responses at the TSC meeting When should the ONAP TSC move from “Startup” to “Steady” state operations at which point the TSC should be populated, not by Platinum Member designates, but instead by some other means, for which the TSC is responsible for defining? 1. As soon as the new method for populating the TSC is defined 2. After the Beijing Release 3. After the Casablanca Release 4. Other [Please specify time] What's the difference between 1 and 2? >>> #1 doesn't imply a specific release aligned date target, but would still >>> require some change in the ONAP Technical Charter if the composition and >>> qualification criteria are not in place by June 30. Questions 2 through 7 relate to the composition of the TSC during Steady State operations 2. How large should the TSC be? 10 or less 13 15 21 Other [Please specify a number or other quantitative measure] According to Bitergia, there are 19 independent companies contributing to ONAP. Can we set the upper bound to 19 so that we're not reserving open slots for companies who aren't participating? >>> and those 19 independent companies != all the 19 existing companies >>> currently represented on the TSC. I will add 19 to the list. I've also >>> received private input saying that "30" had been discussed and therefore >>> should be included. Company Cap - How many members of the same company (or related companies as defined in the Charter) should be allowed on the TSC at the same time? There should be no company-cap 2 per company 1 per company Other [Please specify a number or other quantitative measure] Perhaps choice 1 should be "3" which was the number in our original charter? I don't think anyone is arguing for "no cap" >>> Also embarrassed to have missed including that specific language. Added. Should we try to ensure a mix of operators and vendors on the TSC? Yes No The issue isn't whether there should be a mix of operators and vendors (I think everyone agrees that there should), but rather whether we specifically set aside seats for operators. >>> While there may be no disagreement that there "should" be a mix, the key >>> word here is "ensure" that there be a mix. That is a different question >>> than one of setting seats aside for operators. A question about reserved >>> seats for operators will be added. If {Yes} to #4 above, what should the mix be? At least 50% of the TSC should be from Operators No less than 40% of the TSC should be from Operators Other [Please specify a percentage or other criteria] TSC Members should be allowed to assign proxies with voting privileges Yes No Should TSC Members who do not attend two consecutive meetings without a proxy in attendance be dropped from the quorum requirement? Yes No I thought Steve's proposal was that appointed TSC members (questions 8-10) who don't attend two consecutive meetings, and who don't have a proxy attend, forfeit their seats? >>> While this cannot be done during the "Startup Period" it could definitely >>> apply after the transition to "Steady State" depending on the results of >>> 8-10. I'll add it. Questions 8, 9 and 10 apply to special provisions for this election cycle Are these in addition to the size of the TSC as described in #2, or included in that number? Our proposal included the three seats in #8 in addition to the TSC size from #2. Or does this depend on the result of #2? (if the TSC size <=15, then these are three extra seats, but if the TSC size is >15, then these are included in the total)? I don't have a proposal for the latter question – just asking for clarification. >>> If there is a conflict between the number of seats and any of these >>> questions, (which is entirely possible), that would be an example of a >>> multiple option vote and/or discussion point for the TSC. Should ONAP Platinum Service Provider Members that joined the Program after the launch (specifically Turk Telekom, Verizon, and Vodafone), be allowed to keep an appointed representative on the TSC if someone from their company does not get elected or appointed by other means? Yes No Should ONAP Platinum Service Provider Members (specifically AT&T, Bell Canada, China Mobile, China Telecom, Orange, Reliance Jio, Turk Telekom, Vodafone & Verizon) be allowed to appoint a representative to the TSC if someone from their company does not get elected or appointed by other means? Yes No Should ONAP Platinum Members (i.e all of the existing TSC Companies + Verizon) be allowed to appoint a representative to the TSC if someone from their company does not get elected or appointed by other means? Yes No Questions 11 and 12 relate to participation qualifications Who should be allowed to run for a TSC position? Anyone Any active community member (defined using the OPNFV model of 20 contributions in total made over a 12-month period, inclusive of patches merged, reviews made, Wiki page edits, and JIRA activities) Committers, Contributors and Reviewers only Anyone on the ONAP “Discuss” and/or “TSC” email list as of the date nomination process starts for the election Other [Please provide recommendation] Who should be able to vote in a TSC election? Any active community member (defined using the OPNFV model of 20 contributions in total made over a 12-month period, inclusive of patches merged, reviews made, Wiki page edits, and JIRA activities) Committers, Contributors and Reviewers only Anyone on the ONAP “Discuss” and/or “TSC” email list as of the date nomination process starts for the election Other [Please provide recommendation] This is missing the option from our proposal: Any active community member, defined as anyone who has made one or more measurable contributions during the previous six months, inclusive of code submissions, code reviews, wiki page edits/uploads, Jira activities, readthedocs, subcommittee leadership, and/or presentations to one of the subcommittees (Use Case, Architecture, Security, Modeling, Closed-Loop, etc.) >>> Again my apologies. This is why we sent it out for comments. Nothing was >>> intentionally excluded, just a function of trying to reconcile a great many >>> things. The goal of the proposal you and Steve put together was to keep the >>> barrier to entry as low as it could possibly be. While discussing this >>> yesterday Phil and I were of the opinion that wiki page edits were the >>> lowest measurable common denominator and one that should effectively >>> capture non-developer participation. In this case that would be 1 wiki >>> comment/update or page creation in 6 months. Would you agree with our >>> assessment? Thanks! -kenny Best Regards, -kenny Kenny Paul, Technical Program Manager, The Linux Foundation [email protected], 510.766.5945 San Francisco Bay Area, Pacific Time Zone
_______________________________________________ ONAP-TSC mailing list [email protected] https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc
