Hi Jason: I think your proposal works fine as well. I will caution the TSC that with a cap of one person per company, we will have a dynamic where qualified people from our participating organizations, both operators and vendors, will possibly choose not to run for the TSC because they don't want to compete for the one TSC slot with other, often higher ranking, coworker(s). So for some organizations it will be a more meritocratic selection, and for other organizations it will be more like an appointment.
We are adding a session this afternoon to talk through the TSC composition, in part because there has not been very much input on this thread, and the TSC should be close to a vote on this topic by Thursday. We don't have a lot of time in the Thursday TSC session for a lengthy discussion on this topic given the number of other agenda items for that meeting. Best, Phil. On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 7:02 PM, Jason Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > Phil, > > Thanks for pulling this summary together. I think you've captured some of > the key decision points from the survey. > > For Option 1, I might propose a slightly different way of handling the > voting to still strive toward the desired operator representation while > advocating meritocracy: > > - Pick a TSC size (say 15) > - Take the top 15 ranking individuals (one per company) from the voting > - Those operators not represented in the top 15 are allowed to appoint a > TSC representative for this cycle only. This would be a one-time increase > in the size of the TSC above the desired size. > > The primary reason is to conduct a fully meritocratic vote for the top 15, > giving the community a sense of elected leadership. The implication could > be a larger than desired TSC for this cycle (maybe 20+) and maybe not a > full 50% operator representation. The vote would also give a feeling for > how many operators might be represented in a fully meritocractic TSC -- > that way the TSC knows for the next cycle if any adjustments to TSC > composition will be required to ensure adequate operator representation. > > Thoughts? > > > Regards, > Jason Hunt > Distinguished Engineer, IBM > > Phone: 314-749-7422 > Email: [email protected] > Twitter: @DJHunt > > > [image: Inactive hide details for Phil Robb ---06/14/2018 11:28:04 > AM---Hello ONAP TSC Members: Based on the survey [0] that was conduc]Phil > Robb ---06/14/2018 11:28:04 AM---Hello ONAP TSC Members: Based on the > survey [0] that was conducted across both the TSC members and > > From: Phil Robb <[email protected]> > To: onap-tsc <[email protected]> > Date: 06/14/2018 11:28 AM > Subject: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide > your input > Sent by: [email protected] > ------------------------------ > > > > Hello ONAP TSC Members: > > Based on the survey [0] that was conducted across both the TSC members and > the ONAP developer community at-large, the following general attributes for > this election have been identified: > TSC Composition > > general recommendations from the Survey > > - Allowed to run: Active Contributors > - Allowed to vote: Active Contributors > - Size of TSC: 15 to 19 > - Composition: Ideally, 50% (9) or more Operators > - Company Cap: > > *1 per company > - In this election, > > have reserved spots for Operators (AT&T, Bell, CMCC, China > Telecom, Orange, Reliance Jio, Turk Telecom, Verizon, Vodafone) - (A > narrow > majority in survey - Slide 14) > - Reserved spots for all ONAP Platinum members including Vendors > was a split vote (Slide 15) > > > > Given the above criteria, for this election, the following are 3 options > that could be considered: > > Option 1 > > - TSC Cap 17, 18, or 19 (to target 50% operators) > - At least one person from each of the 9 Operators must run > - Bios, pics, and “ > > statements of intent” up on the website for at least 1 week. > - One big ranked vote conducted via CIVS > - Top > > ranked operators are identified (9 spots - one per operator > company) > - Remaining positions taken by top ranking > > individuals - one per company > > > Option 2 > > - Each existing Platinum Member of ONAP circa Jan. 2018 invited to > appoint a TSC rep. (19 Members > > ) > > * Causes issue for LFN Platinum Members that were not originally > part of ONAP as of January 1st > > > Option 3 > > - Each existing Platinum Member of LFN invited to appoint a TSC rep. > (27 Members) (adds ARM, Lenovo, NEC/Netcracker, Qualcomm, Samsung, Suse, > Red Hat, Juniper) > - Fails the ~50% Operator goal > > , as well as desired size of TSC > > > Please consider these options and provide your thoughts, questions, > and/or alternatives to consider. > > We need to close on this topic with a vote by the end of June, so time is > of the essence at this point. > ---- > > * From previous experience, capping TSC membership to one person per > company can cause the side-effect of company employees who would otherwise > be very qualified for the position choose *not* to run against another, > often more senior, person within their company. This can produce a > sub-optimal result in TSC make-up. > > [0] > *https://wiki.onap.org/download/attachments/25428910/TSC-Composition-Survey-Community.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1528486003000&api=v2* > <https://wiki.onap.org/download/attachments/25428910/TSC-Composition-Survey-Community.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1528486003000&api=v2> > > Thanks and best regards, > > Phil. > -- > Phil Robb > VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation > (O) 970-229-5949 > (M) 970-420-4292 > Skype: Phil.Robb_______________________________________________ > ONAP-TSC mailing list > [email protected] > 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
_______________________________________________ ONAP-TSC mailing list [email protected] https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc
