Hi Alla: You are correct. The second option provided by Stephen and Chris does go against the survey results regarding a company cap of one person for company. TSC members, please keep this in mind.
Regarding the number of options present, I think the TSC can consider any of the options provided on this thread thus far. There have been three options presented by me, one by Jason, and one by Chris and Stephen. During the discussion at today's TSC, I think it would be good to get the selection down to 3 or less then we can do an email vote on those. From there, we will take the winning proposal and derive the wording for how we want to change the technical charter in accordance with that proposal and then we'll vote to put that into place. Also at today's TSC we will go through the survey results for the timing of the of the change in TSC composition. Once the email vote for the charter change is complete we'll do an email vote for the timing of the TSC composition change. Please let me know if that sounds reasonable and if there are any alternate suggestions. Best, Phil. On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Alla Goldner <alla.gold...@amdocs.com> wrote: > Hi Phil, all, > > > > I fail to understand where Option 2 comes from. > > Yesterday we had 3 options on the table, here we see only the first one > and some variant of the same first one, which is not connected to survey > results by any means > > > > At least, 3 options we had yesterday resulted from the survey. > > And we actually discussed yesterday that on this particular aspect (having > cap of 1 per company) there was survey consensus thus this should be > enforced. > > > > *Now, there is absolutely no connection between the survey we did and the > option 2, while “yesterday’s” options 2 and 3 are not reflected at all.* > > > > You said yesterday, when we finished discussion, that we will firstly vote > for some variants of 3 options which were yesterday on the table, then will > pick up 2 winning and vote for 1. > > Let’s be consistent with the survey results and the actual proposals, at > least. > > > > Best regards, > > > > *Alla Goldner* > > > > Open Network Division > > Amdocs Technology > > > > > > > > *From:* onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-bounces@ > lists.onap.org] *On Behalf Of *Phil Robb > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 20, 2018 11:46 AM > *To:* Jason Hunt <djh...@us.ibm.com> > *Cc:* onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org> > *Subject:* Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please > provide your input > > > > Hello TSC Members: > > > > We had a discussion on TSC Composition during the Casablanca Developer > Forum on Tuesday. During that discussion Stephen Terrill and Chris Donley > elaborated on the proposal provided by Jason in this email thread. During > the discussion, this approach was received relatively well by those in the > room. I asked Stephen and Chris to write up the proposal so that we could > add it to this thread. The proposal follows: > > ===== > > Definitions: > > > > Service Provider: AT&T, Bell, CMCC, China Telecom, Orange, Reliance Jio, > Turk Telecom, Verizon, Vodafone > > > > Active Contributor: Active contributors are determined based on > contributions to Git, Gerrit, Jira, and Confluence Require 20 contributions > in total over a 12-month period, counting any of patches merged, reviews > made, Wiki page edits, and JIRA activities: > > > > Option 1: > > - Base TSC Size: 17 > - Base TSC selection is performed through one big ranked vote > conducted via CIVS > - Eligibility to apply/run: Active contributors > - Eligibility to Vote: Active contributors > - Base Company Cap: 1 TSC Member per company > > > > - The following is valid for the year of 2018 > > > - If a service provider (defined above) does not have any staff > member who is eligible to run for the election under the criteria > above, > that service provider may appoint a person to the TSC . > - If a service provider has one or more staff members that are > eligible to run for the election, they are encouraged to do so. If no > eligible person wins a TSC spot in the election, then the company may > appoint the highest relatively ranked staff member from the election to > the > TSC. > - If a service provider does have one or more staff members that > are eligible to run but choose not to, then that service provider may > not > appoint a person to the TSC. > > > > - If a TSC member is absent (and does not provide a proxy) for 3 > consecutive meetings, that person is removed from the TSC. The person may > request to be reinstated by the TSC. In such an event the TSC may approve > the reinstatement by a simple majority vote. > > Option 2: > > > > Option 1 with the following modifications > > A separate election is proposed for 2 community at large members with the > same criteria and process for the Base TSC election with the exception that > this is not subject to the one person per company rule. > > > > After the election, there is no difference between Base TSC or a member > appointed by other means. > > ====== > > > > Please provide your questions and/or feedback on this proposal. We will > discuss this at the TSC meeting tomorrow. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Phil. > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:01 AM, Phil Robb <pr...@linuxfoundation.org> > wrote: > > 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 <djh...@us.ibm.com> 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: djh...@us.ibm.com > 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 <pr...@linuxfoundation.org> > To: onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org> > Date: 06/14/2018 11:28 AM > Subject: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide > your input > Sent by: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org > ------------------------------ > > > > > 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 > > 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 > 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 > This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and > confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement, > you may review at https://www.amdocs.com/about/email-disclaimer > -- Phil Robb VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation (O) 970-229-5949 (M) 970-420-4292 Skype: Phil.Robb -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#3186): https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/message/3186 Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/22463387/21656 Group Owner: onap-tsc+ow...@lists.onap.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
