Hi Phil, all,
Let me re-instate. Before we had community survey, everyone could provide his preferred option, of course. After the decision to make survey and upon getting survey results, everything!!! should be based on survey results, not on some newly injected options. Otherwise, survey is meaningless. This applies to all points equally, e.g. company cap, suze of TSC, timing of elections etc. For some points, survey results were very clear. For some they were not, and this is the only place where we can play with a different options, if we want to be transparent. Best regards, Alla Sent from Nine ________________________________ From: Phil Robb <pr...@linuxfoundation.org> Sent: Thursday, 21 June 2018 09:47 To: Addepalli, Srinivasa R Cc: Jason Hunt; onap-tsc Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input Hi Srinivasa: Let me ask Chris or Stephen to chime in on their intention regarding the size of the TSC. Regarding waiting until August, I think we should ask the TSC this question. My personal opinion is that as long as we have quorum, we should continue to do business. Vacations happen but that's why the organization allows proxies. Best, Phil. On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Addepalli, Srinivasa R <srinivasa.r.addepa...@intel.com<mailto:srinivasa.r.addepa...@intel.com>> wrote: Hi, I also had similar question for option 1: Are the operator appointed TSC members are over and beyond base TSC size mentioned? On TSC voting timeline: Can this be conducted in August time frame to give chance for current TSC members (who are on summer vacation) to contest? Thanks Srini From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org> [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>] On Behalf Of Jason Hunt Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 5:11 PM To: Phil Robb <pr...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> Cc: onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input Thanks, Phil, for the writeup. I think this addresses some of the concerns on our two previous proposals. Just for clarity: - Under option 1, in the 2018 exception, are any "appointments" in addition to the 17 base TSC member size? If so, please clarify. - Under option 2, is the second election done before or after the base TSC election? Are those two at-large seats in addition to the 17 base seats? Is there any difference in separate elections vs. just looking at the base election and taking the top 2 vote-getters that were excluded because of the 1 per company cap? Regards, Jason Hunt Distinguished Engineer, IBM Phone: 314-749-7422 Email: djh...@us.ibm.com<mailto:djh...@us.ibm.com> Twitter: @DJHunt From: Phil Robb <pr...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> To: Jason Hunt <djh...@us.ibm.com<mailto:djh...@us.ibm.com>> Cc: onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>> Date: 06/20/2018 04:46 PM 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:djh...@us.ibm.com> Twitter: @DJHunt [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<mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> To: onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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 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 <https://www.amdocs.com/about/email-disclaimer> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#3189): https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/message/3189 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] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
