Mazin, I’m not sure I understand the comment that option 1 doesn’t support 8 operator seats. Actually it’s set up to support 9 service provider seats either via direct election or appointment. I believe this is aligned with the survey results which was in favor of a one year exception for platinum service providers.
Regards, Jason Hunt Distinguished Engineer, IBM Phone: 314-749-7422 Email: [email protected] Twitter: @DJHunt > On Jun 21, 2018, at 12:21 PM, GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > The discussion and options we discuss today should be primarily based on the > survey. We should avoid creating new options or variations not supported by > the survey. > > The survey also articulated support to have 8 seats for operators. I don’t > see that in Option 1. I will not support an option that does not have that as > reflected by the survey feedback. > > Any alternative options we decide to select from beyond Option 1 should be > based on the survey data. This data comes from the community and we need to > reflect their feedback. > > My suggestion is to have the TSC members review the survey data before > attending the TSC meeting today. > > Thanks > > Mazin > > > On Jun 21, 2018, at 11:41 AM, Stephen Terrill <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> The idea was that we perform the election without considering extra >> considerations (called base to have a term) then add to it and supplement >> the TSC for the requested consideration for the service providers. >> >> BR, >> >> Steve >> >> Sent from my Phone, please forgive typos >> >> On 21 Jun 2018, at 09:47, Phil Robb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>>> <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] >>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jason Hunt >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 5:11 PM >>>> To: Phil Robb <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: onap-tsc <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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: [email protected] >>>> Twitter: @DJHunt >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Phil Robb <[email protected]> >>>> To: Jason Hunt <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: onap-tsc <[email protected]> >>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>> 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 <[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 >>>> >>>> >>>> <image001.gif>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 >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#3194): https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/message/3194 Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/22463387/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
