Hi Mazin: The "Definitions" section above the option provides needed information. It is reproduced here:
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: Reading Option 1 below with the Service Provider definition in place preserves the seats of the 9 Platinum Service Providers that were a part of ONAP as of Dec. 31st 2017. Best, Phil. On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 1:39 PM, GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E) < [email protected]> wrote: > Hmm.. What am I missing? Here is Option 1 in original email. > If I missed something then please update and let’s share at the TSC > meeting. > > Mazin > > 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. >> >> > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 21, 2018, at 12:37 PM, Jason Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > Sent from my iPhone > > 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:onap-tsc-bounces@lists >> .onap.org] *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 >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.onap.org_download_attachments_25428910_TSC-2DComposition-2DSurvey-2DCommunity.pdf-3Fversion-3D1-26modificationDate-3D1528486003000-26api-3Dv2&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=2dwD7a5k4V9cZl09O7uTpejnZMF8aa01W3yMqrrZC5Y&m=lTeYPME-T8p_nkyC-tyg1l4VdjpLYo4FJL_l3ftT7M8&s=VeKZeG7CW7v-yQrv_Uqp9K9zbN-tI3DQzJvdP8XrtE4&e=> >> >> 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 >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.onap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Dtsc&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=2dwD7a5k4V9cZl09O7uTpejnZMF8aa01W3yMqrrZC5Y&m=lTeYPME-T8p_nkyC-tyg1l4VdjpLYo4FJL_l3ftT7M8&s=kDjTrLpGg_-UIV0dXwU7Uy5D_QCTgA8LKKZF-soEjCM&e=> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > > > > > -- 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 (#3197): https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/message/3197 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]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
