Agree that it's about the governance. The TSC Chair (or designate) should
exercise some discretion over the content and order of the agenda to best meet the overall community's needs. That combined with the timely submission of topics and accompanying materials (as Arash and others have suggested) should go a long way toward more efficient and effective meetings. Regards, Jason Hunt Distinguished Engineer, IBM Phone: 314-749-7422 Email: [email protected] Twitter: @DJHunt From: "Arash Hekmat" <[email protected]> To: Kenny Paul <[email protected]>, Christopher Donley <[email protected]>, Lingli Deng <[email protected]>, Alla Goldner <[email protected]> Cc: Stephen Terrill <[email protected]>, onap-tsc <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: 07/09/2018 08:42 PM Subject: Re: [onap-discuss] [onap-tsc] TSC meetings: length, topics etc. Sent by: [email protected] Hi Kenny, The enforcement is more important than the format. Enforcement meaning, asking the presenters to upload their full presentation (document, wiki link, etc.) a week or a few days in advance. And, asking the voting members to read them and comment on them prior to the meeting. The format is up to you and the current table format is good. One thing that comes to mind is where would the comments for a given topic go. Should there be another column for comments or should all comments go at the bottom of the page. If you want, you could hold a quick vote on the premise of this proposal in this week’s TSC meeting. To see if the majority of voting members think expecting the presenters to provide their full presentation a few days in advance and expecting the voting members to read the material and add any necessary comments prior to the meeting is a worthwhile proposal or not. Regards, Arash From: Kenny Paul <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 7:03 PM To: Arash Hekmat <[email protected]>; Christopher Donley <[email protected]>; Lingli Deng <[email protected]>; Alla Goldner <[email protected]> Cc: Stephen Terrill <[email protected]>; onap-tsc <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [onap-discuss] [onap-tsc] TSC meetings: length, topics etc. I'm sorry, but I am very confused. Please help me understand why the existing meeting template we have been using for a year now is insufficient for fulfilling this need? I put agenda templates out weeks in advance. All anyone needs to do is go in and add something ---AND--- the members of the TSC need to go look at it. TSC Meetings Thanks! Best Regards, -kenny Kenny Paul, Technical Program Manager, The Linux Foundation [email protected], 510.766.5945 San Francisco Bay Area, Pacific Time Zone From: <[email protected]> on behalf of Arash Hekmat < [email protected]> Date: Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 7:40 PM To: Christopher Donley <[email protected]>, Lingli Deng < [email protected]>, Alla Goldner <[email protected]> Cc: Stephen Terrill <[email protected]>, onap-tsc < [email protected]>, "[email protected]" < [email protected]> Subject: Re: [onap-discuss] [onap-tsc] TSC meetings: length, topics etc. Agreed. The idea is to have a process (a meeting agenda wiki template) where regular TSC agenda is published in detail (text, file, etc.) well is advance (a week ahead, on the Monday, etc.) to give voting TSC members an opportunity to add comments and make their views known to other members prior to the meetings. Of course, emergencies, deadlines and unforeseen surprises can be managed in the meetings or in the following meetings. The agenda template could also allow advance comments on the carryover items. The point is to reduce surprises not to eliminate them. Arash From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Christopher Donley Sent: Monday, July 2, 2018 1:05 PM To: Lingli Deng <[email protected]>; Alla Goldner < [email protected]> Cc: Stephen Terrill <[email protected]>; Arash Hekmat < [email protected]>; onap-tsc <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [onap-discuss] [onap-tsc] TSC meetings: length, topics etc. I think there are three types of questions that we regularly address, that may require different handling. Those we can reasonably predict will need a TSC decision (for example, new project proposals, milestone reviews, TSC policies, etc.). I agree that for those cases, we should have a few days' advanced notice of the need for a vote and any materials influencing it. However, for milestone reviews, we may need to acknowledge some late arriving information from the project teams is expected. Emergencies or other urgent questions that may arise (for example, issues with the build system, severe security vulnerabilities, etc.). Those may need to be decided during a TSC call without prior notice. We shouldn't block those from consideration because there was not prior discussion. Non-emergency surprises. In that case, perhaps we want to follow Steve's suggestion and hold the discussion on one call and decision on a second. Chris From: <[email protected]> on behalf of Lingli Deng < [email protected]> Date: Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 6:01 PM To: Alla Goldner <[email protected]> Cc: Stephen Terrill <[email protected]>, Arash Hekmat < [email protected]>, onap-tsc <[email protected]>, " [email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [onap-discuss] [onap-tsc] TSC meetings: length, topics etc. Hi Arash and Steve, Thanks for the good suggestion. +1 to Having TSC agenda and discussion points posted in advance would be great to improve call efficiency and transparency. Also +1 to clearly differentiate the discussion slot and decision slot are vital to plan the call agenda. If a decision is to be made because of a deadline, it is important to communicate to every party with voting right to clear understand the options and have the time to sync up internally if needed. Lingli 邓灵莉 邮箱：[email protected] 签名由 网易邮箱大师 定制 On 07/01/2018 23:15, Alla Goldner wrote: +1 on all points below. Best regards, Alla Goldner Open Network Division Amdocs Technology From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stephen Terrill Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2018 6:09 PM To: Arash Hekmat <[email protected]>; onap-tsc < [email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] TSC meetings: length, topics etc. Hi Arash, All, Thank-you for the suggestion - I think that this is a topic worthy of debate and bringing forward. It would be beneficial to create clear expectations on the decision process and the ability to be efficient in this, and allow sufficient time between when the proposal for decision is requested and the decision meeting itself. Afterall, a “surprise” request for decision is often meet with pushback as there is often a need to reflect and discuss with others. I agree that all requests for a decision should be posted in advance to give time for reflection, debate and collecting input. An exception due to time constraints maybe the milestone decisions. I support that all decisions requests are posted in advance. 1 week maybe too long though, how about on the prior Monday? It can be that decisions required two meeting cycles �C the first one can often be for information before the decision if it is complex or controversial. It may make sense to capture a policy around this; I think also that this is independent of the TS composition as it is also clarity for the community irrespective of the decided TSC composition. BR, Steve. From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Arash Hekmat Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 7:31 PM To: onap-tsc <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] TSC meetings: length, topics etc. ONAP TSC, This is a process proposal for the ONAP TSC meetings. This is independent of the decision on the length and timing of the TSC meetings. To help shorten the TSC meetings, it may be helpful to have a process where all TSC members views on the topics on the agenda are known before the meeting. This gives time to all the companies to know other companies views and to formulate their responses and votes before the meeting. This may help reduce surprises and lengthy discussions during the meeting. One way to do this is to use the TSC Meeting Agendas wiki page: https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Upcoming+Agendas The Linux Foundation (Kenny) could add a structure template to the TSC Meeting Agenda page and for each meeting: Each presenter is asked to list (or upload) their discussion points on the Meeting Agenda page (at least a week prior to the meeting) Each voting TSC member is asked to add their responses or views for each discussion point (at least 24 or 48 hours prior to the meeting) During the TSC meeting, Kenny presents the Meeting Agenda page including all agenda points and the added responses and views For every contentious point, where a vote may be needed, a vote is held during the TSC meeting to make a decision. It should be clarified that: The TSC Meeting Agenda wiki page should not be used for back and forth discussions and arguments Adding responses or views to the TSC Meeting Agenda wiki page is not a substitute for attending the TSC meeting. Arash Hekmat (Amdocs) From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Alla Goldner Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 1:22 AM To: onap-tsc <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: [onap-tsc] TSC meetings: length, topics etc. Hi all, Following my AI from yesterday’s TSC meeting, I am sending this email out. We would want to make life easier for those in Asia who attend our (very late for them)TSC meetings on Thursday. Having said that, we should keep in mind that the only timeframe during which we can have our meetings without getting into 12 am-6 am night hours for any of the regions is these timeframe. One of the proposals raised by community was: TSC meeting time should be shorten to 1 hour - so people in China suffer less due to late evening hours. We should clearly define what are topics on agenda for TSC meetings, and then also: what can be discussed by some form of active chat (yet to be defined) What may be discussed in bi or 3 - weekly meetings, which are also scheduled in advance The other suggestion brought by Phill during our f2f meeting last week was to have separate meetings for a different regions. In any case, further work on the proposals is needed (in case there is a support for any of these), or, alternatively, a new proposal can be brought to the table. Please let us know what you think about 2 proposals above and bring your own suggestions, if you have some. Best regards, Alla Goldner Open Network Division Amdocs Technology 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 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 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 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 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 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#3350): https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/message/3350 Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/23004400/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
