What happened in such scenario within the OpenDaylight community was to have the next runner appointed as the new TSC member, given previous election was very recent. Anyhow, I echo Frank’s point that it’s important current TSC come up with a way to handle such case, and that the TSC amends the charter.
Regards, Alexis > On Sep 23, 2018, at 1:24 PM, Alla Goldner <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 > > Sent from Nine > From: "Frank Brockners via Lists.Onap.Org <http://lists.onap.org/>" > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2018 19:19 > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Seat Vanacy > > Hi Kenny, > > Thanks for the summary. As a community member, I’d prefer if the TSC would > quickly amend the current charter to cover the case of TSC members stepping > down from their role. Any other approach would be a shot from the hip – and > might be in conflict to the ultimate policy that the TSC would come up with. > The amendment should cover the considerations that you list below, especially > the fact that the TSC now consists of elected members and not representatives > of parties, companies, etc. In that, a TSC differs from most of the > parliaments, where members often represent parties, so that successors are > automatically picked from a list. > > Regards, > Frank > > From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Kenny > Paul > Sent: Sonntag, 23. September 2018 18:43 > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [onap-tsc] TSC Seat Vanacy > > I wanted to follow up on the discussion regarding a special election due to > Chris taking a new job. One of the first questions asked was, "What does the > Charter say?" Neither the Charter or Community Document says anything about > a vacancy. In the absence of any specific language, the default should be to > honor what language there is. Currently the Community Document says: > 4.1.1.2 Size and Structure > The TSC shall consist of eighteen (18) seats > Nine (9) seats on the TSC are to be reserved for Operators > Only one (1) person from any company, or group of related companies (as > defined in section 4.4.4.1) may be a member at any given time. > > As such, my guidance to the TSC is to immediately authorize a special > election using the criteria currently defined in the Community Document, > plain and simple. > > There were a several alternatives to a special election which have been > suggested. While it is well within the TSC's right to pursue any of these > alternatives, all must be thoroughly scrutinized through the lens of > fairness, trust, and responsibility to the community. > > Leaving the seat vacant until the next election cycle > It took 6 months to debate and vote on membership criteria, and another full > month to run an election. Leaving the seat vacant until the next scheduled > election implies that after all that work the TSC doesn't care about being > fully functional. This would be a huge hit to the community's trust of the > TSC. > > Delay any decision on an election until the TSC amends the Community Document > to address how to handle a vacancy > This is marginally better than leaving the seat vacant, because who knows how > long amending the Community Document might take. I would encourage the TSC to > take up amending the Community Document to cover one or more of the > operational and governance gaps that exist, however it is unfair to the ONAP > community to hold the recently vacated seat hostage to those discussions. > > Have Chris appoint his replacement > When the TSC was comprised of only appointed individuals doing this would > have been fine course of action. In fact, there were a couple instances back > in March where this occurred. Now that we have moved from an appointed TSC to > an elected TSC, such an appointment by a member is completely inappropriate. > > Make the next runner up in the August election the new TSC member > While true the seat does not belong to Huawei, it would be exceeding unfair > to them, especially as the 2nd largest contributor to the Project, to > suddenly be out in the cold with absolutely no chance to even compete for a > seat they once held. > > I don't like creating work for myself and a TCS election is indeed a great > deal of work. The thought of having to run a new election is mind-numbing but > I welcome it gladly because it is absolutely the right thing to do. > > I recommend a one week nomination period, and a one week voting period. (The > prior election was lengthened to two + two specifically to accommodate summer > vacations). I am at ONS-Europe this week and out the first week of October > on family business. The earliest I can commit to kicking off the process > (after revalidating qualified Active Community Members) would be Oct. 11th, > putting the close of the election on Oct. 25. > > Please let me know your thoughts. > Best Regards, > -kenny > > Kenny Paul, Technical Program Manager, The Linux Foundation > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>, 510.766.5945 > San Francisco Bay Area, Pacific Time Zone > > > 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 (#3735): https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/message/3735 Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/26151620/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/leave/2743226/1412191262/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
