Thank you Kenny for initiating this conversation and for outlining many of
the choices. I agree that we should have on a common approach to
addressing vacancies in the TSC.
I've listed some options below. I suggest that we 1) agree if these are
the right options, and 2) conduct a vote to determine which option the TSC
favors. Once that decision is made, the updates to the charter language
can be drafted and approved by the TSC.
Operator-reserved seats
1. Vacated seat remains vacant until next election
2. Vacated member's company can assign a replacement
note: need to agree on who in the company can make that decision
3. New election for vacated seat initiated within 30 days of seat being
vacated
note: this would apply if multiple candidates might run from that
operator, since only members from that operator would be eligible for the
vacated seat
Variation A: If vacancy occurs within 90 days of end of the
member's term, seat will remain vacant until next election
Non-reserved seats
1. Vacated seat remains vacant until next election
2. New election for vacated seat initiated within 30 days of seat being
vacated
Variation A: If vacancy occurs within 90 days of end of the
member's term, seat will remain vacant until next election
Variation B: If vacancy occurs within 60 days after a full TSC
election, the runner-up shall be assigned the seat
My commentary: For operator-reserved seats, I'm open to either assigning
a replacement (option 2, if we can agree on who would do that - vacating
member? LFN Board member?) or holding an election (option 3 with variation
A) if we really think multiple people from one operator would run. For
non-reserved seats, I'm in favor of Option 2 with variation A. As Kenny
stated, assigning the runner-up is unfair in a system that limits seats to
one-per-company (since a qualified candidate maybe didn't run in lieu of
someone else from that company already running).
Please respond if you think there are options not covered here.
Regards,
Jason Hunt
Distinguished Engineer, IBM
Phone: 314-749-7422
Email: [email protected]
Twitter: @DJHunt
From: "Alexis de Talhouet" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: 09/23/2018 03:49 PM
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Seat Vanacy
Sent by: [email protected]
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" <
[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2018 19:19
To: [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] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Kenny
Paul
Sent: Sonntag, 23. September 2018 18:43
To: [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], 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
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#3741): https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/message/3741
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]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
