Following up on the long-term solution and checking on other key open source efforts all of them seem to exhibit this trait – “All the seats are either appointed or elected”. The hybrid scheme of appointed and elected seats seems unique to ONAP to my knowledge. Love to hear more from Kenny and the LF experts on their thoughts. If the hybrid scheme were unique to ONAP, the question to ask is have we really gauged the complexity of managing this hybrid scheme before jumping into it. If their existed a hybrid scheme in some other project, we should certainly tap into their experience.
Thanks, Ramki From: Ramki Krishnan Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 3:16 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [onap-tsc] TSC Seat Vanacy As a community member, wanted to share my thoughts on this topic * We definitely need an immediate solution for the vacant TSC seat – proxy for the departing TSC member solves the problem well * For the long-term solution, it would be worthwhile leveraging the experience of other open source projects (Linux Foundation Networking related, Linux Foundation related, OpenStack etc.) before jumping into ONAP specifics Thanks, Ramki From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Kenny Paul Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 12:44 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Seat Vanacy While it is true that the Named-9 companies are basically guaranteed a seat, TSC seats go to the elected individual and not the company they belong to. I'll leave the topic of that happens when a reserved seat member changes companies off the table for now, but whether a reserved or non-reserved seat, the following scenario can occur because of the 1-person rule the TSC insisted upon: * Company A and Company B both have a member sitting on the TSC. * Company B's member received more votes in the election than Company A's member did. * The TSC member from Company B joins Company A. * The duly elected member that received more votes is forced to resign while the person with fewer votes stays in place -OR- * Company A tells the existing duly elected member from their company to resign so that the incoming member from Company B can now represent them. Either way, the community is forced into unnecessarily losing an individual -THEY- voted into office because of the 1-person rule artificially impacting the makeup of the TSC. Just as a reminder once again, we at the LF strongly advised against the 1-person rule because: * It creates all manner of unintended adverse governance consequences. * It actually discourages diversity because companies prohibit other employees from running. (A situation rampant in the last election). * It requires unwieldly logic to be worked in, around and through the governance model. You (the TSC) can greatly simplify your lives, simplify the governance language in the Community Document AND actually encourage broader based participation and diversity of thought leadership by removing the 1-person restriction and allowing at least 2 people from the same company to be TSC members. Yes, I will keep on beating that horse as long as it takes. ;-) Thanks! -kenny From: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Srini <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Monday, September 24, 2018 at 12:16 AM To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Seat Vanacy We also need to consider two cases 1. Where a TSC member moves from one company to another company that has TSC representative already. 2. Where a TSC member moves from one company to another that does not have TSC representative. 1st case is simple and it can be considered as TSC member resigning. 2nd case is complex. Would there be an election? Or would that member continues to be in TSC. Since we have 1 member per company limitation, it is fair to consider this also as a resignation. Thanks Srini From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stephen Terrill Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2018 2:59 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Seat Vanacy Hi, To this effect. An appointed size was agreed. I think it makes sense to run a new election for that seat – continuing with the previous voting list does not take into account the current situation, as the voting was in the context of an earlier situation: We need to take into account two situations as I see it: * Any TSC member is no longer able to support the role * The TSC member that can no longer support the role is a chair or vice chair. * We need to cater for the appointed positions as well. To this effect, can we amend the community charter as follows: * Add to section 4.2.3: * 4.2.3.3 TSC member abdication * In the event of a TSC member no longer being able to continue being a member of the TSC: * If the TSC position was from an operator, the operator may appoint a member that fulfils the criteria of being an active member; if that is not feasible then the operator may appoint any member. If this is not done, then the seat is considered vacant. (Additional amendment to consider: If the TSC member that abdicated continues as an active member from the same company, then the TSC seat is considered vacant (I am not stronge on this, it just to avoid using this clause as a means to replace TSC members). * If the TSC position is from one of the elected positions, an election for that single position is held. The conditions of the election are the same as for any TSC election. * If the said position was of that of a TSC chair or vice-chair, then the TSC chair or vice chair position will undergo a re-election after the successful appointment of the new TSC member. * When the next General TSC election is held, the said TSC position will also be included in the general TSC election. BR, Steve From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Frank Brockners via Lists.Onap.Org Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2018 7:19 PM 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 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#3772): https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/message/3772 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]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
