Good morning TSC members, I have reviewed the feedback that you have provided so far.
We are all in alignment to enhance the TSC Chart to address how to handle a vacancy. It would be good to learn from other open source communities about how they are dealing with such situation while we are considering our ONAP ecosystem: reserved seats for operators and non-reserved seats. We should not re-invent the wheel unnecessarily, there are certainly common patterns for some scenarios that you have listed. I also recommend that we set a deadline to finalize the TSC chart addendum. Therefore, on Oct 4th, we, the TSC, should present to the ONAP community our TSC chart amendment and then immediately act accordingly. Stephen has already started to draft a new proposal that could be used as our starting point. Jason was also making some suggestions considering our ONAP structure. As a short-term solution, some of you have suggested that Huawei is identifying a proxy. I believe this is indeed a great temporary solution so the new TSC can continue to operate as expected. Chris, can you please confirm who will be your proxy? Thank you. TSC members – let me know if you disagree otherwise let’s move forward and work on our TSC Chart add-on. Many thanks and regards Catherine From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kenny Paul Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2018 6:43 PM 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]<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 (#3773): https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/message/3773 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]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
