Hi Wenjing,
If I may, I would prefer to describe why I stood down rather than have an
alternative reason presented.
When I established the projects I did so with a clearly defined intention to
limit the number of committers/voters per company in the project to one. There
should be no limit to the number of contributions or contributors, but due to
the commercial nature of the project I did establish it with a single committer
vote per company as the foundation.
I have been highly vocal that we should diversify the committers for a long
time and continue to feel it is necessary, I also continue to believe there
should be structure to the voting of affiliation specifically for dovetail.
Dovetail does not write test cases the majority of it’s committers have not
even pushed patches to the repository, it’s committers vote on the commercial
applicability of test cases for the CVP.
Due to the need to transition to the right competence and my desire to retain
the founding principles of the project I took the necessary step to stand down
and allow a more competent Ericsson representative to step forward.
I absolutely agree with the proposal to diversify, in fact as you are aware it
has been my proposal for a long time and I have taken action to address it.
Where the there was disagreement between the committers was exclusively on the
topic of limiting the number of committers per affiliation.
Regards,
Chris
On 2017-05-02, 21:43, "Wenjing Chu" <[email protected]> wrote:
I do want to step in to help explain what the issues are.
The committers of dovetail project all wanted to both increase the talent
pool and to broaden community representation. There is no disagreement on that
goal. Different proposals were made in how to accomplish this - the majority
agreed to do so by inviting a list of individuals who have made contributions,
have the appropriate competence, and also broad representation to join as
committers. With the new committers on board, they can then elect a new PTL. We
feel this is a responsible way forward to address the issues and ensure timely
completion of dovetail deliverables within a very short time period from now to
June.
The minority (in this case one individual Chris Price) disagreed with the
majority's proposal, and felt necessary to break the normal committer decision
process and appeal to the TSC and the community at large. As many correctly
pointed out, this is not how our community is supposed to work. It is also
putting the schedule of Dovetail at great risk at the most critical time, by
politicizing a project's work and delaying (and very likely discouraging)
inclusions of more committers into the project. I hope the irony is not lost on
anyone: one individual is blocking the very act of enhancing and diversifying
the committer base in the name of enhancing and diversifying the committer base.
So now this topic is in front of the TSC and all in the community, I
respectfully ask you speedily examine the issues and give dovetail a clear
guidance so that people can feel they can contribute, their contribution is
appreciated, and they feel it's worth their time and effort to join - esp. the
new committers we wish to attract. As a dovetail committer, I think the
ultimate success of CVP has to be the top priority for our community.
The second point I would like to share with everyone, esp. folks who have
not known dovetail project in details, is that Dovetail project is only doing a
limited part of the whole CVP. All test cases are developed elsewhere in
Functest, upstream/openstack, or yardstick. Dovetail only packages those and
help document them in cases where documentation is lacking or in less-suitable
format. The Dovetail project does compile a list of all test cases as a gating
process to make sure all requirements to test cases are being met. This step is
still needed because test cases were originally developed for CI/CD or unit or
system test purposes, not compliance. These criteria are discussed and reviewed
in public in wiki including reporting in TSC calls and tech discussion for
months. The compiled test cases are to be proposed to the community for 2 weeks
of time to review/comment and to TSC to approve. The TSC can take a look at
this proposed process again and provide clear guidance how you want Dovetail to
go about this part of the work. We are trying to get the politics out of the
project as much as possible. Furthermore, the scope and high level definition
of CVP are decided by the C&C Committee, not Dovetail, where I believe there is
one vote per company restriction in place. I think this background information
helps all to better understand Dovetail's role in the overall CVP and can then
give appropriate feedbacks.
Finally, as a community, we should try to take mudslinging or sense of
entitlement out of opnfv. Disagreements are as much part of our work as
everything else we do. I think we should not let our disagreements diminish the
work so many contributors have done for dovetail, or worse, let our
disagreement paralyze the project and miss the very tight deadlines we are
trying to shoot, and ultimately harm the community.
So out of respect and out of duty to the community, I ask you to support us
getting the work done by June for a successful launch of CVP thereafter. And,
let's say it out loud, joining us as a committer or contributor is the best way
you can help ! Short of that, get to know the issues, speak out, give
feedbacks, ... we all have a stake in the health of this community. Thank you
all.
Regards
Wenjing
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cooper, Trevor
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 8:49 AM
To: Christopher Price <[email protected]>; CARVER, PAUL
<[email protected]>; HU, BIN <[email protected]>; Dave Neary <[email protected]>;
[email protected]; Tallgren, Tapio (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
<[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Standing down as a
committer on DoveTail
Chris's explanation makes complete sense to me (I have been involved in
many of the recent CVP and Dovetail discussions). The points made about power,
voting, hard feelings etc. miss the issue entirely ... unless we attract broad
community representation with the appropriate competence for execution of the
CVP (aka Dovetail) how can a program that purports to represent business value
of OPNFV possibly be successful? By definition the investments of all member
companies will be diluted if execution of CVP fails to meet end user
expectations. That is what we should focus on IMO.
/Trevor
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Price [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 6:39 AM
To: CARVER, PAUL <[email protected]>; HU, BIN <[email protected]>; Cooper, Trevor
<[email protected]>; Dave Neary <[email protected]>;
[email protected]; Tallgren, Tapio (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
<[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Standing down as a committer
on DoveTail
Hi Paul,
Thanks for reaching out, and happy to try and answer your questions.
In reference to my statement around “my voice counts for little”.
I have raised since mid last-year the need to try to bring in a diversity
of membership and to try and reimagine how the project has been operating to
drive to conclusion. We have collectively been unable to transition how we run
the project and act on that as a group of four committers. I feel as though the
group intends for the project to head in a different direction than I felt we
should pursue.
I didn’t make that statement due to any unfairness that I feel should be
raised, nor did I raise any, rather from difference of opinion as an
explanation of why I am stepping down.
With regard to my comment that the balance is not ideal. As I mentioned I
have been promoting a diversity and transition for a while in and amongst our
committer group.
I don’t feel that the small group of committers we have are sufficiently
representative of our community and that we need to find ways to attract
competence and diversity in the dovetail work. I can’t see my retaining a
committer role where I lack the technical competence or time to sufficiently
vote on the merit of one test case or another provides sufficient value.
I intend to remain involved in the work, just not as a committer where I
feel a different competence than mine is required.
Cheers,
Chris
On 2017-05-02, 14:56, "CARVER, PAUL" <[email protected]> wrote:
Chris,
I'm a complete outsider here, I have no familiarity with the Dovetail
project and had to Google it to find out what it does. I also don't know what
CVP is because it wasn't mentioned on the page I read about Dovetail. I mostly
skim read the OPNFV mailing list or even delete without reading when I'm
swamped in email. However I agree with Bin because your resignation email said
"I feel that the balance in the project is not ideal today, I certainly feel
that my voice counts for little and is often ignored by the majority votes".
If you feel that you're being prevented from expressing your opinion in
discussion that would be different, but if your issue is that when it comes to
a vote, you're in the minority and you'd like the balance of power changed so
that your minority opinion prevails over the majority opinion. That's just not
an acceptable way to run a project.
I don't know what the balance of votes is in Dovetail, but if you're
typically in the minority then by resigning you're making the minority smaller
and the majority larger as a percentage of the remaining voters. That's the
wrong thing to do if you really believe in your position. You should be trying
to find and encourage new contributors who share your position if you believe
that your minority opinion could appeal to a majority if there were more and/or
different voters.
It's one thing to appeal to the TSC if there are voting irregularities
(e.g. ballot box stuffing by one company) but it's none of the TSC's business
if the votes are fair and according to the rules and you just don't like being
on the losing side of a fair vote. It's also appropriate to appeal to the TSC
if potential contributors who would vote along the lines you prefer are being
unfairly blocked from voting, but as Bin said, the way to handle that is to
present evidence of such alleged misconduct.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Christopher
Price
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 08:12
To: HU, BIN <[email protected]>; Cooper, Trevor <[email protected]>;
Dave Neary <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Tallgren,
Tapio (Nokia - FI/Espoo) <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Standing down as a
committer on DoveTail
Hi Bin,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I’d like to further understand the power struggle you clearly see here,
I would be very interested to understand your views further.
My views are quite clear that dovetail should be established with the
best competence we have available to judge test cases for application in the
CVP, in as neutral as manner as possible across as many stakeholders as
possible.
I am not the right person in the community to bring that forward so I
have stood down, I hope the right people step forward to do so without
accusations that they do so for some form of power.
Cheers,
Chris
On 2017-05-02, 04:37, "[email protected] on
behalf of HU, BIN" <[email protected] on behalf of
[email protected]> wrote:
Guys,
What I see here is power struggle. We all have seen this type of
things many times before, especially with strong opinion.
Here are my 2 cents:
(1) TSC shouldn't interfere with the internal management of a
project. It will be a bad precedent for TSC to intervene a project's internal
matters here unless there is an evidenced misconduct. Otherwise it will open a
can of worm for future.
(2) One vote per committer cannot be changed at project level.
Again, it will be a bad precedent to introduce one vote per company within a
project. Project is contribution driven, and committer promotion is based on
merit. That's the principle. If one person has made significant contribution,
the person deserves the promotion no matter what company he works for. If we
change the principle, basically we lose the credibility as an open source
community.
(3) All of those different opinion should be addressed at project
level. If you are not the majority of opinion, and you lose the vote, sorry you
lose. You have to accept the result of the voting. Power struggling happens
everywhere, and I personally experienced it too. You have to negotiate and make
compromise, even if you have strong opinion. Sorry, you need to learn
"compromise". Exaggerating power struggle is not a right way to move forward.
(4) If there is an *evidence* that there is a *misconduct* within a
project, please submit the evidence, and describe the nature of misconduct. TSC
can discuss the nature of the misconduct based on evidence, further investigate
it and take disciplinary actions based on the result of investigation of the
misconduct according to authorized power by TSC Charter.
(5) If there is a concern that a project is driven by a single
vendor, TSC should take one or more of the following actions:
- Appreciate that company's investment in supporting our open
source community. Everyone is volunteer here. We should appreciate the
investment instead of discouraging the investment. We want more company to
invest more resources in OPNFV.
- Encourage more contributors from other companies to this project.
This is a hard part we need to know:
* What is the percentage of code that is contributed by this
single vendor v.s. others?
* Are others code contribution intentionally blocked by this
single vendor? Or just lack of code contribution from others?
- Investigate if there is misconduct
* Is your code carefully reviewed by others?
* How many code rejections did you get?
* Are those rejection reasonable?
* If you suspect misconduct in code review and your code is
rejected unreasonably, please submit evidence.
- TSC may make a motion to defer this project's participation in E
Release, and may suggest to Board to defer CVP, if majority concerns single
vendor-driven.
So there are many things TSC can do - to appreciate investment, to
encourage contribution, to investigate misconduct if evidence is provided, and
to defer its participation in E Release, and to recommend to Board to defer CVP
until single vendor concern is addressed.
But the last thing we want to do is to interfere with project's
internal management, change the principle of contribution-driven, and
meritocracy-based committer election, change the voting model, or discourage
investment. Those are fundamental to an open source community. We cannot change
the cornerstone of a house.
My 2 cents.
Thanks
Bin
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cooper, Trevor
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 6:39 PM
To: Dave Neary <[email protected]>;
[email protected]; Tallgren, Tapio (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Standing down as a
committer on DoveTail
Dovetail is a unique project because there can only be one CVP
implementation and CVP will no doubt have impact on the OPNFV brand (either
positively or negatively). Without reasonably wide involvement and
representation the viability of the CVP program is questionable IMO. I think
that the TSC should consider rules that strongly encourage or even enforce a
composition that would adequately represent the community as a whole for launch
of the program
/Trevor
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dave Neary
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 10:40 AM
To: [email protected]; Tallgren, Tapio (Nokia -
FI/Espoo) <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Standing down as a
committer on DoveTail
Hi,
In light of Chris's resignation and request, I would like to
propose that we bring our plans to evolve the project to the TSC sooner, rather
than later, and get TSC guidance on a number of key questions related to
Dovetail, which is not like other projects because of its relationship to the
CVP:
* Should we allow multiple committers from a single vendor?
* How should we handle the expansion of the committers during the
restructuring of the Dovetail project?
I do not believe that another project has considered, as we have
recently, an addition of many new committers to a project, nor is there another
project so directly related to a board committee. I think it will be useful and
necessary for us to get TSC guidance on any changes to the project - and with
Chris stepping down, I think we should get this guidance before extending
invitations to new committer candidates.
Thanks,
Dave.
On 05/01/2017 12:11 PM, Christopher Price wrote:
> Hi Hongbo,
>
>
>
> I will be standing down as a committer on the Dovetail project.
>
>
>
> When I established the project it was intended to reflect as
fairly as
> possible a common set of voices from all member companies that
had a
> stake in our project.
>
> I feel that the balance in the project is not ideal today, I
certainly
> feel that my voice counts for little and is often ignored by the
> majority votes and I do not think I am able to provide value as a
> committer in the current structure.
>
>
>
> I strongly urge you to approach the TSC for support in
re-structuring
> DoveTail in as meritocratic manner as possible, committers
> contributing to the repo, with a structure that limits the votes
for
> any single commercial interest on the project. I believe this
would
> be in the best interest of the project.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org_m
>
ailman_listinfo_opnfv-2Dtech-2Ddiscuss&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvj
>
Ig&r=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw&m=5vIs1He5M6_dMco0De3tiyFfrLFHH4qsMOgkyVcY
> ytI&s=MyfJLOD-CiFk_AKQImC008az778rSVA2BgEjEoNIT2c&e=
>
--
Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy
Open Source and Standards, Red Hat -
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__community.redhat.com&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw&m=5vIs1He5M6_dMco0De3tiyFfrLFHH4qsMOgkyVcYytI&s=LTcoHIZEcCa5_C8-iGls3cGgOF1HKopHQF4chFMirCc&e=
Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338
_______________________________________________
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org_mailman_listinfo_opnfv-2Dtech-2Ddiscuss&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw&m=5vIs1He5M6_dMco0De3tiyFfrLFHH4qsMOgkyVcYytI&s=MyfJLOD-CiFk_AKQImC008az778rSVA2BgEjEoNIT2c&e=
_______________________________________________
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org_mailman_listinfo_opnfv-2Dtech-2Ddiscuss&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw&m=5vIs1He5M6_dMco0De3tiyFfrLFHH4qsMOgkyVcYytI&s=MyfJLOD-CiFk_AKQImC008az778rSVA2BgEjEoNIT2c&e=
_______________________________________________
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org_mailman_listinfo_opnfv-2Dtech-2Ddiscuss&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=xtmPik_TP2fjPVGWP4yBRQ&m=J3S53nAMAQLzBu-0-5DhlisxV9RRzax7vhb0L4Rk-S8&s=f7zTntNz1NaHAhum1GJHzIhxFdc-_ShzHHsHAjcXGLs&e=
_______________________________________________
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org_mailman_listinfo_opnfv-2Dtech-2Ddiscuss&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=xtmPik_TP2fjPVGWP4yBRQ&m=J3S53nAMAQLzBu-0-5DhlisxV9RRzax7vhb0L4Rk-S8&s=f7zTntNz1NaHAhum1GJHzIhxFdc-_ShzHHsHAjcXGLs&e=
_______________________________________________
opnfv-tsc mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tsc
_______________________________________________
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
