Re “As for the mailing list/IRC contributions, the difficulty comes with identity mapping. Trying to map IRC NICs/or email addresses with IDs used for the other tools is very challenging and will involve a lot of manual process.”
Anyone that wants their identity to be mapped (e.g. to strengthen their potential role in the election) should be aware of this discussion and should support your effort there. Generally though IMO our identities should not be that hard to map – most of us may use a couple of email addresses and probably one IRC handle. Further, email addresses associated with an LF identity should be obvious for any contributor/committer, as part of the gerrit record. If you want help coordinating such a call for identity mapping, let me know. I think it’s important not to leave out email and IRC to the calculations. But overall my main two points remain: we need to keep the bar low, and setup a process for concerns to be raised and addressed by the TSC. That will help ensure the process is equitable, for anyone who really cares. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan | AT&T From: Raymond Paik [mailto:rp...@linuxfoundation.org] Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 10:57 AM To: opnfv-tech-discuss <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org Cc: Dave Neary <dne...@redhat.com>; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) <bryan.sulli...@research.att.com> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] [opnfv-tech-discuss] For the TSC composition discussion on Tuesday As promised, here's a new spreadsheet with updated wiki contributor data. Now the data should show beyond top 50 contributors and list anyone who contributed to the wiki in 2017. Bitergia also fixed a bug they had as there were some undercounting of "page edits". Thanks, Ray On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Raymond Paik <rp...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:rp...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: A couple of clarifications. When we say a "union of contributions" across all tools, we're setting a bar for total contributions across Git, Gerrit, Jira, and wiki. So for example, if you had done 50 reviews + 2 merged patches + 30 Jira activities + 20 wiki edits, you have a 102 total contributions (and you'd clear the hurdle for either 50 or 100 contributions). The discussion was that this maybe simpler than setting a different bar/hurdle for each tool. As for the mailing list/IRC contributions, the difficulty comes with identity mapping. Trying to map IRC NICs/or email addresses with IDs used for the other tools is very challenging and will involve a lot of manual process. Hope this helps. Thanks, Ray On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:28 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) <bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>> wrote: I echo Dave's recommendation to be inclusive. The main reason not to be exclusive AIUI is to prevent gaming of the voting process. There are two ways to address that, while remaining inclusive: 1) set a reasonably low bar for participation IMO anyone that is a regular attendee in OPNFV TSC or technical community calls, has made any level of peer-reviewed commit (outside their own company) over the last year, etc should be included. There are a core of people that should be obvious to us all, as involved, and they should certainly not be excluded. These include all current TSC members, PTLs, active committers, anyone active in any form of discussion, anyone contributing content in any form (code, tests, docs, wiki, ...), ... 2) provide a means for process concerns to be raised and addressed by the TSC Dave's concern is an example. We need to be open to any such concern as a sign the process needs to be improved or an exception needs to be made (which really means the process needs to be improved, but for some reason we are not able to at this time...). Other types of concern may be raised by analytics on the voting process, which should be shared with the community (every voter should be associated with a member company, or identified as independent, so we can ensure reasonable equity in the voting process). There should be a place on the wiki etc for raising these concerns so they can be tracked and the thread of addressing them is recorded. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan | AT&T -----Original Message----- From: opnfv-tsc-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tsc-boun...@lists.opnfv.org> [mailto:opnfv-tsc-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tsc-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>] On Behalf Of Dave Neary Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 5:49 AM To: Raymond Paik <rp...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:rp...@linuxfoundation.org>>; opnfv-tech-discuss <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] [opnfv-tech-discuss] For the TSC composition discussion on Tuesday [Note post TSC call: this is the email I had written and found in my Drafts folder after the TSC call - so I had not sent it - DN] Thank you for putting this together, Ray! A few comments: Your wiki stats look off - I would expect to see many more people in the list (of course the first thing I did out of vanity was look for myself, and I have definitely made a number of wiki edits and comments, but I am not in the list). We have so far discussed erring on the side of inclusion, so I am curious about your setting a bar at 50 or 100 contributions. It might make sense to have a minimum number for some of the lower impact activities like Gerrit reviews, but for others like patch submission, a lower bound of 1 might make more sense. For wiki edits 5 or 10 seems reasonable. If using a composite metric, I would lean towards a lower number (say, 20) rather than higher, to be more inclusive. Have you considered being active on the mailing list as a potential market of activity? Again the question of whether people who are active on the list, but inactive elsewhere, can be considered active contributors (I think they could) - there, perhaps 30 emails during the year is a good level. I would also be interested to hear if there are people who previously had a vote as committers, who would not have a vote under this scheme, or whether there is a big difference in the size of the community/electorate with your proposed levels. What do you think? Thanks, Dave. On 02/12/2018 01:12 AM, Raymond Paik wrote: > All, > > This is for the TSC composition discussion on Tuesday. > > As was discussed previously > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__meetbot.opnfv.org_meetings_opnfv-2Dmeeting_2018_opnfv-2Dmeeting.2018-2D01-2D25-2D14.01.html&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=ML-JPRZQOfToJjMwlJLPlcWimAEwMA5DZGNIrk-cgy0&m=j4ERu-qaIYwZd3po8SudCWwCLvGnJv26WnMdWkuiRpE&s=ztF7-odHiEl7gs1G6jacfMrhQBZ4ES-Mm4P_Ci92yHQ&e= > >, > there was a consensus to look at a "union of contributions" across > various tools in OPNFV including Git, Gerrit, JIRA, and Confluence. For > example, we talked about people making a total of 50 or 100 > contributions across all tools over a 12 month period as the constituent > for the TSC election. > > In the attached, you'll see the data point across the 4 tools in 2017. > In the last tab, you'll also find a comparison of "top 50 contributors" > across the tools. Although there are some exceptions, you'll see that > active contributors are active across all 4 tools. One of the concerns > was that we want to be inclusive to recognize non-code contributions and > you'll see a high number of non-code contributors in both Gerrit and Jira. > > In terms of a threshold, 100 annual contributions seems like a good > starting point. As a point of reference, the following shows the number > of people that made 100 or more contributions in each tool. (Based on > this, we'll have a minimum of 112 people eligible for the TSC election > as we have 112 people that made 100 or more contributions to Gerrit alone) > > * Gerrit: 112 > * Git: 30 > * JIRA: 36 > * Wiki: 4 > > If we go to 50 annual contributions, I don't necessarily think there'll > be a significant increase in the pool and following is the breakdown. > > * Gerrit: 137 > * Git: 51 > * JIRA: 62 > * Wiki: 8 > > Please feel free to reply with any thoughts or feedback. This will be > discussed further during the TSC call. > > Thanks, > > Ray > > > _______________________________________________ > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org_mailman_listinfo_opnfv-2Dtech-2Ddiscuss&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=ML-JPRZQOfToJjMwlJLPlcWimAEwMA5DZGNIrk-cgy0&m=j4ERu-qaIYwZd3po8SudCWwCLvGnJv26WnMdWkuiRpE&s=sjpTzAmiWoJ3tIYyUtpwuvMB8DzL6CMsDkRGUGlDHFY&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=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=ML-JPRZQOfToJjMwlJLPlcWimAEwMA5DZGNIrk-cgy0&m=j4ERu-qaIYwZd3po8SudCWwCLvGnJv26WnMdWkuiRpE&s=IwW1CegmvvP4zo-XHiKleGgvL9pa5L9EpckH6CKuiZ8&e= Ph: +1-978-399-2182<tel:%2B1-978-399-2182> / Cell: +1-978-799-3338<tel:%2B1-978-799-3338> _______________________________________________ opnfv-tsc mailing list opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org_mailman_listinfo_opnfv-2Dtsc&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=ML-JPRZQOfToJjMwlJLPlcWimAEwMA5DZGNIrk-cgy0&m=j4ERu-qaIYwZd3po8SudCWwCLvGnJv26WnMdWkuiRpE&s=BOUoUmt8HhzWWZo_upX24dTkb-b7F-gQHj31AcB7xs4&e=
_______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
