Hi Ed and Bob: Given that the Subcommittees we are talking about are technical subcommittees serving at the pleasure of the TSC, I suggest the TSC own setting the parameters for voting and company representation within these subcommittees. The TSC could punt to the Governing Board if they can't come to consensus, but otherwise, I suggest it stay within the purview of the TSC.
Best, Phil. On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Ed Warnicke <hagb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Bob, > > Your suggestion is goodness :) Perhaps the TSC should draft something to > propose to the board to give them a good starting point? > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Bob Monkman <bob.monk...@arm.com> wrote: > >> Phil, et al, >> >> I would like to echo Ed’s observation here regarding the >> Charter. >> >> In Section 3.b (GB) and Section 4.a.iii (TSC), specific >> care is taken to tightly limit the voting influence of any one Member >> Company/Related Companies, for good reason, I would say. >> >> >> >> While I did not see it explicitly stated for subcommittees, >> one would hope that same care is taken to ensure to ensure that no one >> company or group of companies have undue voting influence over the >> decisions made. It also should not matter how quickly one gets ones >> participants “on the list/at the available seats at the table”. >> >> >> >> To my mind, there is a distinction between encouraging >> broad participation (we all know of cases where we wish we had more >> participants) and ensuring equity wrt to voting decisions. >> >> >> >> I believe the Governing Board should immediately consider >> defining the voting representation parameters for all subcommittees, >> putting in place limits of how many votes Company/Related Companies can >> have, and consider whether any votes done needed to be cancelled and redone >> under more equitable guidelines. >> >> >> >> One opinion…comments welcome, >> >> Bob >> >> >> >> Robert (Bob) Monkman >> >> Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs >> >> ARM >> >> 150 Rose Orchard Way >> >> San Jose, Ca 95134 >> >> M: +1.510.676.5490 <(510)%20676-5490> >> >> Skype: robert.monkman >> >> >> >> *From:* onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-bounces@lists >> .onap.org] *On Behalf Of *Ed Warnicke >> *Sent:* Friday, July 7, 2017 8:00 AM >> *To:* Lingli Deng <denglin...@chinamobile.com> >> *Cc:* onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org> >> *Subject:* Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee >> Chair Election >> >> >> >> Thinking for the last few days around these issues. I think we have a >> flaw in our governance around subcommittees. If you look at the charter: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Lingli Deng <denglin...@chinamobile.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Phil and all, >> >> >> >> It is a pity that we did not have time to discuss this issue yesterday on >> the TSC call. >> >> >> >> As for the typo in the call for nomination, I agree that this is minor >> and have no impact to the election, as neither of the nominees are coming >> from open labs subcommittee, and they are clearly stating their interest in >> running for Usecase subcommittee. >> >> >> >> But regarding the inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case >> Subcommittee during the election time-frame, I find it not acceptable and >> would like to ask Kenny to remove them in order to clear the result of the >> election, and strongly suggest to consider publish these five extra voters >> as a warning. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Lingli >> >> >> >> *From:* onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-bounces@lists >> .onap.org] *On Behalf Of *Phil Robb >> *Sent:* 2017年7月6日 5:44 >> *To:* onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org> >> *Subject:* [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair >> Election >> >> >> >> Hello ONAP TSC: >> >> >> >> The Use Case Subcommittee Chairperson election has just recently >> completed. However, there have been several irregularities/inconsistencies >> in the implementation of this election that warrants your attention. In >> particular: >> >> >> >> 1) Inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case Subcommittee >> during the election time-frame. >> >> There are no guidelines in the TSC Charter, nor in the call for >> nominations/election for this vote, indicating if individuals can add >> themselves to the Use Case Subcommittee during the Chairperson voting, and >> be allowed to vote. >> >> a) 64 individuals were members of the Use Case Subcommittee when the >> voting began. They were invited to vote. >> >> b) Currently (at the end of the voting period), there are 83 members of >> the subcommittee, hence 19 people were added during the voting timeframe >> >> c) Of those new 19 members, 5 asked to be added to the vote, and only >> those 5 were added. The other 14 new members were not invited to vote in >> the election. Hence the addition of new members was done inconsistently >> for this vote. >> >> >> >> 2) No guidelines on company participation within a sub-committee. >> >> While this subcommittees does not mandate, but rather advise the TSC on >> use-case selection/definition for a given release, we can expect the >> subcommittee to perform votes to get a clear resolve on what the advice to >> the TSC should be. While we want participation to be as open as possible >> in this subcommittee, we also want to ensure that the advice rendered is >> representative of the ONAP community as a whole and is not biased toward >> one, or a small group of participating organizations. Currently, the >> membership breakdown of Use Case Subcommittee participants looks like this: >> >> amdocs.com 17 >> >> att.com 12 >> >> boco.com.cn 6 >> >> chinamobile.com 9 >> >> chinatelecom.cn 1 >> >> ericsson.com 1 >> >> gigaspaces.com 4 >> >> gmail.com 1 >> >> huawei.com 8 >> >> intel.com 1 >> >> juniper.net 1 >> >> nokia.com 3 >> >> orange.com 3 >> >> raisecom.com 2 >> >> vmware.com 4 >> >> zte.com.cn 10 >> >> As you can see, of the 16 companies participating, the top 5 companies >> with the most participants (Amdocs, AT&T, China Mobile, Huawei and ZTE) >> hold 66% of the vote. I believe the TSC may want to provide further >> guidelines to ensure a more equal voting distribution across subcommittee >> membership >> >> >> >> 3) Typo/Error made on initial invitation to self-nominate for the Use >> Case Subcommittee Chairperson position. This issue is relatively small, >> but may have caused some confusion for some potential candidates. The >> original email (located here: https://lists.onap.org/mailma >> n/private/onap-usecasesub/2017-June/000012.html) calling for >> self-nominations stated that "Any member of the Open Lab Subcommittee may >> run for this position". Some members of the Use Case Subcommittee may have >> been confused by that statement and chose not to self-nominate, and/or vote >> during this election. >> >> >> >> I would like to get feedback from the TSC during the meeting tomorrow to >> see if members feel that refinement is needed in populating subcommittees >> and/or holding votes/elections. Based on the outcome of that discussion, >> and the other inconsistencies documented above, we may then want to provide >> guidance to the Use Case Subcommittee in how to treat the outcome of this >> specific election. >> >> >> >> Thanks in advance for your input on this matter. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Phil. >> >> -- >> >> Phil Robb >> >> Executive Director, OpenDaylight Project >> >> VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation >> >> (O) 970-229-5949 <(970)%20229-5949> >> >> (M) 970-420-4292 <(970)%20420-4292> >> >> Skype: Phil.Robb >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ONAP-TSC mailing list >> ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org >> https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc >> >> >> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are >> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended >> recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the >> contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the >> information in any medium. Thank you. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ONAP-TSC mailing list > ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org > https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc > > -- Phil Robb Executive Director, OpenDaylight Project VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation (O) 970-229-5949 (M) 970-420-4292 Skype: Phil.Robb
_______________________________________________ ONAP-TSC mailing list ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc
