Hi, I also agree this is under the TSC perview as it relates to the health of the community. As we are in a formation stage some hiccups will arise and its how we deal with them that is important. I find it encouraging that there is an open debate about this and an interest to address it with the expressed aim of having a healthily functioning community.
They way we are using the sub-committees is a relatively new construct and will need fine tuning over time, and now is such a time. We have taking an implied assumption to elect the chairs in the same way that the projects elect chairs, however when thinking about it we do state the following in the TSC Charter: * Each subcommittee shall determine its own membership eligibility, in consultation with the TSC. It is expected that subcommittee membership shall be open to all ONAP Contributors; however, subcommittees may impose restrictions such as the number of participants from a single company. * Each subcommittee may elect a Chair who is responsible for leading meetings and representing the subcommittee to the TSC. * Subcommittees are advisory in nature, and not authoritative. They provide advice to projects and to the TSC. * Subcommittees operate on a rough consensus basis. If the subcommittee is unable to reach consensus on what advice to offer, the subcommittee Chair shall raise the issue with the TSC, where a formal vote can be taken, or advise the project that the subcommittee cannot reach consensus. When I combine the above I see the following: * In general I don’t see that want to provide guidance from the TSC on membership limits from companies, though it is in our scope to do so if required. If we have a formal way to limit the representation to a number of companies and still anyway have it open discussion, then the representation won’t reflect the attendance and participation which may not be ideal. * (Here, if we could provide guidance, I think it would be that the chair could remove participants that have not been attending for an extended period of time in the same way as is considered for committers in projects). * Since the election of a chair is a decision, and the subcommittees are advisory by nature, the decision should be taken to the TSC for ratification the same as any other decision/recommendation from the sub-committee. In the case that consensus is not formed, then the voting of the chair could be done by the TSC. This could be one approach anyway. BR, Steve From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Bob Monkman Sent: 07 July 2017 17:57 To: Ed Warnicke <hagb...@gmail.com>; Phil Robb <pr...@linuxfoundation.org> Cc: onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election Phil, After re-reading the TSC portion, I would absolutely agree that this would be under TSC purview, and not GB. Ed, I would be happy to do so. I will do so but will need to run my draft by a Legal dept colleague who is in UK. I should have something solid by Monday COB. Regards, Bob Robert (Bob) Monkman Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs ARM 150 Rose Orchard Way San Jose, Ca 95134 M: +1.510.676.5490 Skype: robert.monkman From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagb...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 8:50 AM To: Phil Robb <pr...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> Cc: Bob Monkman <bob.monk...@arm.com<mailto:bob.monk...@arm.com>>; onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election Bob, Would you be willing to do the first draft for the TSCs consideration? Ed On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Phil Robb <pr...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:(510)%20676-5490> Skype: robert.monkman From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org> [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>] On Behalf Of Ed Warnicke Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 8:00 AM To: Lingli Deng <denglin...@chinamobile.com<mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>> Cc: onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org<mailto: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<mailto: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-boun...@lists.onap.org> [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@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<mailto: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<http://amdocs.com> 17 att.com<http://att.com> 12 boco.com.cn<http://boco.com.cn> 6 chinamobile.com<http://chinamobile.com> 9 chinatelecom.cn<http://chinatelecom.cn> 1 ericsson.com<http://ericsson.com> 1 gigaspaces.com<http://gigaspaces.com> 4 gmail.com<http://gmail.com> 1 huawei.com<http://huawei.com> 8 intel.com<http://intel.com> 1 juniper.net<http://juniper.net> 1 nokia.com<http://nokia.com> 3 orange.com<http://orange.com> 3 raisecom.com<http://raisecom.com> 2 vmware.com<http://vmware.com> 4 zte.com.cn<http://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/mailman/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<tel:(970)%20229-5949> (M) 970-420-4292<tel:(970)%20420-4292> Skype: Phil.Robb _______________________________________________ ONAP-TSC mailing list ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:(970)%20229-5949> (M) 970-420-4292<tel:(970)%20420-4292> Skype: Phil.Robb 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
