Hey all: Kenny was out sick yesterday and I'm not sure if he'll be back today or if he is still under the weather. This item may take a day or two before we put out the updated/revised version of the survey.
Thanks for your patience. Best, Phil. On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 5:38 AM, GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E) < ma...@research.att.com> wrote: > Kenny, > > Can you send out an updated copy post all the comments. > > Thank you for taking the lead. > Mazin > > > On May 8, 2018, at 2:29 AM, Stephen Terrill <stephen.terr...@ericsson.com> > wrote: > > Hi Kenny, > > This reads that there should be an update, is that the case? > > BR, > > Steve > > *From:* onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc- > boun...@lists.onap.org <onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kenny > Paul > *Sent:* Saturday, May 05, 2018 12:53 AM > *To:* Christopher Donley (Chris) <christopher.don...@huawei.com>; > onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org> > *Subject:* Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Members Composition Survey RFC - Respond by > 18:00 Pacific time, May 7 > > Hi Chris, > Comments inline >>> > > Thanks! > -kenny > > *From: *"Christopher Donley (Chris)" <christopher.don...@huawei.com> > *Date: *Friday, May 4, 2018 at 11:21 AM > *To: *Kenny Paul <kp...@linuxfoundation.org>, onap-tsc < > onap-tsc@lists.onap.org> > *Subject: *Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Members Composition Survey RFC - Respond by > 18:00 Pacific time, May 7 > > Kenny, > > Thanks for starting this. Three things: > > 1. I have some comments/suggestions on the wording of the questions. > In particular, aspects of the proposal Steve and I submitted are not > included (I'm attaching it for your reference). Please see in-line in > red. > >>> My apologies. Extremely embarrassed about that. Thank You! > 2. Some of these items are closely related. Depending on the results > of the survey, the options might not make sense as a standalone proposal, > but might represent two (or more) separate proposals that need to be voted > on in their entirety. I thought this was Mazin's point from yesterday. > >>> Indeed this is the case. If so we will put together the > appropriate conflicting/contrasting votes. > 3. I thought our agreement on yesterday's call was that we would > separate the "what" of the TSC composition from the "when", and that this > survey would only address the "what". We were going to address the "when" > after we voted on the "what". > >>> The results of "When" will not be shared until the "What" > decisions are made. Having that data a quick transition to a timing > discussion when appropriate. > > > Thanks, > Chris > > *From: *<onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org> on behalf of Kenny Paul < > kp...@linuxfoundation.org> > *Date: *Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 5:35 PM > *To: *onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org> > *Subject: *[onap-tsc] TSC Members Composition Survey RFC - Respond by > 18:00 Pacific time, May 7 > > As per today's TSC meeting, here is the list of questions proposed for the > TSC Composition Survey > THIS IS NOT THE SURVEY – SOLICITING INPUT ONLY - DO NOT VOTE - > > Timing: > Mon. May 7, 18:00 Pacific: provide comments to Kenny & Phil > Wed. May 9: Survey to be published using Surveymonkey > Wed. May 16: Survey closes > Thur. May 17: Survey results presented and voting on highest ranked survey > responses at the TSC meeting > > > > 1. *When should the ONAP TSC move from “Startup” to “Steady” state > operations at which point the TSC should be populated, not by Platinum > Member designates, but instead by some other means, for which the TSC is > responsible for defining?* > > 1. As soon as the new method for populating the TSC is defined > 2. After the Beijing Release > 3. After the Casablanca Release > 4. Other [Please specify time] > What's the difference between 1 and 2? > >>> #1 doesn't imply a specific release aligned date target, but would > still require some change in the ONAP Technical Charter if the composition > and qualification criteria are not in place by June 30. > > > Questions 2 through 7 relate to the composition of the TSC during Steady > State operations > > 2. *How large should the TSC be?* > > 1. 10 or less > 2. 13 > 3. 15 > 4. 21 > 5. Other [Please specify a number or other quantitative measure] > > According to Bitergia, there are 19 independent companies contributing to > ONAP. Can we set the upper bound to 19 so that we're not reserving open > slots for companies who aren't participating? > >>> and those 19 independent companies != all the 19 existing companies > currently represented on the TSC. I will add 19 to the list. I've also > received private input saying that "30" had been discussed and therefore > should be included. > > 1. > > > *Company Cap - How many members of the same company **(or related > companies as defined in the Charter) **should be allowed on the TSC at > the same time?* > > 1. There should be no company-cap > 2. 2 per company > 3. 1 per company > 4. Other [Please specify a number or other quantitative measure] > > Perhaps choice 1 should be "3" which was the number in our original > charter? I don't think anyone is arguing for "no cap" > >>> Also embarrassed to have missed including that specific language. > Added. > > *Should we try to ensure a mix of operators and vendors on the TSC?* > > 1. Yes > 2. No > > The issue isn't whether there should be a mix of operators and vendors (I > think everyone agrees that there should), but rather whether we > specifically set aside seats for operators. > >>> While there may be no disagreement that there "should" be a mix, the > key word here is "ensure" that there be a mix. That is a different question > than one of setting seats aside for operators. A question about reserved > seats for operators will be added. > > *If {Yes} to #4 above, what should the mix be?* > > 1. At least 50% of the TSC should be from Operators > 2. No less than 40% of the TSC should be from Operators > 3. Other [Please specify a percentage or other criteria] > > > *TSC Members should be allowed to assign proxies with voting privileges* > > 1. Yes > 2. No > > > *Should TSC Members who do not attend two consecutive meetings without a > proxy in attendance be dropped from the quorum requirement?* > > 1. Yes > 2. No > > I thought Steve's proposal was that appointed TSC members (questions > 8-10) who don't attend two consecutive meetings, and who don't have a proxy > attend, forfeit their seats? > >>> While this cannot be done during the "Startup Period" it could > definitely apply after the transition to "Steady State" depending on the > results of 8-10. I'll add it. > > > Questions 8, 9 and 10 apply to special provisions for this election cycle > Are these in addition to the size of the TSC as described in #2, or > included in that number? Our proposal included the three seats in #8 in > addition to the TSC size from #2. Or does this depend on the result of #2? > (if the TSC size <=15, then these are three extra seats, but if the TSC > size is >15, then these are included in the total)? I don't have a > proposal for the latter question – just asking for clarification. > >>> If there is a conflict between the number of seats and any of these > questions, (which is entirely possible), that would be an example of a > multiple option vote and/or discussion point for the TSC. > > *Should ONAP Platinum Service Provider Members that joined the Program > after the launch (specifically Turk Telekom, Verizon, and Vodafone), be > allowed to keep an appointed representative on the TSC if someone from > their company does not get elected or appointed by other means?* > > 1. Yes > 2. No > > > *Should ONAP Platinum Service Provider Members (specifically AT&T, Bell > Canada, China Mobile, China Telecom, Orange, Reliance Jio, Turk Telekom, > Vodafone & Verizon) be allowed to appoint a representative to the TSC if > someone from their company does not get elected or appointed by other > means?* > > 1. Yes > 2. No > > > *Should ONAP Platinum Members (i.e all of the existing TSC Companies + > Verizon) be allowed to appoint a representative to the TSC if someone from > their company does not get elected or appointed by other means?* > > 1. Yes > 2. No > > > > Questions 11 and 12 relate to participation qualifications > > *Who should be allowed to run for a TSC position?* > > 1. Anyone > 2. Any active community member (defined using the OPNFV model of 20 > contributions in total made over a 12-month period, inclusive of patches > merged, reviews made, Wiki page edits, and JIRA activities) > 3. Committers, Contributors and Reviewers only > 4. Anyone on the ONAP “Discuss” and/or “TSC” email list as of the > date nomination process starts for the election > 5. Other [Please provide recommendation] > > > * Who should be able to vote in a TSC election?* > > 1. Any active community member (defined using the OPNFV model of 20 > contributions in total made over a 12-month period, inclusive of patches > merged, reviews made, Wiki page edits, and JIRA activities) > 2. Committers, Contributors and Reviewers only > 3. Anyone on the ONAP “Discuss” and/or “TSC” email list as of the > date nomination process starts for the election > 4. Other [Please provide recommendation] > > This is missing the option from our proposal: Any active community member, > defined as anyone who has made one or more measurable contributions during > the previous six months, inclusive of code submissions, code reviews, wiki > page edits/uploads, Jira activities, readthedocs, subcommittee leadership, > and/or presentations to one of the subcommittees (Use Case, Architecture, > Security, Modeling, Closed-Loop, etc.) > >>> Again my apologies. This is why we sent it out for comments. Nothing > was intentionally excluded, just a function of trying to reconcile a great > many things. The goal of the proposal you and Steve put together was to > keep the barrier to entry as low as it could possibly be. While discussing > this yesterday Phil and I were of the opinion that wiki page edits were the > lowest measurable common denominator and one that should effectively > capture non-developer participation. In this case that would be 1 wiki > comment/update or page creation in 6 months. Would you agree with our > assessment? > > Thanks! > -kenny > > > > > > > Best Regards, > -kenny > > *Kenny Paul, Technical Program Manager, The Linux Foundation* > kp...@linuxfoundation.org, 510.766.5945 > San Francisco Bay Area, Pacific Time Zone > > > _______________________________________________ > ONAP-TSC mailing list > ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists. > onap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Dtsc&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r= > IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=UeweyQ3tr5Haxm8ijZ1kwCWGxeIVnz > gXswsgfO8Ywqk&s=dTyMVzZ1r-BBoj2VZTj7fxqp46SzBA75LgbJp9IhAFM&e= > > > > _______________________________________________ > ONAP-TSC mailing list > ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org > https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc > > -- Phil Robb 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
