Hi, The idea was that we perform the election without considering extra considerations (called base to have a term) then add to it and supplement the TSC for the requested consideration for the service providers.
BR, Steve Sent from my Phone, please forgive typos > On 21 Jun 2018, at 09:47, Phil Robb <pr...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > Hi Srinivasa: > > Let me ask Chris or Stephen to chime in on their intention regarding the size > of the TSC. > > Regarding waiting until August, I think we should ask the TSC this question. > My personal opinion is that as long as we have quorum, we should continue to > do business. Vacations happen but that's why the organization allows > proxies. > > Best, > > Phil. > >> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Addepalli, Srinivasa R >> <srinivasa.r.addepa...@intel.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I also had similar question for option 1: Are the operator appointed TSC >> members are over and beyond base TSC size mentioned? >> >> >> >> On TSC voting timeline: Can this be conducted in August time frame to give >> chance for current TSC members (who are on summer vacation) to contest? >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Srini >> >> >> >> >> >> From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org >> [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Jason Hunt >> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 5:11 PM >> To: Phil Robb <pr...@linuxfoundation.org> >> Cc: onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org> >> >> >> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide >> your input >> >> >> Thanks, Phil, for the writeup. I think this addresses some of the concerns >> on our two previous proposals. >> >> Just for clarity: >> >> - Under option 1, in the 2018 exception, are any "appointments" in addition >> to the 17 base TSC member size? If so, please clarify. >> >> - Under option 2, is the second election done before or after the base TSC >> election? Are those two at-large seats in addition to the 17 base seats? >> Is there any difference in separate elections vs. just looking at the base >> election and taking the top 2 vote-getters that were excluded because of the >> 1 per company cap? >> >> >> Regards, >> Jason Hunt >> Distinguished Engineer, IBM >> >> Phone: 314-749-7422 >> Email: djh...@us.ibm.com >> Twitter: @DJHunt >> >> >> >> >> From: Phil Robb <pr...@linuxfoundation.org> >> To: Jason Hunt <djh...@us.ibm.com> >> Cc: onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org> >> Date: 06/20/2018 04:46 PM >> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please >> provide your input >> >> >> >> >> Hello TSC Members: >> >> We had a discussion on TSC Composition during the Casablanca Developer Forum >> on Tuesday. During that discussion Stephen Terrill and Chris Donley >> elaborated on the proposal provided by Jason in this email thread. During >> the discussion, this approach was received relatively well by those in the >> room. I asked Stephen and Chris to write up the proposal so that we could >> add it to this thread. The proposal follows: >> ===== >> Definitions: >> >> Service Provider: AT&T, Bell, CMCC, China Telecom, Orange, Reliance Jio, >> Turk Telecom, Verizon, Vodafone >> >> Active Contributor: Active contributors are determined based on >> contributions to Git, Gerrit, Jira, and Confluence Require 20 contributions >> in total over a 12-month period, counting any of patches merged, reviews >> made, Wiki page edits, and JIRA activities: >> >> Option 1: >> >> Base TSC Size: 17 >> Base TSC selection is performed through one big ranked vote conducted via >> CIVS >> Eligibility to apply/run: Active contributors >> Eligibility to Vote: Active contributors >> Base Company Cap: 1 TSC Member per company >> The following is valid for the year of 2018 >> If a service provider (defined above) does not have any staff member who is >> eligible to run for the election under the criteria above, that service >> provider may appoint a person to the TSC . >> If a service provider has one or more staff members that are eligible to run >> for the election, they are encouraged to do so. If no eligible person wins >> a TSC spot in the election, then the company may appoint the highest >> relatively ranked staff member from the election to the TSC. >> If a service provider does have one or more staff members that are eligible >> to run but choose not to, then that service provider may not appoint a >> person to the TSC. >> If a TSC member is absent (and does not provide a proxy) for 3 >> consecutive meetings, that person is removed from the TSC. The person may >> request to be reinstated by the TSC. In such an event the TSC may approve >> the reinstatement by a simple majority vote. >> Option 2: >> >> Option 1 with the following modifications >> A separate election is proposed for 2 community at large members with the >> same criteria and process for the Base TSC election with the exception that >> this is not subject to the one person per company rule. >> >> After the election, there is no difference between Base TSC or a member >> appointed by other means. >> ====== >> >> Please provide your questions and/or feedback on this proposal. We will >> discuss this at the TSC meeting tomorrow. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Phil. >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:01 AM, Phil Robb <pr...@linuxfoundation.org> >> wrote: >> Hi Jason: >> >> I think your proposal works fine as well. I will caution the TSC that with >> a cap of one person per company, we will have a dynamic where qualified >> people from our participating organizations, both operators and vendors, >> will possibly choose not to run for the TSC because they don't want to >> compete for the one TSC slot with other, often higher ranking, coworker(s). >> So for some organizations it will be a more meritocratic selection, and for >> other organizations it will be more like an appointment. >> >> We are adding a session this afternoon to talk through the TSC composition, >> in part because there has not been very much input on this thread, and the >> TSC should be close to a vote on this topic by Thursday. We don't have a >> lot of time in the Thursday TSC session for a lengthy discussion on this >> topic given the number of other agenda items for that meeting. >> >> Best, >> >> Phil. >> >> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 7:02 PM, Jason Hunt <djh...@us.ibm.com> wrote: >> Phil, >> >> Thanks for pulling this summary together. I think you've captured some of >> the key decision points from the survey. >> >> For Option 1, I might propose a slightly different way of handling the >> voting to still strive toward the desired operator representation while >> advocating meritocracy: >> >> - Pick a TSC size (say 15) >> - Take the top 15 ranking individuals (one per company) from the voting >> - Those operators not represented in the top 15 are allowed to appoint a TSC >> representative for this cycle only. This would be a one-time increase in the >> size of the TSC above the desired size. >> >> The primary reason is to conduct a fully meritocratic vote for the top 15, >> giving the community a sense of elected leadership. The implication could be >> a larger than desired TSC for this cycle (maybe 20+) and maybe not a full >> 50% operator representation. The vote would also give a feeling for how many >> operators might be represented in a fully meritocractic TSC -- that way the >> TSC knows for the next cycle if any adjustments to TSC composition will be >> required to ensure adequate operator representation. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> Regards, >> Jason Hunt >> Distinguished Engineer, IBM >> >> Phone: 314-749-7422 >> Email: djh...@us.ibm.com >> Twitter: @DJHunt >> >> >> <image001.gif>Phil Robb ---06/14/2018 11:28:04 AM---Hello ONAP TSC Members: >> Based on the survey [0] that was conducted across both the TSC members and >> >> From: Phil Robb <pr...@linuxfoundation.org> >> To: onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org> >> Date: 06/14/2018 11:28 AM >> Subject: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your >> input >> Sent by: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org >> >> >> >> >> >> Hello ONAP TSC Members: >> >> Based on the survey [0] that was conducted across both the TSC members and >> the ONAP developer community at-large, the following general attributes for >> this election have been identified: >> TSC Composition >> >> general recommendations from the Survey >> >> Allowed to run: Active Contributors >> Allowed to vote: Active Contributors >> Size of TSC: 15 to 19 >> Composition: Ideally, 50% (9) or more Operators >> Company Cap: >> *1 per company >> In this election, >> have reserved spots for Operators (AT&T, Bell, CMCC, China Telecom, >> Orange, Reliance Jio, Turk Telecom, Verizon, Vodafone) - (A narrow majority >> in survey - Slide 14) >> Reserved spots for all ONAP Platinum members including Vendors was a split >> vote (Slide 15) >> >> Given the above criteria, for this election, the following are 3 options >> that could be considered: >> >> Option 1 >> >> TSC Cap 17, 18, or 19 (to target 50% operators) >> At least one person from each of the 9 Operators must run >> Bios, pics, and “ >> statements of intent” up on the website for at least 1 week. >> One big ranked vote conducted via CIVS >> Top >> ranked operators are identified(9 spots - one per operator company) >> Remaining positions taken by top ranking >> individuals - one per company >> Option 2 >> >> Each existing Platinum Member of ONAP circa Jan. 2018 invited to appoint a >> TSC rep. (19 Members >> ) >> * Causes issue for LFN Platinum Members that were not originally part of >> ONAP as of January 1st >> >> Option 3 >> >> Each existing Platinum Member of LFN invited to appoint a TSC rep. (27 >> Members) (adds ARM, Lenovo, NEC/Netcracker, Qualcomm, Samsung, Suse, Red >> Hat, Juniper) >> Fails the ~50% Operator goal >> , as well as desired size of TSC >> >> Please consider these options and provide your thoughts, questions, and/or >> alternatives to consider. >> >> We need to close on this topic with a vote by the end of June, so time is >> of the essence at this point. >> ---- >> >> * From previous experience, capping TSC membership to one person per company >> can cause the side-effect of company employees who would otherwise be very >> qualified for the position choose *not* to run against another, often more >> senior, person within their company. This can produce a sub-optimal result >> in TSC make-up. >> >> [0] >> https://wiki.onap.org/download/attachments/25428910/TSC-Composition-Survey-Community.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1528486003000&api=v2 >> >> Thanks and best regards, >> >> Phil. >> -- >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Phil Robb >> VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation >> (O) 970-229-5949 >> (M) 970-420-4292 >> Skype: Phil.Robb >> >> >> >> -- >> Phil Robb >> VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation >> (O) 970-229-5949 >> (M) 970-420-4292 >> Skype: Phil.Robb >> >> > > > > -- > Phil Robb > VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation > (O) 970-229-5949 > (M) 970-420-4292 > Skype: Phil.Robb > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#3190): https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/message/3190 Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/22463387/21656 Group Owner: onap-tsc+ow...@lists.onap.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
