Hmm.. What am I missing? Here is Option 1 in original email.
If I missed something then please update and let’s share at the TSC meeting.
Mazin
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.
On Jun 21, 2018, at 12:37 PM, Jason Hunt
<djh...@us.ibm.com<mailto:djh...@us.ibm.com>> wrote:
Mazin,
I’m not sure I understand the comment that option 1 doesn’t support 8 operator
seats. Actually it’s set up to support 9 service provider seats either via
direct election or appointment. I believe this is aligned with the survey
results which was in favor of a one year exception for platinum service
providers.
Regards,
Jason Hunt
Distinguished Engineer, IBM
Phone: 314-749-7422<tel:314-749-7422>
Email: djh...@us.ibm.com<mailto:djh...@us.ibm.com>
Twitter: @DJHunt
On Jun 21, 2018, at 12:21 PM, GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)
<ma...@research.att.com<mailto:ma...@research.att.com>> wrote:
The discussion and options we discuss today should be primarily based on the
survey. We should avoid creating new options or variations not supported by the
survey.
The survey also articulated support to have 8 seats for operators. I don’t see
that in Option 1. I will not support an option that does not have that as
reflected by the survey feedback.
Any alternative options we decide to select from beyond Option 1 should be
based on the survey data. This data comes from the community and we need to
reflect their feedback.
My suggestion is to have the TSC members review the survey data before
attending the TSC meeting today.
Thanks
Mazin
On Jun 21, 2018, at 11:41 AM, Stephen Terrill
<stephen.terr...@ericsson.com<mailto:stephen.terr...@ericsson.com>> wrote:
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<mailto: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<mailto: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>
[mailto: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<mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>>
Cc: onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org<mailto: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<mailto:djh...@us.ibm.com>
Twitter: @DJHunt
From: Phil Robb
<pr...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>>
To: Jason Hunt <djh...@us.ibm.com<mailto:djh...@us.ibm.com>>
Cc: onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>>
To: onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.onap.org_download_attachments_25428910_TSC-2DComposition-2DSurvey-2DCommunity.pdf-3Fversion-3D1-26modificationDate-3D1528486003000-26api-3Dv2&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=2dwD7a5k4V9cZl09O7uTpejnZMF8aa01W3yMqrrZC5Y&m=lTeYPME-T8p_nkyC-tyg1l4VdjpLYo4FJL_l3ftT7M8&s=VeKZeG7CW7v-yQrv_Uqp9K9zbN-tI3DQzJvdP8XrtE4&e=>
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<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.onap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Dtsc&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=2dwD7a5k4V9cZl09O7uTpejnZMF8aa01W3yMqrrZC5Y&m=lTeYPME-T8p_nkyC-tyg1l4VdjpLYo4FJL_l3ftT7M8&s=kDjTrLpGg_-UIV0dXwU7Uy5D_QCTgA8LKKZF-soEjCM&e=>
--
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 (#3195): https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/message/3195
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
