Ranny We have spent 6 months as a community and TSC debating the formation of a new TSC including shifting decisions to Casablanca. If you recall it was important to ensure that operators remain in active engagement and leadership role to ensure global ONAP adoption, and the community voted just that.
Right now I see 17 nominations with 8 operators and 9 vendors/suppliers. Let me suggest that we align with the community plan unless we end up with insufficient nominations. I expected leaders and key contributors from the top 20 contributing companies to nominate and we are seeing just that. Thanks Mazin Sent through AT&T's fastest network On Jul 31, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Haiby, Ranny (Nokia - US/San Jose USA) <ranny.ha...@nokia.com<mailto:ranny.ha...@nokia.com>> wrote: +1 Alla raises important issues that are not covered by the current ONAP community document. Although I am “guilty” of voting for the current language, I am literally losing sleep lately with concerns over this hybrid meritocratic/appointed model we have created. I believe our intentions were pure, but we kind of created a monster. Having just 15 candidates for the 18 available seats is not a good indicator as well. I realize we are in the eleventh hour of this process, but perhaps it is better to consider another alternative now, rather than live with the consequences of the current proposal. One possible approach may be having a fully meritocratic TSC, and counting on the LFN EUAG to provide the voice of operators. Regards, Ranny. From: ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org> <ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>> On Behalf Of Alla Goldner Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 10:03 PM To: Kenny Paul <kp...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>>; onap-tsc <ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>>; Alex Vul <alex....@intel.com<mailto:alex....@intel.com>>; john.qui...@ericsson.com<mailto:john.qui...@ericsson.com>; Giles Heron (giheron) <gihe...@cisco.com<mailto:gihe...@cisco.com>>; zygmunt_lozin...@uk.ibm.com<mailto:zygmunt_lozin...@uk.ibm.com> Cc: Phil Robb <pr...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] #lfn IMPORTANT- Proposed TSC Composition Language Hi Kenny, all, The new language, I guess, would be required anyway. We haven’t covered too many important points e.g. What happens if new Platinum Service Provider joins What happens if one of the elected vendor representatives leaves Wat happens if one of the defined Service Providers doesn’t have a desire to self-nominate for a seat (from the perspective of overall number of seats etc.) What happens if elected/appointed SP representative leaves And more, I believe. But I fully agree with Mazin that at this point we should rather wait and see the results of this round, before moving to additional rounds of discussions. (and, btw, though I voted for postponing by 1 week eventually, I don’t think vacations play a major role in this process right now. My opinion was and still is that we were not ready, as a community, to move to the “elected TSC” and this is what we face right now, after spending so much time and effort…) Best regards, Alla Goldner Open Network Division Amdocs Technology <image001.png> From: ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org> [mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Kenny Paul Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 12:52 AM To: onap-tsc <ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>>; Alex Vul <alex....@intel.com<mailto:alex....@intel.com>>; john.qui...@ericsson.com<mailto:john.qui...@ericsson.com>; Giles Heron (giheron) <gihe...@cisco.com<mailto:gihe...@cisco.com>>; zygmunt_lozin...@uk.ibm.com<mailto:zygmunt_lozin...@uk.ibm.com> Cc: Phil Robb <pr...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] #lfn IMPORTANT- Proposed TSC Composition Language All I know that I have mentioned this on a number of occasions, but I want to be very clear when I see/hear membership characterizations discussed interchangeably… There are 23 LFN members that qualify as "operators" in a traditional telecom sense. Is the discussion one of seats for "operators", is it one of seats for Platinum LFN Members, or is it one of seats for "operators" whom also happen to be LFN Platinum Members? · The ONAP Project originally had two separate and distinct platinum membership categories; "Platinum" and "Platinum Service Provider". The 9 operators explicitly defined in 4.1.1.1 TSC Membership Definitions<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.onap.org_display_DW_ONAP-2BTechnical-2BCommunity-2BDocument-23ONAPTechnicalCommunityDocument-2D4.1.1.1TSCMembershipDefinitions&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=2dwD7a5k4V9cZl09O7uTpejnZMF8aa01W3yMqrrZC5Y&m=47UJrCn8Q7I48zfW2CodNWA_sQ4Y9_h5Q-6YO38sIn8&s=btyjzaJjG1HdM6MBCjtU8IL9RdL4OI-McCTRQ9OtI3w&e=> as having reserved seats were exclusively those that joined the ONAP Project as "Platinum Service Provider" Members. There were also other operators that joined ONAP last year, but not as "Platinum" or "Platinum Service Provider" members. By contrast, in LFN platinum level membership is binary: You are either a Platinum member of LFN, or you are not. There is no "Platinum Service Provider" equivalent or other language that I'm aware of that makes a membership distinction based upon business space (other than the Associate Member category). If the TSC has a desire to add more seats for a particular category of LFN member, that is fully within their purview to do so. However, it isn't a simple "bump up the number of seats" exercise. It will actually require new language that clearly defines what the qualifications are for the new category as there is no such language today beyond the original 2017 definition. Best Regards, -kenny Kenny Paul, Technical Program Manager, The Linux Foundation kp...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>, 510.766.5945 San Francisco Bay Area, Pacific Time Zone From: "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <fbroc...@cisco.com<mailto:fbroc...@cisco.com>> Date: Monday, July 30, 2018 at 12:10 PM To: Kenny Paul <kp...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>>, onap-tsc <ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>>, Alex Vul <alex....@intel.com<mailto:alex....@intel.com>>, "john.qui...@ericsson.com<mailto:john.qui...@ericsson.com>" <john.qui...@ericsson.com<mailto:john.qui...@ericsson.com>>, "Giles Heron (giheron)" <gihe...@cisco.com<mailto:gihe...@cisco.com>>, "zygmunt_lozin...@uk.ibm.com<mailto:zygmunt_lozin...@uk.ibm.com>" <zygmunt_lozin...@uk.ibm.com<mailto:zygmunt_lozin...@uk.ibm.com>> Cc: Phil Robb <pr...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> Subject: RE: #lfn IMPORTANT- Proposed TSC Composition Language Any thoughts/opinions? Given that the question came up in the last TSC meeting as well – and the fact that we now have 10 operators in LFN, IMHO we need to start tackling the question. Thanks, Frank From: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) Sent: Montag, 16. Juli 2018 19:01 To: 'Kenny Paul' <kp...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>>; onap-tsc <ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>>; Alex Vul <alex....@intel.com<mailto:alex....@intel.com>>; john.qui...@ericsson.com<mailto:john.qui...@ericsson.com>; Giles Heron (giheron) <gihe...@cisco.com<mailto:gihe...@cisco.com>>; zygmunt_lozin...@uk.ibm.com<mailto:zygmunt_lozin...@uk.ibm.com> Cc: Phil Robb <pr...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> Subject: RE: #lfn IMPORTANT- Proposed TSC Composition Language Question: Based on the text below, “operator” is defined as a set of exactly nine specific elements, i.e. {AT&T, Bell, CMCC, China Telecom, Orange, Reliance Jio, Turk Telecom, Verizon, Vodafone}. 9 seats are reserved for operators, with only one person of a company can be a member. This works fine with the current LFN membership, but what would happen, if any of these 9 operators would decide to stop participating in LFN? Thanks, Frank From: ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org> <ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>> On Behalf Of Kenny Paul Sent: Samstag, 7. Juli 2018 01:10 To: onap-tsc <ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>>; Alex Vul <alex....@intel.com<mailto:alex....@intel.com>>; john.qui...@ericsson.com<mailto:john.qui...@ericsson.com>; Giles Heron (giheron) <gihe...@cisco.com<mailto:gihe...@cisco.com>>; zygmunt_lozin...@uk.ibm.com<mailto:zygmunt_lozin...@uk.ibm.com> Cc: Phil Robb <pr...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> Subject: [onap-tsc] #lfn IMPORTANT- Proposed TSC Composition Language TSC Members and assigned proxies for the July 12th meeting, Please look this over and provide feedback on the language if you feel something needs to be changed. I am hoping for an email a vote on this prior to the TSC meeting if there are no issues. I have created a new (post-LFN) indexed ONAP Technical Community Document<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.onap.org_display_DW_ONAP-2BTechnical-2BCommunity-2BDocument&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=2dwD7a5k4V9cZl09O7uTpejnZMF8aa01W3yMqrrZC5Y&m=47UJrCn8Q7I48zfW2CodNWA_sQ4Y9_h5Q-6YO38sIn8&s=l5ug1rU2xy6CQiWZhWAx0tmap5LV8sfZvcopN4pvQpI&e=> which includes the proposed new sections below. These also show up in blue font on the wiki page. Sub sections were added to 4.1.1 and to 4.2 Section Modified: 4.1.1 TSC Members Was: [Reserved for future updating after ONAP transitions to “Steady State” as described in the technical charter.] Now: 4.1.1.1 TSC Membership Definitions · * Active Community Members: Anyone from the ONAP community with twenty (20) or more measurable contributions during the previous 12-month period, inclusive of code merged, code reviews performed, wiki page edits, or JIRA activities * Operator: Any of the original 9 Platinum Service Providers participating in ONAP at the beginning of 2018. (Specifically: AT&T, Bell, CMCC, China Telecom, Orange, Reliance Jio, Turk Telecom, Verizon and Vodafone) 4.1.1.2 Size and Structure * The TSC shall consist of eighteen (18) seats * Nine (9) seats on the TSC are to be reserved for Operators * Only one (1) person from any company, or group of related companies (as defined in section 4.4.4.1) may be a member at any given time. 4.1.1.2 TSC Member Requirements · * Excluding the reserved seats provision of section 4.1.1.2, TSC membership is not limited to LFN member companies * TSC members shall be Active Community Members, notwithstanding the exception granted in section 4.2.3.2 Section Modified: 4.2 TSC Operations The entire 4.2.3 section is newly added 4.2.3 TSC Member Elections 4.2.3.1 Candidate and Voter Eligibility · Any Active Community Member (regardless of LFN membership), is eligible to run for a TSC seat, except as provided for in section 4.2.3.2 · Any Active Community Member (regardless of LFN membership), is eligible to vote in a TSC election · Eligibility is effective as of the date and time the nomination process starts, 4.2.3.2 TSC Member Candidates · · There are no limitations on the number of candidates that can run for a TSC seat, nor is there a limit to the number of candidates from any company, or group of related companies that can run in a TSC election · Candidates must self nominate · At least one person from each Operator must run for that Operator's reserved seat · A provision is granted for an Operator to appoint a person to run for their seat, only in the event that the Operator does not have any eligible Active Community Members at the time of nomination process. 4.2.3.2 TSC Member Election Mechanics · · The election of a TSC Member shall consist of a single stack ranked vote of all candidates via CIVS ( Condorcet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Condorcet-5Fmethod&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=2dwD7a5k4V9cZl09O7uTpejnZMF8aa01W3yMqrrZC5Y&m=47UJrCn8Q7I48zfW2CodNWA_sQ4Y9_h5Q-6YO38sIn8&s=TvaFBKWGI5eufEkfsj_WlvsSgMs_oHrMxhakh0qxZmc&e=>); · The top ranked candidate from each Operator will be selected, for a total of nine members, one member from each Operator · The top ranked non-Operator candidates (whether affiliated with a company or an individual contributor), will be selected for the remaining nine seats, with no more than one member per company or group of related companies being selected. Best Regards, -kenny Kenny Paul, Technical Program Manager, The Linux Foundation kp...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>, 510.766.5945 San Francisco Bay Area, Pacific Time Zone This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement, you may review at https://www.amdocs.com/about/email-disclaimer<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amdocs.com_about_email-2Ddisclaimer&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=2dwD7a5k4V9cZl09O7uTpejnZMF8aa01W3yMqrrZC5Y&m=47UJrCn8Q7I48zfW2CodNWA_sQ4Y9_h5Q-6YO38sIn8&s=6Rb8qJBSML1GcGkHr6s4H3oU_6jqVJdhx8yysc7lLe0&e=> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#3552): https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/message/3552 Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/23178568/21656 Mute #lfn: https://lists.onap.org/mk?hashtag=lfn&subid=2743226 Group Owner: onap-tsc+ow...@lists.onap.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
