In case you decide for electing a new TSC member if a seat is vacated, you should also define who’d be eligible to run for that seat. Would that be all active community members or would the list of potential candidates be constrained to e.g. active community members from companies who don’t have a TSC member yet? Or would we consider lifting the cap of a maximum of 1 TSC member per company? One thing we should also keep in mind is the overall effort to determine the list of active contributors (I really hope that this can be automated further than what it was recently – to keep the load on Kenny reasonable).
Thanks, Frank From: ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org <ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org> On Behalf Of Viswanath Kumar Skand Priya via Lists.Onap.Org Sent: Montag, 24. September 2018 09:49 To: onap-tsc <ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org> Subject: Re: [E] Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Seat Vanacy +1 for Steve's proposal to amend the charter. +1 for Chris's proxy until changes are finalised & vetted. BR, Viswa [Image removed by sender.]<http://www.verizon.com> Viswanath Kumar Skand Priya Senior Architect Technology, Architecture & Planning On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:52 AM Lingli Deng <denglin...@chinamobile.com<mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>> wrote: +1 to the proposal for having a proxy for transition. What ever the new TSC decided to do with this situation, we would not want to have lengthy discussion over this, but given the fact that it won't be resolved in this week before Chris's leave, having him assign a proxy would be helpful in keeping the TSC functional during this transition period. Lingli/邓灵莉 中国移动通信研究院 denglin...@chinamobile.com<mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com> ----邮件原文---- 发件人：Alla Goldner <alla.gold...@amdocs.com<mailto:alla.gold...@amdocs.com>> 收件人："ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>" <ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>> 抄 送: (无) 发送时间：2018-09-24 13:47:39 主题：Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Seat Vanacy Hi all, I believe our interest is to avoid lengthy discussions and, instead, leverage other open source communities' experience. We spent at least 6 months debating the elections, left several big gaps in definitions, known in advance, and eventually face one of them right away. While having a reserved SP seat and consequent handling is something we invented in ONAP, therefore we will have no choice, but closing all its definition gaps, the rest of the topics should be covered as done by another open source communities (of course, with appropriate definitions included into TSC charter firstly!). Alexis provided information about ODL. Kenny, could you provide us with the similar information about several other open source communities and their related practice, both inside and outside of Linux Foundation? In the mean time, as I don't believe we will close it during one week, Chaker will be Chris's proxy. Best regards, Alla Sent from Nine ________________________________ From: Christopher Donley <christopher.don...@huawei.com<mailto:christopher.don...@huawei.com>> Sent: Monday, 24 September 2018 03:02 To: ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Seat Vanacy Thanks for kicking off this discussion. A few thoughts: · Technically, an individual is elected to a seat, not a company. If the individual were to move to another company and still participate in ONAP, that individual would still remain on the TSC (subject to the per-company maximum). Mine is a special case, since I don't expect to be active in ONAP after this week. · Another option offered to all TSC members is to appoint a proxy in the event that someone is unavailable to participate for a period of time. Previous TSC members have had long-term proxies extending several months. Technically, I could not resign and appoint a long-term proxy. That proxy would remain valid as long as he or she doesn't miss 3 consecutive meetings (at least until the next election). However, I remain steadfastly committed to elections, and would like to see a special election to replace me. My decision to leave is a personal one, and should in no way disadvantage Huawei. Huawei remains committed to ONAP, has many people who qualify as "active", and is still the #2 contributor to ONAP. Huawei deserves fair consideration through the election process, just like everyone else. So, in the case of a TSC member resigning, I believe the TSC should initiate a special election to fill the seat at the earliest possible opportunity. Because we instituted a one-rep-per-company rule, every company only nominated one person. It's not fair to go back to the previous election results, since no back-ups were considered. I support Kenny's and Steve's suggestions. As I mentioned last week, I will remain active in ONAP through the end of the week. I will resign my seat as soon as my successor is selected. In the event that this is not resolved before Friday, I officially appoint Chaker Al Hakim as my proxy until such time as my seat is filled by special election. Chris From: <ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>> on behalf of Srini <srinivasa.r.addepa...@intel.com<mailto:srinivasa.r.addepa...@intel.com>> Reply-To: "ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>" <ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>> Date: Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 3:16 PM To: "ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>" <ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org>> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Seat Vanacy We also need to consider two cases 1. Where a TSC member moves from one company to another company that has TSC representative already. 2. Where a TSC member moves from one company to another that does not have TSC representative. 1st case is simple and it can be considered as TSC member resigning. 2nd case is complex. Would there be an election? Or would that member continues to be in TSC. Since we have 1 member per company limitation, it is fair to consider this also as a resignation. Thanks Srini From: ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org> [mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Terrill Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2018 2:59 PM To: ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Seat Vanacy Hi, To this effect. An appointed size was agreed. I think it makes sense to run a new election for that seat – continuing with the previous voting list does not take into account the current situation, as the voting was in the context of an earlier situation: We need to take into account two situations as I see it: - Any TSC member is no longer able to support the role - The TSC member that can no longer support the role is a chair or vice chair. - We need to cater for the appointed positions as well. To this effect, can we amend the community charter as follows: - Add to section 4.2.3: o 4.2.3.3 TSC member abdication • In the event of a TSC member no longer being able to continue being a member of the TSC: · If the TSC position was from an operator, the operator may appoint a member that fulfils the criteria of being an active member; if that is not feasible then the operator may appoint any member. If this is not done, then the seat is considered vacant. (Additional amendment to consider: If the TSC member that abdicated continues as an active member from the same company, then the TSC seat is considered vacant (I am not stronge on this, it just to avoid using this clause as a means to replace TSC members). · If the TSC position is from one of the elected positions, an election for that single position is held. The conditions of the election are the same as for any TSC election. • If the said position was of that of a TSC chair or vice-chair, then the TSC chair or vice chair position will undergo a re-election after the successful appointment of the new TSC member. • When the next General TSC election is held, the said TSC position will also be included in the general TSC election. BR, Steve 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 Frank Brockners via Lists.Onap.Org<http://Lists.Onap.Org> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2018 7:19 PM To: ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org<mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] TSC Seat Vanacy Hi Kenny, Thanks for the summary. As a community member, I’d prefer if the TSC would quickly amend the current charter to cover the case of TSC members stepping down from their role. Any other approach would be a shot from the hip – and might be in conflict to the ultimate policy that the TSC would come up with. The amendment should cover the considerations that you list below, especially the fact that the TSC now consists of elected members and not representatives of parties, companies, etc. In that, a TSC differs from most of the parliaments, where members often represent parties, so that successors are automatically picked from a list. Regards, 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: Sonntag, 23. September 2018 18:43 To: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org> Subject: [onap-tsc] TSC Seat Vanacy I wanted to follow up on the discussion regarding a special election due to Chris taking a new job. One of the first questions asked was, "What does the Charter say?" Neither the Charter or Community Document says anything about a vacancy. In the absence of any specific language, the default should be to honor what language there is. Currently the Community Document says: 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. As such, my guidance to the TSC is to immediately authorize a special election using the criteria currently defined in the Community Document, plain and simple. There were a several alternatives to a special election which have been suggested. While it is well within the TSC's right to pursue any of these alternatives, all must be thoroughly scrutinized through the lens of fairness, trust, and responsibility to the community. · Leaving the seat vacant until the next election cycle It took 6 months to debate and vote on membership criteria, and another full month to run an election. Leaving the seat vacant until the next scheduled election implies that after all that work the TSC doesn't care about being fully functional. This would be a huge hit to the community's trust of the TSC. · Delay any decision on an election until the TSC amends the Community Document to address how to handle a vacancy This is marginally better than leaving the seat vacant, because who knows how long amending the Community Document might take. I would encourage the TSC to take up amending the Community Document to cover one or more of the operational and governance gaps that exist, however it is unfair to the ONAP community to hold the recently vacated seat hostage to those discussions. · Have Chris appoint his replacement When the TSC was comprised of only appointed individuals doing this would have been fine course of action. In fact, there were a couple instances back in March where this occurred. Now that we have moved from an appointed TSC to an elected TSC, such an appointment by a member is completely inappropriate. · Make the next runner up in the August election the new TSC member While true the seat does not belong to Huawei, it would be exceeding unfair to them, especially as the 2nd largest contributor to the Project, to suddenly be out in the cold with absolutely no chance to even compete for a seat they once held. I don't like creating work for myself and a TCS election is indeed a great deal of work. The thought of having to run a new election is mind-numbing but I welcome it gladly because it is absolutely the right thing to do. I recommend a one week nomination period, and a one week voting period. (The prior election was lengthened to two + two specifically to accommodate summer vacations). I am at ONS-Europe this week and out the first week of October on family business. The earliest I can commit to kicking off the process (after revalidating qualified Active Community Members) would be Oct. 11th, putting the close of the election on Oct. 25. Please let me know your thoughts. 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=DwMFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=9F3pNUkzjE-2v1eTClkRVakDRN8GH7Bm-wt1lWkxoUyyDORTqf5MxNO_GrMBs0gZ&m=EpaBhpnrQq-kgzW7iY-YGfmosEiyTcQcOr8XG8uW14A&s=X4Mv5uRb2imeiS1lP3B3ThyE827PAwlITWpYV5C_MHU&e=> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#3752): https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/message/3752 Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/26197751/21656 Group Owner: onap-tsc+ow...@lists.onap.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/ONAP-TSC/leave/2743226/1412191262/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
