Dear Community,
This is a very long email, but an important one. There are three aspects of this, each which I will summarize in turn: the governance model for the Modeling Subcommittee, The TSC versus subcommittee's role in decision making, and finally the live vote taken at the TSC last week. The governance model for the Modeling Subcommittee My understanding of the differing positions regarding the subcommittee's vote on ASD are: * those in favor: the process was correctly followed and the ASD onboarding and packaging models have been formally approved by a 2/3 majority of voters. * those opposed: the results of the vote cannot be certified because more discussion is needed as part of the process. The Approved ONAP Model Governance <https://wiki.onap.org/x/WiGzAg> states: * Once the discussion comments have all been addressed and resolved, the sub-team lead does a "call for approval" of the wiki discussion page to onap-modeling...@lists.onap.org <mailto:onap-modeling...@lists.onap.org> . providing a 2-week time period for approval of the page. People respond "Approved" or "Not Approved" * The Model Chair counts the votes at the end of 2 weeks and publishes the results to the same mailing list. Approval requires 2/3 of those voting approving the contribution * If approved, the DISCUSSION wiki goes to CLEAN. If not approved, there is no transition The vote was initiated by a subcommittee co-Chair - https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-modelingsub/message/884 * If the discussion was not sufficiently, "addressed and resolved" to the satisfaction of the subcommittee membership, the vote would not have been initiated. * If subcommittee members believed process was not being followed, there should have been a strenuous objection about that violation from the membership and the vote immediately terminated by the subcommittee Chair(s). The result of the vote was 2 in favor, 1 opposed. * The governance doc says specifically, "2/3 of those voting" is required for approval. * The stated reason for the opposition vote was a desire for a different model than the ones proposed - nothing about the governance process being violated in any way was mentioned There is nothing in the Modeling subcommittee governance document that supports the idea that the Modeling subcommittee's process is: * First to conduct an approval vote * Second conduct a post-vote discussion to gain consensus as to whether the vote was valid or not. In summary, by a co-Chair initiating the vote, letting it run for 2 weeks, ending the vote, and a resulting 2/3 majority of those voting in favor, the Modeling subcommittee's published governance policy process appears to have been followed correctly and the result of the vote affirm the ASD IM and Packaging models as "Clean" should stand. The TSC versus subcommittee's role in decision making One of the perspectives I heard expressed last week was that the TSC was over-stepping its bounds by rendering an opinion on a subcommittee matter. The ONAP Community Document says <https://wiki.onap.org/x/zQc0Ag> : 4.5.2. Advisory Role of the Subcommittee 4.5.2.1. Subcommittees are advisory in nature, and not authoritative. They provide advice to projects and to the TSC. 4.5.2.2. Subcommittees operate on a rough consensus basis. If the subcommittee is unable to reach consensus on what advice to offer, the subcommittee Chair shall raise the issue with the TSC, where a formal vote can be taken, or advise the project that the subcommittee cannot reach consensus. This was a fundamental disagreement between subcommittee members as to whether the governance process around a vote had been followed or violated. In light of that fact any subcommittee member participating in the vote was well within their right to escalate this to the TSC. It is also well within the TSC's right to render a decision in such circumstances. The live vote taken at the TSC The live vote taken during the TSC meeting was as follows: Does the TSC confirm the approval of ASD onboarding IM and ASD Onboarding Packaging Format by applying the Approved ONAP Model Governance? 14 of 14 TSC members (or their designated proxies) were confirmed on the call at the time the vote was initiated. The vote taken was unrelated to any licensing or charter change. (sections 7.c and 8.a of the ONAP Charter respectively see below) Results: +1 == 6 votes 0 == 5 votes -1 == 2 votes Did not vote == 1 The outcome here was not definitive in my mind, nor in the mind of others. The ONAP Charter Says <https://www.onap.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2018/01/ONAP-Project-a-Ser ies-of-LF-Projects-LLC-Technical-Charter-12-22-2017-FINAL.pdf> : 3. TSC Voting a. While the Project aims to operate as a consensus based community, if any TSC decision requires a vote to move the Project forward, the voting members of the TSC will vote on a one vote per voting member basis. b. Quorum for TSC meetings requires at least a majority of all voting members of the TSC to be present. The TSC may continue to meet if quorum is not met, but will be prevented from making any decisions at the meeting. c. Except as provided in Section 7.c. and 8.a, decisions by vote at a meeting require a majority vote of those in attendance, provided quorum is met. Decisions made by electronic vote without a meeting require a majority vote of all voting members of the TSC. After some back and forth internally with folks here at the LF over the past week, the following perspective was provided: Quorum was present with 14 of 14 participating. Only 6 of 14 in attendance voted for the measure, which is less than a majority. The measure as I read your charter failed. This only means that the TSC did not confirm the approval. With only 2 TSC votes registered against, it also does not mean that the results of the original subcommittee vote have been over turned by the TSC. This then all rolls back to the original question of whether the Modeling subcommittee governance process related to this vote was followed or not. As previously mentioned the findings there were: In summary, by a co-Chair initiating the vote, letting it run for 2 weeks, ending the vote, and a resulting 2/3 majority of those voting in favor, the Modeling subcommittee's published governance policy process appears to have been followed correctly and the result of the vote affirm the ASD IM and Packaging models as "Clean" should stand. Thanks! -kenny Kenny Paul, Sr. Technical Community Architect ONAP Project & LFN Governing Board kp...@linuxfoundation.org <mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org> , +1.510.766.5945, US Pacific time zone. Find time on my calendar: https://doodle.com/mm/kennypaul/book-a-time -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#8444): https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-tsc/message/8444 Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/89356432/21656 Group Owner: onap-tsc+ow...@lists.onap.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-tsc/leave/2743226/21656/1412191262/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
