Hi Bin,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I’d like to further understand the power struggle you clearly see here, I would
be very interested to understand your views further.
My views are quite clear that dovetail should be established with the best
competence we have available to judge test cases for application in the CVP, in
as neutral as manner as possible across as many stakeholders as possible.
I am not the right person in the community to bring that forward so I have
stood down, I hope the right people step forward to do so without accusations
that they do so for some form of power.
Cheers,
Chris
On 2017-05-02, 04:37, "[email protected] on behalf of
HU, BIN" <[email protected] on behalf of
[email protected]> wrote:
Guys,
What I see here is power struggle. We all have seen this type of things
many times before, especially with strong opinion.
Here are my 2 cents:
(1) TSC shouldn't interfere with the internal management of a project. It
will be a bad precedent for TSC to intervene a project's internal matters here
unless there is an evidenced misconduct. Otherwise it will open a can of worm
for future.
(2) One vote per committer cannot be changed at project level. Again, it
will be a bad precedent to introduce one vote per company within a project.
Project is contribution driven, and committer promotion is based on merit.
That's the principle. If one person has made significant contribution, the
person deserves the promotion no matter what company he works for. If we change
the principle, basically we lose the credibility as an open source community.
(3) All of those different opinion should be addressed at project level. If
you are not the majority of opinion, and you lose the vote, sorry you lose. You
have to accept the result of the voting. Power struggling happens everywhere,
and I personally experienced it too. You have to negotiate and make compromise,
even if you have strong opinion. Sorry, you need to learn "compromise".
Exaggerating power struggle is not a right way to move forward.
(4) If there is an *evidence* that there is a *misconduct* within a
project, please submit the evidence, and describe the nature of misconduct. TSC
can discuss the nature of the misconduct based on evidence, further investigate
it and take disciplinary actions based on the result of investigation of the
misconduct according to authorized power by TSC Charter.
(5) If there is a concern that a project is driven by a single vendor, TSC
should take one or more of the following actions:
- Appreciate that company's investment in supporting our open source
community. Everyone is volunteer here. We should appreciate the investment
instead of discouraging the investment. We want more company to invest more
resources in OPNFV.
- Encourage more contributors from other companies to this project. This is
a hard part we need to know:
* What is the percentage of code that is contributed by this single
vendor v.s. others?
* Are others code contribution intentionally blocked by this single
vendor? Or just lack of code contribution from others?
- Investigate if there is misconduct
* Is your code carefully reviewed by others?
* How many code rejections did you get?
* Are those rejection reasonable?
* If you suspect misconduct in code review and your code is rejected
unreasonably, please submit evidence.
- TSC may make a motion to defer this project's participation in E Release,
and may suggest to Board to defer CVP, if majority concerns single
vendor-driven.
So there are many things TSC can do - to appreciate investment, to
encourage contribution, to investigate misconduct if evidence is provided, and
to defer its participation in E Release, and to recommend to Board to defer CVP
until single vendor concern is addressed.
But the last thing we want to do is to interfere with project's internal
management, change the principle of contribution-driven, and meritocracy-based
committer election, change the voting model, or discourage investment. Those
are fundamental to an open source community. We cannot change the cornerstone
of a house.
My 2 cents.
Thanks
Bin
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cooper, Trevor
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 6:39 PM
To: Dave Neary <[email protected]>; [email protected];
Tallgren, Tapio (Nokia - FI/Espoo) <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Standing down as a committer
on DoveTail
Dovetail is a unique project because there can only be one CVP
implementation and CVP will no doubt have impact on the OPNFV brand (either
positively or negatively). Without reasonably wide involvement and
representation the viability of the CVP program is questionable IMO. I think
that the TSC should consider rules that strongly encourage or even enforce a
composition that would adequately represent the community as a whole for launch
of the program
/Trevor
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dave Neary
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 10:40 AM
To: [email protected]; Tallgren, Tapio (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Standing down as a committer
on DoveTail
Hi,
In light of Chris's resignation and request, I would like to propose that
we bring our plans to evolve the project to the TSC sooner, rather than later,
and get TSC guidance on a number of key questions related to Dovetail, which is
not like other projects because of its relationship to the CVP:
* Should we allow multiple committers from a single vendor?
* How should we handle the expansion of the committers during the
restructuring of the Dovetail project?
I do not believe that another project has considered, as we have recently,
an addition of many new committers to a project, nor is there another project
so directly related to a board committee. I think it will be useful and
necessary for us to get TSC guidance on any changes to the project - and with
Chris stepping down, I think we should get this guidance before extending
invitations to new committer candidates.
Thanks,
Dave.
On 05/01/2017 12:11 PM, Christopher Price wrote:
> Hi Hongbo,
>
>
>
> I will be standing down as a committer on the Dovetail project.
>
>
>
> When I established the project it was intended to reflect as fairly as
> possible a common set of voices from all member companies that had a
> stake in our project.
>
> I feel that the balance in the project is not ideal today, I certainly
> feel that my voice counts for little and is often ignored by the
> majority votes and I do not think I am able to provide value as a
> committer in the current structure.
>
>
>
> I strongly urge you to approach the TSC for support in re-structuring
> DoveTail in as meritocratic manner as possible, committers
> contributing to the repo, with a structure that limits the votes for
> any single commercial interest on the project. I believe this would
> be in the best interest of the project.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org_m
> ailman_listinfo_opnfv-2Dtech-2Ddiscuss&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvj
> Ig&r=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw&m=5vIs1He5M6_dMco0De3tiyFfrLFHH4qsMOgkyVcY
> ytI&s=MyfJLOD-CiFk_AKQImC008az778rSVA2BgEjEoNIT2c&e=
>
--
Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy
Open Source and Standards, Red Hat -
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__community.redhat.com&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw&m=5vIs1He5M6_dMco0De3tiyFfrLFHH4qsMOgkyVcYytI&s=LTcoHIZEcCa5_C8-iGls3cGgOF1HKopHQF4chFMirCc&e=
Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338
_______________________________________________
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org_mailman_listinfo_opnfv-2Dtech-2Ddiscuss&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw&m=5vIs1He5M6_dMco0De3tiyFfrLFHH4qsMOgkyVcYytI&s=MyfJLOD-CiFk_AKQImC008az778rSVA2BgEjEoNIT2c&e=
_______________________________________________
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org_mailman_listinfo_opnfv-2Dtech-2Ddiscuss&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw&m=5vIs1He5M6_dMco0De3tiyFfrLFHH4qsMOgkyVcYytI&s=MyfJLOD-CiFk_AKQImC008az778rSVA2BgEjEoNIT2c&e=
_______________________________________________
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
_______________________________________________
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
