Hi, I put this to the TSC agenda for today. Personally, I agree with Bin about what the TSC could and should do about this, so I think we need to call for volunteers to help with the Dovetail project.
-Tapio ________________________________________ From: Christopher Price <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 3:12:18 PM To: HU, BIN; Cooper, Trevor; Dave Neary; [email protected]; Tallgren, Tapio (Nokia - FI/Espoo); [email protected] Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Standing down as a committer on DoveTail 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
