Hi Paul,
Thanks for reaching out, and happy to try and answer your questions.
In reference to my statement around “my voice counts for little”.
I have raised since mid last-year the need to try to bring in a diversity of
membership and to try and reimagine how the project has been operating to drive
to conclusion. We have collectively been unable to transition how we run the
project and act on that as a group of four committers. I feel as though the
group intends for the project to head in a different direction than I felt we
should pursue.
I didn’t make that statement due to any unfairness that I feel should be
raised, nor did I raise any, rather from difference of opinion as an
explanation of why I am stepping down.
With regard to my comment that the balance is not ideal. As I mentioned I have
been promoting a diversity and transition for a while in and amongst our
committer group.
I don’t feel that the small group of committers we have are sufficiently
representative of our community and that we need to find ways to attract
competence and diversity in the dovetail work. I can’t see my retaining a
committer role where I lack the technical competence or time to sufficiently
vote on the merit of one test case or another provides sufficient value.
I intend to remain involved in the work, just not as a committer where I feel a
different competence than mine is required.
Cheers,
Chris
On 2017-05-02, 14:56, "CARVER, PAUL" <[email protected]> wrote:
Chris,
I'm a complete outsider here, I have no familiarity with the Dovetail
project and had to Google it to find out what it does. I also don't know what
CVP is because it wasn't mentioned on the page I read about Dovetail. I mostly
skim read the OPNFV mailing list or even delete without reading when I'm
swamped in email. However I agree with Bin because your resignation email said
"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".
If you feel that you're being prevented from expressing your opinion in
discussion that would be different, but if your issue is that when it comes to
a vote, you're in the minority and you'd like the balance of power changed so
that your minority opinion prevails over the majority opinion. That's just not
an acceptable way to run a project.
I don't know what the balance of votes is in Dovetail, but if you're
typically in the minority then by resigning you're making the minority smaller
and the majority larger as a percentage of the remaining voters. That's the
wrong thing to do if you really believe in your position. You should be trying
to find and encourage new contributors who share your position if you believe
that your minority opinion could appeal to a majority if there were more and/or
different voters.
It's one thing to appeal to the TSC if there are voting irregularities
(e.g. ballot box stuffing by one company) but it's none of the TSC's business
if the votes are fair and according to the rules and you just don't like being
on the losing side of a fair vote. It's also appropriate to appeal to the TSC
if potential contributors who would vote along the lines you prefer are being
unfairly blocked from voting, but as Bin said, the way to handle that is to
present evidence of such alleged misconduct.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Christopher
Price
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 08:12
To: HU, BIN <[email protected]>; Cooper, Trevor <[email protected]>;
Dave Neary <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Tallgren,
Tapio (Nokia - FI/Espoo) <[email protected]>; [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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org_mailman_listinfo_opnfv-2Dtech-2Ddiscuss&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=xtmPik_TP2fjPVGWP4yBRQ&m=J3S53nAMAQLzBu-0-5DhlisxV9RRzax7vhb0L4Rk-S8&s=f7zTntNz1NaHAhum1GJHzIhxFdc-_ShzHHsHAjcXGLs&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=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=xtmPik_TP2fjPVGWP4yBRQ&m=J3S53nAMAQLzBu-0-5DhlisxV9RRzax7vhb0L4Rk-S8&s=f7zTntNz1NaHAhum1GJHzIhxFdc-_ShzHHsHAjcXGLs&e=
_______________________________________________
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
