A couple of clarifications. When we say a "union of contributions" across all tools, we're setting a bar for total contributions across Git, Gerrit, Jira, and wiki. So for example, if you had done 50 reviews + 2 merged patches + 30 Jira activities + 20 wiki edits, you have a 102 total contributions (and you'd clear the hurdle for either 50 or 100 contributions). The discussion was that this maybe simpler than setting a different bar/hurdle for each tool.
As for the mailing list/IRC contributions, the difficulty comes with identity mapping. Trying to map IRC NICs/or email addresses with IDs used for the other tools is very challenging and will involve a lot of manual process. Hope this helps. Thanks, Ray On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:28 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) < bryan.sulli...@research.att.com> wrote: > I echo Dave's recommendation to be inclusive. The main reason not to be > exclusive AIUI is to prevent gaming of the voting process. There are two > ways to address that, while remaining inclusive: > > 1) set a reasonably low bar for participation > > IMO anyone that is a regular attendee in OPNFV TSC or technical community > calls, has made any level of peer-reviewed commit (outside their own > company) over the last year, etc should be included. There are a core of > people that should be obvious to us all, as involved, and they should > certainly not be excluded. These include all current TSC members, PTLs, > active committers, anyone active in any form of discussion, anyone > contributing content in any form (code, tests, docs, wiki, ...), ... > > 2) provide a means for process concerns to be raised and addressed by the > TSC > > Dave's concern is an example. We need to be open to any such concern as a > sign the process needs to be improved or an exception needs to be made > (which really means the process needs to be improved, but for some reason > we are not able to at this time...). Other types of concern may be raised > by analytics on the voting process, which should be shared with the > community (every voter should be associated with a member company, or > identified as independent, so we can ensure reasonable equity in the voting > process). There should be a place on the wiki etc for raising these > concerns so they can be tracked and the thread of addressing them is > recorded. > > Thanks, > Bryan Sullivan | AT&T > > -----Original Message----- > From: opnfv-tsc-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:opnfv-tsc-bounces@ > lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Dave Neary > Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 5:49 AM > To: Raymond Paik <rp...@linuxfoundation.org>; opnfv-tech-discuss < > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org > Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] [opnfv-tech-discuss] For the TSC composition > discussion on Tuesday > > [Note post TSC call: this is the email I had written and found in my > Drafts folder after the TSC call - so I had not sent it - DN] > > Thank you for putting this together, Ray! > > A few comments: Your wiki stats look off - I would expect to see many > more people in the list (of course the first thing I did out of vanity > was look for myself, and I have definitely made a number of wiki edits > and comments, but I am not in the list). > > We have so far discussed erring on the side of inclusion, so I am > curious about your setting a bar at 50 or 100 contributions. It might > make sense to have a minimum number for some of the lower impact > activities like Gerrit reviews, but for others like patch submission, a > lower bound of 1 might make more sense. For wiki edits 5 or 10 seems > reasonable. If using a composite metric, I would lean towards a lower > number (say, 20) rather than higher, to be more inclusive. > > Have you considered being active on the mailing list as a potential > market of activity? Again the question of whether people who are active > on the list, but inactive elsewhere, can be considered active > contributors (I think they could) - there, perhaps 30 emails during the > year is a good level. > > I would also be interested to hear if there are people who previously > had a vote as committers, who would not have a vote under this scheme, > or whether there is a big difference in the size of the > community/electorate with your proposed levels. > > What do you think? > > Thanks, > Dave. > > On 02/12/2018 01:12 AM, Raymond Paik wrote: > > All, > > > > This is for the TSC composition discussion on Tuesday. > > > > As was discussed previously > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__meetbot.opnfv.org_ > meetings_opnfv-2Dmeeting_2018_opnfv-2Dmeeting.2018-2D01- > 2D25-2D14.01.html&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=ML- > JPRZQOfToJjMwlJLPlcWimAEwMA5DZGNIrk-cgy0&m=j4ERu- > qaIYwZd3po8SudCWwCLvGnJv26WnMdWkuiRpE&s=ztF7-odHiEl7gs1G6jacfMrhQBZ4ES- > Mm4P_Ci92yHQ&e= >, > > there was a consensus to look at a "union of contributions" across > > various tools in OPNFV including Git, Gerrit, JIRA, and Confluence. For > > example, we talked about people making a total of 50 or 100 > > contributions across all tools over a 12 month period as the constituent > > for the TSC election. > > > > In the attached, you'll see the data point across the 4 tools in 2017. > > In the last tab, you'll also find a comparison of "top 50 contributors" > > across the tools. Although there are some exceptions, you'll see that > > active contributors are active across all 4 tools. One of the concerns > > was that we want to be inclusive to recognize non-code contributions and > > you'll see a high number of non-code contributors in both Gerrit and > Jira. > > > > In terms of a threshold, 100 annual contributions seems like a good > > starting point. As a point of reference, the following shows the number > > of people that made 100 or more contributions in each tool. (Based on > > this, we'll have a minimum of 112 people eligible for the TSC election > > as we have 112 people that made 100 or more contributions to Gerrit > alone) > > > > * Gerrit: 112 > > * Git: 30 > > * JIRA: 36 > > * Wiki: 4 > > > > If we go to 50 annual contributions, I don't necessarily think there'll > > be a significant increase in the pool and following is the breakdown. > > > > * Gerrit: 137 > > * Git: 51 > > * JIRA: 62 > > * Wiki: 8 > > > > Please feel free to reply with any thoughts or feedback. This will be > > discussed further during the TSC call. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Ray > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list > > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists. > opnfv.org_mailman_listinfo_opnfv-2Dtech-2Ddiscuss&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_ > HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=ML-JPRZQOfToJjMwlJLPlcWimAEwMA5DZGNIrk-cgy0&m=j4ERu- > qaIYwZd3po8SudCWwCLvGnJv26WnMdWkuiRpE&s=sjpTzAmiWoJ3tIYyUtpwuvMB8DzL6C > MsDkRGUGlDHFY&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=DwIGaQ& > c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=ML-JPRZQOfToJjMwlJLPlcWimAEwMA5DZ > GNIrk-cgy0&m=j4ERu-qaIYwZd3po8SudCWwCLvGnJv26WnMdWkuiRpE&s=IwW1CegmvvP4zo- > XHiKleGgvL9pa5L9EpckH6CKuiZ8&e= > Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338 > _______________________________________________ > opnfv-tsc mailing list > opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists. > opnfv.org_mailman_listinfo_opnfv-2Dtsc&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ- > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=ML-JPRZQOfToJjMwlJLPlcWimAEwMA5DZGNIrk-cgy0&m=j4ERu- > qaIYwZd3po8SudCWwCLvGnJv26WnMdWkuiRpE&s=BOUoUmt8HhzWWZo_ > upX24dTkb-b7F-gQHj31AcB7xs4&e= >
_______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
