Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input
l. > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Addepalli, Srinivasa R < > srinivasa.r.addepa...@intel.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I also had similar question for option 1: Are the operator appointed TSC >> members are over and beyond base TSC size mentioned? >> >> >> >> On TSC voting timeline: Can this be conducted in August time frame to >> give chance for current TSC members (who are on summer vacation) to contest? >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Srini >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:*onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-bounces@lists >> .onap.org] *On Behalf Of *Jason Hunt >> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 20, 2018 5:11 PM >> *To:* Phil Robb >> *Cc:* onap-tsc >> >> *Subject:* Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please >> provide your input >> >> >> >> Thanks, Phil, for the writeup. I think this addresses some of the >> concerns on our two previous proposals. >> >> Just for clarity: >> >> - Under option 1, in the 2018 exception, are any "appointments" in >> addition to the 17 base TSC member size? If so, please clarify. >> >> - Under option 2, is the second election done before or after the base >> TSC election? Are those two at-large seats in addition to the 17 base >> seats? Is there any difference in separate elections vs. just looking at >> the base election and taking the top 2 vote-getters that were excluded >> because of the 1 per company cap? >> >> >> Regards, >> Jason Hunt >> Distinguished Engineer, IBM >> >> Phone: 314-749-7422 >> Email: djh...@us.ibm.com >> Twitter: @DJHunt >> >> >> >> >> From:Phil Robb >> To:Jason Hunt >> Cc:onap-tsc >> Date:06/20/2018 04:46 PM >> Subject:Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, >> please provide your input >> -- >> >> >> >> >> Hello TSC Members: >> >> We had a discussion on TSC Composition during the Casablanca Developer >> Forum on Tuesday. During that discussion Stephen Terrill and Chris Donley >> elaborated on the proposal provided by Jason in this email thread. During >> the discussion, this approach was received relatively well by those in the >> room. I asked Stephen and Chris to write up the proposal so that we could >> add it to this thread. The proposal follows: >> = >> Definitions: >> >> Service Provider: AT&T, Bell, CMCC, China Telecom, Orange, Reliance Jio, >> Turk Telecom, Verizon, Vodafone >> >> Active Contributor: Active contributors are determined based on >> contributions to Git, Gerrit, Jira, and Confluence Require 20 contributions >> in total over a 12-month period, counting any of patches merged, reviews >> made, Wiki page edits, and JIRA activities: >> >> Option 1: >> >>- Base TSC Size: 17 >>- Base TSC selection is performed through one big ranked vote >>conducted via CIVS >>- Eligibility to apply/run: Active contributors >>- Eligibility to Vote: Active contributors >>- Base Company Cap: 1 TSC Member per company >> >> >>- The following is valid for the year of 2018 >> - If a service provider (defined above) does not have any staff >> member who is eligible to run for the election under the criteria >> above, >> that service provider may appoint a person to the TSC . >> - If a service provider has one or more staff members that are >> eligible to run for the election, they are encouraged to do so. If no >> eligible person wins a TSC spot in the election, then the company may >> appoint the highest relatively ranked staff member from the election >> to the >> TSC. >> - If a service provider does have one or more staff members that >> are eligible to run but choose not to, then that service provider may >> not >> appoint a person to the TSC. >> >> >>- If a TSC member is absent (and does not provide a proxy) for 3 >>consecutive meetings, that person is removed from the TSC. The person may >>request to be reinstated by the TSC. In such an event the TSC may >> approve >>the reinstatement by a simple majority vote. >> >> Option 2: >> >> Option 1 with the following modifications >> A separate election is proposed for 2 community at large members
Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input
Hmm.. What am I missing? Here is Option 1 in original email. If I missed something then please update and let’s share at the TSC meeting. Mazin Option 1: * Base TSC Size: 17 * Base TSC selection is performed through one big ranked vote conducted via CIVS * Eligibility to apply/run: Active contributors * Eligibility to Vote: Active contributors * Base Company Cap: 1 TSC Member per company * The following is valid for the year of 2018 * If a service provider (defined above) does not have any staff member who is eligible to run for the election under the criteria above, that service provider may appoint a person to the TSC . * If a service provider has one or more staff members that are eligible to run for the election, they are encouraged to do so. If no eligible person wins a TSC spot in the election, then the company may appoint the highest relatively ranked staff member from the election to the TSC. * If a service provider does have one or more staff members that are eligible to run but choose not to, then that service provider may not appoint a person to the TSC. * If a TSC member is absent (and does not provide a proxy) for 3 consecutive meetings, that person is removed from the TSC. The person may request to be reinstated by the TSC. In such an event the TSC may approve the reinstatement by a simple majority vote. On Jun 21, 2018, at 12:37 PM, Jason Hunt mailto:djh...@us.ibm.com>> wrote: Mazin, I’m not sure I understand the comment that option 1 doesn’t support 8 operator seats. Actually it’s set up to support 9 service provider seats either via direct election or appointment. I believe this is aligned with the survey results which was in favor of a one year exception for platinum service providers. Regards, Jason Hunt Distinguished Engineer, IBM Phone: 314-749-7422 Email: djh...@us.ibm.com<mailto:djh...@us.ibm.com> Twitter: @DJHunt On Jun 21, 2018, at 12:21 PM, GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E) mailto:ma...@research.att.com>> wrote: The discussion and options we discuss today should be primarily based on the survey. We should avoid creating new options or variations not supported by the survey. The survey also articulated support to have 8 seats for operators. I don’t see that in Option 1. I will not support an option that does not have that as reflected by the survey feedback. Any alternative options we decide to select from beyond Option 1 should be based on the survey data. This data comes from the community and we need to reflect their feedback. My suggestion is to have the TSC members review the survey data before attending the TSC meeting today. Thanks Mazin On Jun 21, 2018, at 11:41 AM, Stephen Terrill mailto:stephen.terr...@ericsson.com>> wrote: Hi, The idea was that we perform the election without considering extra considerations (called base to have a term) then add to it and supplement the TSC for the requested consideration for the service providers. BR, Steve Sent from my Phone, please forgive typos On 21 Jun 2018, at 09:47, Phil Robb mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: Hi Srinivasa: Let me ask Chris or Stephen to chime in on their intention regarding the size of the TSC. Regarding waiting until August, I think we should ask the TSC this question. My personal opinion is that as long as we have quorum, we should continue to do business. Vacations happen but that's why the organization allows proxies. Best, Phil. On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Addepalli, Srinivasa R mailto:srinivasa.r.addepa...@intel.com>> wrote: Hi, I also had similar question for option 1: Are the operator appointed TSC members are over and beyond base TSC size mentioned? On TSC voting timeline: Can this be conducted in August time frame to give chance for current TSC members (who are on summer vacation) to contest? Thanks Srini From:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org> [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>] On Behalf Of Jason Hunt Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 5:11 PM To: Phil Robb mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> Cc: onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input Thanks, Phil, for the writeup. I think this addresses some of the concerns on our two previous proposals. Just for clarity: - Under option 1, in the 2018 exception, are any "appointments" in addition to the 17 base TSC member size? If so, please clarify. - Under option 2, is the second election done before or after the base TSC election? Are those two at-large seats in addition to the 17 base seats? Is there any difference in separate elections vs. just looking at the base election and taking the top 2 vote-getters that were excluded because of the 1 per company cap?
Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input
Mazin, I’m not sure I understand the comment that option 1 doesn’t support 8 operator seats. Actually it’s set up to support 9 service provider seats either via direct election or appointment. I believe this is aligned with the survey results which was in favor of a one year exception for platinum service providers. Regards, Jason Hunt Distinguished Engineer, IBM Phone: 314-749-7422 Email: djh...@us.ibm.com Twitter: @DJHunt > On Jun 21, 2018, at 12:21 PM, GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E) > wrote: > > The discussion and options we discuss today should be primarily based on the > survey. We should avoid creating new options or variations not supported by > the survey. > > The survey also articulated support to have 8 seats for operators. I don’t > see that in Option 1. I will not support an option that does not have that as > reflected by the survey feedback. > > Any alternative options we decide to select from beyond Option 1 should be > based on the survey data. This data comes from the community and we need to > reflect their feedback. > > My suggestion is to have the TSC members review the survey data before > attending the TSC meeting today. > > Thanks > > Mazin > > > On Jun 21, 2018, at 11:41 AM, Stephen Terrill > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> The idea was that we perform the election without considering extra >> considerations (called base to have a term) then add to it and supplement >> the TSC for the requested consideration for the service providers. >> >> BR, >> >> Steve >> >> Sent from my Phone, please forgive typos >> >> On 21 Jun 2018, at 09:47, Phil Robb wrote: >> >>> Hi Srinivasa: >>> >>> Let me ask Chris or Stephen to chime in on their intention regarding the >>> size of the TSC. >>> >>> Regarding waiting until August, I think we should ask the TSC this >>> question. My personal opinion is that as long as we have quorum, we should >>> continue to do business. Vacations happen but that's why the organization >>> allows proxies. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Phil. >>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Addepalli, Srinivasa R >>>> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I also had similar question for option 1: Are the operator appointed TSC >>>> members are over and beyond base TSC size mentioned? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On TSC voting timeline: Can this be conducted in August time frame to give >>>> chance for current TSC members (who are on summer vacation) to contest? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Srini >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org >>>> [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Jason Hunt >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 5:11 PM >>>> To: Phil Robb >>>> Cc: onap-tsc >>>> >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide >>>> your input >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, Phil, for the writeup. I think this addresses some of the >>>> concerns on our two previous proposals. >>>> >>>> Just for clarity: >>>> >>>> - Under option 1, in the 2018 exception, are any "appointments" in >>>> addition to the 17 base TSC member size? If so, please clarify. >>>> >>>> - Under option 2, is the second election done before or after the base TSC >>>> election? Are those two at-large seats in addition to the 17 base seats? >>>> Is there any difference in separate elections vs. just looking at the base >>>> election and taking the top 2 vote-getters that were excluded because of >>>> the 1 per company cap? >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Jason Hunt >>>> Distinguished Engineer, IBM >>>> >>>> Phone: 314-749-7422 >>>> Email: djh...@us.ibm.com >>>> Twitter: @DJHunt >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From:Phil Robb >>>> To:Jason Hunt >>>> Cc:onap-tsc >>>> Date:06/20/2018 04:46 PM >>>> Subject:Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please >>&g
Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input
The discussion and options we discuss today should be primarily based on the survey. We should avoid creating new options or variations not supported by the survey. The survey also articulated support to have 8 seats for operators. I don’t see that in Option 1. I will not support an option that does not have that as reflected by the survey feedback. Any alternative options we decide to select from beyond Option 1 should be based on the survey data. This data comes from the community and we need to reflect their feedback. My suggestion is to have the TSC members review the survey data before attending the TSC meeting today. Thanks Mazin On Jun 21, 2018, at 11:41 AM, Stephen Terrill mailto:stephen.terr...@ericsson.com>> wrote: Hi, The idea was that we perform the election without considering extra considerations (called base to have a term) then add to it and supplement the TSC for the requested consideration for the service providers. BR, Steve Sent from my Phone, please forgive typos On 21 Jun 2018, at 09:47, Phil Robb mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: Hi Srinivasa: Let me ask Chris or Stephen to chime in on their intention regarding the size of the TSC. Regarding waiting until August, I think we should ask the TSC this question. My personal opinion is that as long as we have quorum, we should continue to do business. Vacations happen but that's why the organization allows proxies. Best, Phil. On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Addepalli, Srinivasa R mailto:srinivasa.r.addepa...@intel.com>> wrote: Hi, I also had similar question for option 1: Are the operator appointed TSC members are over and beyond base TSC size mentioned? On TSC voting timeline: Can this be conducted in August time frame to give chance for current TSC members (who are on summer vacation) to contest? Thanks Srini From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org> [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>] On Behalf Of Jason Hunt Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 5:11 PM To: Phil Robb mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> Cc: onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input Thanks, Phil, for the writeup. I think this addresses some of the concerns on our two previous proposals. Just for clarity: - Under option 1, in the 2018 exception, are any "appointments" in addition to the 17 base TSC member size? If so, please clarify. - Under option 2, is the second election done before or after the base TSC election? Are those two at-large seats in addition to the 17 base seats? Is there any difference in separate elections vs. just looking at the base election and taking the top 2 vote-getters that were excluded because of the 1 per company cap? Regards, Jason Hunt Distinguished Engineer, IBM Phone: 314-749-7422 Email: djh...@us.ibm.com<mailto:djh...@us.ibm.com> Twitter: @DJHunt From:Phil Robb mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> To:Jason Hunt mailto:djh...@us.ibm.com>> Cc:onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>> Date: 06/20/2018 04:46 PM Subject:Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input Hello TSC Members: We had a discussion on TSC Composition during the Casablanca Developer Forum on Tuesday. During that discussion Stephen Terrill and Chris Donley elaborated on the proposal provided by Jason in this email thread. During the discussion, this approach was received relatively well by those in the room. I asked Stephen and Chris to write up the proposal so that we could add it to this thread. The proposal follows: = Definitions: Service Provider: AT&T, Bell, CMCC, China Telecom, Orange, Reliance Jio, Turk Telecom, Verizon, Vodafone Active Contributor: Active contributors are determined based on contributions to Git, Gerrit, Jira, and Confluence Require 20 contributions in total over a 12-month period, counting any of patches merged, reviews made, Wiki page edits, and JIRA activities: Option 1: * Base TSC Size: 17 * Base TSC selection is performed through one big ranked vote conducted via CIVS * Eligibility to apply/run: Active contributors * Eligibility to Vote: Active contributors * Base Company Cap: 1 TSC Member per company * The following is valid for the year of 2018 * If a service provider (defined above) does not have any staff member who is eligible to run for the election under the criteria above, that service provider may appoint a person to the TSC . * If a service provider has one or more staff members that are eligible to run for the election, they are encouraged to do so. If no eligible person wins a TSC spot in the election, then the company may appoint th
Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input
Hi, The idea was that we perform the election without considering extra considerations (called base to have a term) then add to it and supplement the TSC for the requested consideration for the service providers. BR, Steve Sent from my Phone, please forgive typos > On 21 Jun 2018, at 09:47, Phil Robb wrote: > > Hi Srinivasa: > > Let me ask Chris or Stephen to chime in on their intention regarding the size > of the TSC. > > Regarding waiting until August, I think we should ask the TSC this question. > My personal opinion is that as long as we have quorum, we should continue to > do business. Vacations happen but that's why the organization allows > proxies. > > Best, > > Phil. > >> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Addepalli, Srinivasa R >> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I also had similar question for option 1: Are the operator appointed TSC >> members are over and beyond base TSC size mentioned? >> >> >> >> On TSC voting timeline: Can this be conducted in August time frame to give >> chance for current TSC members (who are on summer vacation) to contest? >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Srini >> >> >> >> >> >> From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org >> [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Jason Hunt >> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 5:11 PM >> To: Phil Robb >> Cc: onap-tsc >> >> >> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide >> your input >> >> >> Thanks, Phil, for the writeup. I think this addresses some of the concerns >> on our two previous proposals. >> >> Just for clarity: >> >> - Under option 1, in the 2018 exception, are any "appointments" in addition >> to the 17 base TSC member size? If so, please clarify. >> >> - Under option 2, is the second election done before or after the base TSC >> election? Are those two at-large seats in addition to the 17 base seats? >> Is there any difference in separate elections vs. just looking at the base >> election and taking the top 2 vote-getters that were excluded because of the >> 1 per company cap? >> >> >> Regards, >> Jason Hunt >> Distinguished Engineer, IBM >> >> Phone: 314-749-7422 >> Email: djh...@us.ibm.com >> Twitter: @DJHunt >> >> >> >> >> From:Phil Robb >> To:Jason Hunt >> Cc:onap-tsc >> Date:06/20/2018 04:46 PM >> Subject:Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please >> provide your input >> >> >> >> >> Hello TSC Members: >> >> We had a discussion on TSC Composition during the Casablanca Developer Forum >> on Tuesday. During that discussion Stephen Terrill and Chris Donley >> elaborated on the proposal provided by Jason in this email thread. During >> the discussion, this approach was received relatively well by those in the >> room. I asked Stephen and Chris to write up the proposal so that we could >> add it to this thread. The proposal follows: >> = >> Definitions: >> >> Service Provider: AT&T, Bell, CMCC, China Telecom, Orange, Reliance Jio, >> Turk Telecom, Verizon, Vodafone >> >> Active Contributor: Active contributors are determined based on >> contributions to Git, Gerrit, Jira, and Confluence Require 20 contributions >> in total over a 12-month period, counting any of patches merged, reviews >> made, Wiki page edits, and JIRA activities: >> >> Option 1: >> >> Base TSC Size: 17 >> Base TSC selection is performed through one big ranked vote conducted via >> CIVS >> Eligibility to apply/run: Active contributors >> Eligibility to Vote: Active contributors >> Base Company Cap: 1 TSC Member per company >> The following is valid for the year of 2018 >> If a service provider (defined above) does not have any staff member who is >> eligible to run for the election under the criteria above, that service >> provider may appoint a person to the TSC . >> If a service provider has one or more staff members that are eligible to run >> for the election, they are encouraged to do so. If no eligible person wins >> a TSC spot in the election, then the company may appoint the highest >> relatively ranked staff member from the election to the TSC. >> If a service provider does have one or more staff members that are eligible >> to run but choos
Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input
Hi Phil, all, Let me re-instate. Before we had community survey, everyone could provide his preferred option, of course. After the decision to make survey and upon getting survey results, everything!!! should be based on survey results, not on some newly injected options. Otherwise, survey is meaningless. This applies to all points equally, e.g. company cap, suze of TSC, timing of elections etc. For some points, survey results were very clear. For some they were not, and this is the only place where we can play with a different options, if we want to be transparent. Best regards, Alla Sent from Nine From: Phil Robb Sent: Thursday, 21 June 2018 09:47 To: Addepalli, Srinivasa R Cc: Jason Hunt; onap-tsc Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input Hi Srinivasa: Let me ask Chris or Stephen to chime in on their intention regarding the size of the TSC. Regarding waiting until August, I think we should ask the TSC this question. My personal opinion is that as long as we have quorum, we should continue to do business. Vacations happen but that's why the organization allows proxies. Best, Phil. On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Addepalli, Srinivasa R mailto:srinivasa.r.addepa...@intel.com>> wrote: Hi, I also had similar question for option 1: Are the operator appointed TSC members are over and beyond base TSC size mentioned? On TSC voting timeline: Can this be conducted in August time frame to give chance for current TSC members (who are on summer vacation) to contest? Thanks Srini From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org> [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>] On Behalf Of Jason Hunt Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 5:11 PM To: Phil Robb mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> Cc: onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input Thanks, Phil, for the writeup. I think this addresses some of the concerns on our two previous proposals. Just for clarity: - Under option 1, in the 2018 exception, are any "appointments" in addition to the 17 base TSC member size? If so, please clarify. - Under option 2, is the second election done before or after the base TSC election? Are those two at-large seats in addition to the 17 base seats? Is there any difference in separate elections vs. just looking at the base election and taking the top 2 vote-getters that were excluded because of the 1 per company cap? Regards, Jason Hunt Distinguished Engineer, IBM Phone: 314-749-7422 Email: djh...@us.ibm.com<mailto:djh...@us.ibm.com> Twitter: @DJHunt From:Phil Robb mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> To:Jason Hunt mailto:djh...@us.ibm.com>> Cc:onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>> Date:06/20/2018 04:46 PM Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input Hello TSC Members: We had a discussion on TSC Composition during the Casablanca Developer Forum on Tuesday. During that discussion Stephen Terrill and Chris Donley elaborated on the proposal provided by Jason in this email thread. During the discussion, this approach was received relatively well by those in the room. I asked Stephen and Chris to write up the proposal so that we could add it to this thread. The proposal follows: = Definitions: Service Provider: AT&T, Bell, CMCC, China Telecom, Orange, Reliance Jio, Turk Telecom, Verizon, Vodafone Active Contributor: Active contributors are determined based on contributions to Git, Gerrit, Jira, and Confluence Require 20 contributions in total over a 12-month period, counting any of patches merged, reviews made, Wiki page edits, and JIRA activities: Option 1: * Base TSC Size: 17 * Base TSC selection is performed through one big ranked vote conducted via CIVS * Eligibility to apply/run: Active contributors * Eligibility to Vote: Active contributors * Base Company Cap: 1 TSC Member per company * The following is valid for the year of 2018 * If a service provider (defined above) does not have any staff member who is eligible to run for the election under the criteria above, that service provider may appoint a person to the TSC . * If a service provider has one or more staff members that are eligible to run for the election, they are encouraged to do so. If no eligible person wins a TSC spot in the election, then the company may appoint the highest relatively ranked staff member from the election to the TSC. * If a service provider does have one or more staff members that are eligible to run but choose not to, then that service provider may not appoint a person to the TSC. * If a
Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input
Hi Srinivasa: Let me ask Chris or Stephen to chime in on their intention regarding the size of the TSC. Regarding waiting until August, I think we should ask the TSC this question. My personal opinion is that as long as we have quorum, we should continue to do business. Vacations happen but that's why the organization allows proxies. Best, Phil. On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Addepalli, Srinivasa R < srinivasa.r.addepa...@intel.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > > I also had similar question for option 1: Are the operator appointed TSC > members are over and beyond base TSC size mentioned? > > > > On TSC voting timeline: Can this be conducted in August time frame to give > chance for current TSC members (who are on summer vacation) to contest? > > > > Thanks > > Srini > > > > > > *From:* onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-bounces@ > lists.onap.org] *On Behalf Of *Jason Hunt > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 20, 2018 5:11 PM > *To:* Phil Robb > *Cc:* onap-tsc > > *Subject:* Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please > provide your input > > > > Thanks, Phil, for the writeup. I think this addresses some of the > concerns on our two previous proposals. > > Just for clarity: > > - Under option 1, in the 2018 exception, are any "appointments" in > addition to the 17 base TSC member size? If so, please clarify. > > - Under option 2, is the second election done before or after the base TSC > election? Are those two at-large seats in addition to the 17 base seats? > Is there any difference in separate elections vs. just looking at the base > election and taking the top 2 vote-getters that were excluded because of > the 1 per company cap? > > > Regards, > Jason Hunt > Distinguished Engineer, IBM > > Phone: 314-749-7422 > Email: djh...@us.ibm.com > Twitter: @DJHunt > > > > > From:Phil Robb > To:Jason Hunt > Cc:onap-tsc > Date:06/20/2018 04:46 PM > Subject:Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please > provide your input > -- > > > > > Hello TSC Members: > > We had a discussion on TSC Composition during the Casablanca Developer > Forum on Tuesday. During that discussion Stephen Terrill and Chris Donley > elaborated on the proposal provided by Jason in this email thread. During > the discussion, this approach was received relatively well by those in the > room. I asked Stephen and Chris to write up the proposal so that we could > add it to this thread. The proposal follows: > = > Definitions: > > Service Provider: AT&T, Bell, CMCC, China Telecom, Orange, Reliance Jio, > Turk Telecom, Verizon, Vodafone > > Active Contributor: Active contributors are determined based on > contributions to Git, Gerrit, Jira, and Confluence Require 20 contributions > in total over a 12-month period, counting any of patches merged, reviews > made, Wiki page edits, and JIRA activities: > > Option 1: > >- Base TSC Size: 17 >- Base TSC selection is performed through one big ranked vote >conducted via CIVS >- Eligibility to apply/run: Active contributors >- Eligibility to Vote: Active contributors >- Base Company Cap: 1 TSC Member per company > > >- The following is valid for the year of 2018 > - If a service provider (defined above) does not have any staff > member who is eligible to run for the election under the criteria > above, > that service provider may appoint a person to the TSC . > - If a service provider has one or more staff members that are > eligible to run for the election, they are encouraged to do so. If no > eligible person wins a TSC spot in the election, then the company may > appoint the highest relatively ranked staff member from the election to > the > TSC. > - If a service provider does have one or more staff members that > are eligible to run but choose not to, then that service provider may > not > appoint a person to the TSC. > > >- If a TSC member is absent (and does not provide a proxy) for 3 >consecutive meetings, that person is removed from the TSC. The person may >request to be reinstated by the TSC. In such an event the TSC may approve >the reinstatement by a simple majority vote. > > Option 2: > > Option 1 with the following modifications > A separate election is proposed for 2 community at large members with the > same criteria and process for the Base TSC election with the exception that > this is not subject to the one person per company rule. > > Aft
Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input
Can you put those options on slides for the TSC meeting today. I want to call out which option was mostly supported by community. Mazin On Jun 21, 2018, at 9:14 AM, Phil Robb mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: Hi Alla: You are correct. The second option provided by Stephen and Chris does go against the survey results regarding a company cap of one person for company. TSC members, please keep this in mind. Regarding the number of options present, I think the TSC can consider any of the options provided on this thread thus far. There have been three options presented by me, one by Jason, and one by Chris and Stephen. During the discussion at today's TSC, I think it would be good to get the selection down to 3 or less then we can do an email vote on those. From there, we will take the winning proposal and derive the wording for how we want to change the technical charter in accordance with that proposal and then we'll vote to put that into place. Also at today's TSC we will go through the survey results for the timing of the of the change in TSC composition. Once the email vote for the charter change is complete we'll do an email vote for the timing of the TSC composition change. Please let me know if that sounds reasonable and if there are any alternate suggestions. Best, Phil. On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Alla Goldner mailto:alla.gold...@amdocs.com>> wrote: Hi Phil, all, I fail to understand where Option 2 comes from. Yesterday we had 3 options on the table, here we see only the first one and some variant of the same first one, which is not connected to survey results by any means At least, 3 options we had yesterday resulted from the survey. And we actually discussed yesterday that on this particular aspect (having cap of 1 per company) there was survey consensus thus this should be enforced. Now, there is absolutely no connection between the survey we did and the option 2, while “yesterday’s” options 2 and 3 are not reflected at all. You said yesterday, when we finished discussion, that we will firstly vote for some variants of 3 options which were yesterday on the table, then will pick up 2 winning and vote for 1. Let’s be consistent with the survey results and the actual proposals, at least. Best regards, Alla Goldner Open Network Division Amdocs Technology [cid:image001.png@01D40890.1CCB37E0] From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org> [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>] On Behalf Of Phil Robb Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 11:46 AM To: Jason Hunt mailto:djh...@us.ibm.com>> Cc: onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input Hello TSC Members: We had a discussion on TSC Composition during the Casablanca Developer Forum on Tuesday. During that discussion Stephen Terrill and Chris Donley elaborated on the proposal provided by Jason in this email thread. During the discussion, this approach was received relatively well by those in the room. I asked Stephen and Chris to write up the proposal so that we could add it to this thread. The proposal follows: = Definitions: Service Provider: AT&T, Bell, CMCC, China Telecom, Orange, Reliance Jio, Turk Telecom, Verizon, Vodafone Active Contributor: Active contributors are determined based on contributions to Git, Gerrit, Jira, and Confluence Require 20 contributions in total over a 12-month period, counting any of patches merged, reviews made, Wiki page edits, and JIRA activities: Option 1: * Base TSC Size: 17 * Base TSC selection is performed through one big ranked vote conducted via CIVS * Eligibility to apply/run: Active contributors * Eligibility to Vote: Active contributors * Base Company Cap: 1 TSC Member per company * The following is valid for the year of 2018 * If a service provider (defined above) does not have any staff member who is eligible to run for the election under the criteria above, that service provider may appoint a person to the TSC . * If a service provider has one or more staff members that are eligible to run for the election, they are encouraged to do so. If no eligible person wins a TSC spot in the election, then the company may appoint the highest relatively ranked staff member from the election to the TSC. * If a service provider does have one or more staff members that are eligible to run but choose not to, then that service provider may not appoint a person to the TSC. * If a TSC member is absent (and does not provide a proxy) for 3 consecutive meetings, that person is removed from the TSC. The person may request to be reinstated by the TSC. In such an event the TSC may approve the reinstatement by a simple majority vote. Option 2: Option 1 with the
Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input
Hi Alla: You are correct. The second option provided by Stephen and Chris does go against the survey results regarding a company cap of one person for company. TSC members, please keep this in mind. Regarding the number of options present, I think the TSC can consider any of the options provided on this thread thus far. There have been three options presented by me, one by Jason, and one by Chris and Stephen. During the discussion at today's TSC, I think it would be good to get the selection down to 3 or less then we can do an email vote on those. From there, we will take the winning proposal and derive the wording for how we want to change the technical charter in accordance with that proposal and then we'll vote to put that into place. Also at today's TSC we will go through the survey results for the timing of the of the change in TSC composition. Once the email vote for the charter change is complete we'll do an email vote for the timing of the TSC composition change. Please let me know if that sounds reasonable and if there are any alternate suggestions. Best, Phil. On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Alla Goldner wrote: > Hi Phil, all, > > > > I fail to understand where Option 2 comes from. > > Yesterday we had 3 options on the table, here we see only the first one > and some variant of the same first one, which is not connected to survey > results by any means > > > > At least, 3 options we had yesterday resulted from the survey. > > And we actually discussed yesterday that on this particular aspect (having > cap of 1 per company) there was survey consensus thus this should be > enforced. > > > > *Now, there is absolutely no connection between the survey we did and the > option 2, while “yesterday’s” options 2 and 3 are not reflected at all.* > > > > You said yesterday, when we finished discussion, that we will firstly vote > for some variants of 3 options which were yesterday on the table, then will > pick up 2 winning and vote for 1. > > Let’s be consistent with the survey results and the actual proposals, at > least. > > > > Best regards, > > > > *Alla Goldner* > > > > Open Network Division > > Amdocs Technology > > > > > > > > *From:* onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-bounces@ > lists.onap.org] *On Behalf Of *Phil Robb > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 20, 2018 11:46 AM > *To:* Jason Hunt > *Cc:* onap-tsc > *Subject:* Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please > provide your input > > > > Hello TSC Members: > > > > We had a discussion on TSC Composition during the Casablanca Developer > Forum on Tuesday. During that discussion Stephen Terrill and Chris Donley > elaborated on the proposal provided by Jason in this email thread. During > the discussion, this approach was received relatively well by those in the > room. I asked Stephen and Chris to write up the proposal so that we could > add it to this thread. The proposal follows: > > = > > Definitions: > > > > Service Provider: AT&T, Bell, CMCC, China Telecom, Orange, Reliance Jio, > Turk Telecom, Verizon, Vodafone > > > > Active Contributor: Active contributors are determined based on > contributions to Git, Gerrit, Jira, and Confluence Require 20 contributions > in total over a 12-month period, counting any of patches merged, reviews > made, Wiki page edits, and JIRA activities: > > > > Option 1: > >- Base TSC Size: 17 >- Base TSC selection is performed through one big ranked vote >conducted via CIVS >- Eligibility to apply/run: Active contributors >- Eligibility to Vote: Active contributors >- Base Company Cap: 1 TSC Member per company > > > >- The following is valid for the year of 2018 > > >- If a service provider (defined above) does not have any staff > member who is eligible to run for the election under the criteria > above, > that service provider may appoint a person to the TSC . > - If a service provider has one or more staff members that are > eligible to run for the election, they are encouraged to do so. If no > eligible person wins a TSC spot in the election, then the company may > appoint the highest relatively ranked staff member from the election to > the > TSC. > - If a service provider does have one or more staff members that > are eligible to run but choose not to, then that service provider may > not > appoint a person to the TSC. > > > >- If a TSC member is absent (and does not provide a proxy) for 3 >consecutive meetings, that person is removed from the TSC. The person
Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input
Hi, I also had similar question for option 1: Are the operator appointed TSC members are over and beyond base TSC size mentioned? On TSC voting timeline: Can this be conducted in August time frame to give chance for current TSC members (who are on summer vacation) to contest? Thanks Srini From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Jason Hunt Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 5:11 PM To: Phil Robb Cc: onap-tsc Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input Thanks, Phil, for the writeup. I think this addresses some of the concerns on our two previous proposals. Just for clarity: - Under option 1, in the 2018 exception, are any "appointments" in addition to the 17 base TSC member size? If so, please clarify. - Under option 2, is the second election done before or after the base TSC election? Are those two at-large seats in addition to the 17 base seats? Is there any difference in separate elections vs. just looking at the base election and taking the top 2 vote-getters that were excluded because of the 1 per company cap? Regards, Jason Hunt Distinguished Engineer, IBM Phone: 314-749-7422 Email: djh...@us.ibm.com<mailto:djh...@us.ibm.com> Twitter: @DJHunt From:Phil Robb mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> To:Jason Hunt mailto:djh...@us.ibm.com>> Cc:onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>> Date:06/20/2018 04:46 PM Subject:Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input Hello TSC Members: We had a discussion on TSC Composition during the Casablanca Developer Forum on Tuesday. During that discussion Stephen Terrill and Chris Donley elaborated on the proposal provided by Jason in this email thread. During the discussion, this approach was received relatively well by those in the room. I asked Stephen and Chris to write up the proposal so that we could add it to this thread. The proposal follows: = Definitions: Service Provider: AT&T, Bell, CMCC, China Telecom, Orange, Reliance Jio, Turk Telecom, Verizon, Vodafone Active Contributor: Active contributors are determined based on contributions to Git, Gerrit, Jira, and Confluence Require 20 contributions in total over a 12-month period, counting any of patches merged, reviews made, Wiki page edits, and JIRA activities: Option 1: * Base TSC Size: 17 * Base TSC selection is performed through one big ranked vote conducted via CIVS * Eligibility to apply/run: Active contributors * Eligibility to Vote: Active contributors * Base Company Cap: 1 TSC Member per company * The following is valid for the year of 2018 * If a service provider (defined above) does not have any staff member who is eligible to run for the election under the criteria above, that service provider may appoint a person to the TSC . * If a service provider has one or more staff members that are eligible to run for the election, they are encouraged to do so. If no eligible person wins a TSC spot in the election, then the company may appoint the highest relatively ranked staff member from the election to the TSC. * If a service provider does have one or more staff members that are eligible to run but choose not to, then that service provider may not appoint a person to the TSC. * If a TSC member is absent (and does not provide a proxy) for 3 consecutive meetings, that person is removed from the TSC. The person may request to be reinstated by the TSC. In such an event the TSC may approve the reinstatement by a simple majority vote. Option 2: Option 1 with the following modifications A separate election is proposed for 2 community at large members with the same criteria and process for the Base TSC election with the exception that this is not subject to the one person per company rule. After the election, there is no difference between Base TSC or a member appointed by other means. == Please provide your questions and/or feedback on this proposal. We will discuss this at the TSC meeting tomorrow. Best regards, Phil. On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:01 AM, Phil Robb mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: Hi Jason: I think your proposal works fine as well. I will caution the TSC that with a cap of one person per company, we will have a dynamic where qualified people from our participating organizations, both operators and vendors, will possibly choose not to run for the TSC because they don't want to compete for the one TSC slot with other, often higher ranking, coworker(s). So for some organizations it will be a more meritocratic selection, and for other organizations it will be more like an appointment. We are adding a session this afternoon to talk through the TSC composition, in part because there has not
Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input
Hi Phil, all, I fail to understand where Option 2 comes from. Yesterday we had 3 options on the table, here we see only the first one and some variant of the same first one, which is not connected to survey results by any means At least, 3 options we had yesterday resulted from the survey. And we actually discussed yesterday that on this particular aspect (having cap of 1 per company) there was survey consensus thus this should be enforced. Now, there is absolutely no connection between the survey we did and the option 2, while “yesterday’s” options 2 and 3 are not reflected at all. You said yesterday, when we finished discussion, that we will firstly vote for some variants of 3 options which were yesterday on the table, then will pick up 2 winning and vote for 1. Let’s be consistent with the survey results and the actual proposals, at least. Best regards, Alla Goldner Open Network Division Amdocs Technology [cid:image001.png@01D40890.1CCB37E0] From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Phil Robb Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 11:46 AM To: Jason Hunt Cc: onap-tsc Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input Hello TSC Members: We had a discussion on TSC Composition during the Casablanca Developer Forum on Tuesday. During that discussion Stephen Terrill and Chris Donley elaborated on the proposal provided by Jason in this email thread. During the discussion, this approach was received relatively well by those in the room. I asked Stephen and Chris to write up the proposal so that we could add it to this thread. The proposal follows: = Definitions: Service Provider: AT&T, Bell, CMCC, China Telecom, Orange, Reliance Jio, Turk Telecom, Verizon, Vodafone Active Contributor: Active contributors are determined based on contributions to Git, Gerrit, Jira, and Confluence Require 20 contributions in total over a 12-month period, counting any of patches merged, reviews made, Wiki page edits, and JIRA activities: Option 1: * Base TSC Size: 17 * Base TSC selection is performed through one big ranked vote conducted via CIVS * Eligibility to apply/run: Active contributors * Eligibility to Vote: Active contributors * Base Company Cap: 1 TSC Member per company * The following is valid for the year of 2018 * If a service provider (defined above) does not have any staff member who is eligible to run for the election under the criteria above, that service provider may appoint a person to the TSC . * If a service provider has one or more staff members that are eligible to run for the election, they are encouraged to do so. If no eligible person wins a TSC spot in the election, then the company may appoint the highest relatively ranked staff member from the election to the TSC. * If a service provider does have one or more staff members that are eligible to run but choose not to, then that service provider may not appoint a person to the TSC. * If a TSC member is absent (and does not provide a proxy) for 3 consecutive meetings, that person is removed from the TSC. The person may request to be reinstated by the TSC. In such an event the TSC may approve the reinstatement by a simple majority vote. Option 2: Option 1 with the following modifications A separate election is proposed for 2 community at large members with the same criteria and process for the Base TSC election with the exception that this is not subject to the one person per company rule. After the election, there is no difference between Base TSC or a member appointed by other means. == Please provide your questions and/or feedback on this proposal. We will discuss this at the TSC meeting tomorrow. Best regards, Phil. On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:01 AM, Phil Robb mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: Hi Jason: I think your proposal works fine as well. I will caution the TSC that with a cap of one person per company, we will have a dynamic where qualified people from our participating organizations, both operators and vendors, will possibly choose not to run for the TSC because they don't want to compete for the one TSC slot with other, often higher ranking, coworker(s). So for some organizations it will be a more meritocratic selection, and for other organizations it will be more like an appointment. We are adding a session this afternoon to talk through the TSC composition, in part because there has not been very much input on this thread, and the TSC should be close to a vote on this topic by Thursday. We don't have a lot of time in the Thursday TSC session for a lengthy discussion on this topic given the number of other agenda items for that meeting. Best, Phil. On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 7:02 PM, Jason Hunt mailto:djh...@us.ibm.com>> wrote: Phil, Thanks for pulling this summar
Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input
Thanks, Phil, for the writeup. I think this addresses some of the concerns on our two previous proposals. Just for clarity: - Under option 1, in the 2018 exception, are any "appointments" in addition to the 17 base TSC member size? If so, please clarify. - Under option 2, is the second election done before or after the base TSC election? Are those two at-large seats in addition to the 17 base seats? Is there any difference in separate elections vs. just looking at the base election and taking the top 2 vote-getters that were excluded because of the 1 per company cap? Regards, Jason Hunt Distinguished Engineer, IBM Phone: 314-749-7422 Email: djh...@us.ibm.com Twitter: @DJHunt From: Phil Robb To: Jason Hunt Cc: onap-tsc Date: 06/20/2018 04:46 PM Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input Hello TSC Members: We had a discussion on TSC Composition during the Casablanca Developer Forum on Tuesday. During that discussion Stephen Terrill and Chris Donley elaborated on the proposal provided by Jason in this email thread. During the discussion, this approach was received relatively well by those in the room. I asked Stephen and Chris to write up the proposal so that we could add it to this thread. The proposal follows: = Definitions: Service Provider: AT&T, Bell, CMCC, China Telecom, Orange, Reliance Jio, Turk Telecom, Verizon, Vodafone Active Contributor: Active contributors are determined based on contributions to Git, Gerrit, Jira, and Confluence Require 20 contributions in total over a 12-month period, counting any of patches merged, reviews made, Wiki page edits, and JIRA activities: Option 1: Base TSC Size: 17 Base TSC selection is performed through one big ranked vote conducted via CIVS Eligibility to apply/run: Active contributors Eligibility to Vote: Active contributors Base Company Cap: 1 TSC Member per company The following is valid for the year of 2018 If a service provider (defined above) does not have any staff member who is eligible to run for the election under the criteria above, that service provider may appoint a person to the TSC . If a service provider has one or more staff members that are eligible to run for the election, they are encouraged to do so. If no eligible person wins a TSC spot in the election, then the company may appoint the highest relatively ranked staff member from the election to the TSC. If a service provider does have one or more staff members that are eligible to run but choose not to, then that service provider may not appoint a person to the TSC. If a TSC member is absent (and does not provide a proxy) for 3 consecutive meetings, that person is removed from the TSC. The person may request to be reinstated by the TSC. In such an event the TSC may approve the reinstatement by a simple majority vote. Option 2: Option 1 with the following modifications A separate election is proposed for 2 community at large members with the same criteria and process for the Base TSC election with the exception that this is not subject to the one person per company rule. After the election, there is no difference between Base TSC or a member appointed by other means. == Please provide your questions and/or feedback on this proposal. We will discuss this at the TSC meeting tomorrow. Best regards, Phil. On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:01 AM, Phil Robb wrote: Hi Jason: I think your proposal works fine as well. I will caution the TSC that with a cap of one person per company, we will have a dynamic where qualified people from our participating organizations, both operators and vendors, will possibly choose not to run for the TSC because they don't want to compete for the one TSC slot with other, often higher ranking, coworker(s). So for some organizations it will be a more meritocratic selection, and for other organizations it will be more like an appointment. We are adding a session this afternoon to talk through the TSC composition, in part because there has not been very much input on this thread, and the TSC should be close to a vote on this topic by Thursday. We don't have a lot of time in the Thursday TSC session for a lengthy discussion on this topic given the number of other agenda items for that meeting. Best, Phil. On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 7:02 PM, Jason Hunt wrote: Phil, Thanks for pulling this summary together. I think you've captured some of the key decision points from the survey. For Option 1, I might propose a slightly different way of handling the voting to still strive toward the desired operator representation while advocating meritocracy: - Pick a TSC size (say 15) - Take the top 15 ranking individuals (one per company) from the voting - Those operators not represented in the top 15 are allowed to appoint a TSC representative for this cycle only. This would b
Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input
sition will be required to ensure adequate operator representation. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> Regards, >> Jason Hunt >> Distinguished Engineer, IBM >> >> Phone: 314-749-7422 >> Email: djh...@us.ibm.com >> Twitter: @DJHunt >> >> >> [image: Inactive hide details for Phil Robb ---06/14/2018 11:28:04 >> AM---Hello ONAP TSC Members: Based on the survey [0] that was conduc]Phil >> Robb ---06/14/2018 11:28:04 AM---Hello ONAP TSC Members: Based on the >> survey [0] that was conducted across both the TSC members and >> >> From: Phil Robb >> To: onap-tsc >> Date: 06/14/2018 11:28 AM >> Subject: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide >> your input >> Sent by: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org >> -- >> >> >> >> Hello ONAP TSC Members: >> >> Based on the survey [0] that was conducted across both the TSC members >> and the ONAP developer community at-large, the following general attributes >> for this election have been identified: >> TSC Composition >> >> general recommendations from the Survey >> >>- Allowed to run: Active Contributors >> - Allowed to vote: Active Contributors >> - Size of TSC: 15 to 19 >> - Composition: Ideally, 50% (9) or more Operators >> - Company Cap: >> >> *1 per company >> - In this election, >> >> have reserved spots for Operators (AT&T, Bell, CMCC, China >> Telecom, Orange, Reliance Jio, Turk Telecom, Verizon, Vodafone) - (A >> narrow >> majority in survey - Slide 14) >> - Reserved spots for all ONAP Platinum members including Vendors >> was a split vote (Slide 15) >> >> >> >> Given the above criteria, for this election, the following are 3 options >> that could be considered: >> >> Option 1 >> >>- TSC Cap 17, 18, or 19 (to target 50% operators) >> - At least one person from each of the 9 Operators must run >> - Bios, pics, and “ >> >> statements of intent” up on the website for at least 1 week. >> - One big ranked vote conducted via CIVS >> - Top >> >> ranked operators are identified (9 spots - one per operator >> company) >> - Remaining positions taken by top ranking >> >> individuals - one per company >> >> >> Option 2 >> >>- Each existing Platinum Member of ONAP circa Jan. 2018 invited to >> appoint a TSC rep. (19 Members >> >> ) >> >> * Causes issue for LFN Platinum Members that were not originally >> part of ONAP as of January 1st >> >> >> Option 3 >> >>- Each existing Platinum Member of LFN invited to appoint a TSC rep. >> (27 Members) (adds ARM, Lenovo, NEC/Netcracker, Qualcomm, Samsung, >> Suse, >> Red Hat, Juniper) >> - Fails the ~50% Operator goal >> >> , as well as desired size of TSC >> >> >> Please consider these options and provide your thoughts, questions, >> and/or alternatives to consider. >> >> We need to close on this topic with a vote by the end of June, so time >> is of the essence at this point. >> >> >> * From previous experience, capping TSC membership to one person per >> company can cause the side-effect of company employees who would otherwise >> be very qualified for the position choose *not* to run against another, >> often more senior, person within their company. This can produce a >> sub-optimal result in TSC make-up. >> >> [0] >> *https://wiki.onap.org/download/attachments/25428910/TSC-Composition-Survey-Community.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1528486003000&api=v2* >> <https://wiki.onap.org/download/attachments/25428910/TSC-Composition-Survey-Community.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1528486003000&api=v2> >> >> Thanks and best regards, >> >> Phil. >> -- >> Phil Robb >> VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation >> (O) 970-229-5949 >> (M) 970-420-4292 >> Skype: Phil.Robb___ >> ONAP-TSC mailing list >> ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org >> https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Phil Robb > VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation > (O) 970-229-5949 > (M) 970-420-4292 > Skype: Phil.Robb > -- Phil Robb VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation (O) 970-229-5949 (M) 970-420-4292 Skype: Phil.Robb ___ ONAP-TSC mailing list ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc
Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input
Hi Jason: I think your proposal works fine as well. I will caution the TSC that with a cap of one person per company, we will have a dynamic where qualified people from our participating organizations, both operators and vendors, will possibly choose not to run for the TSC because they don't want to compete for the one TSC slot with other, often higher ranking, coworker(s). So for some organizations it will be a more meritocratic selection, and for other organizations it will be more like an appointment. We are adding a session this afternoon to talk through the TSC composition, in part because there has not been very much input on this thread, and the TSC should be close to a vote on this topic by Thursday. We don't have a lot of time in the Thursday TSC session for a lengthy discussion on this topic given the number of other agenda items for that meeting. Best, Phil. On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 7:02 PM, Jason Hunt wrote: > Phil, > > Thanks for pulling this summary together. I think you've captured some of > the key decision points from the survey. > > For Option 1, I might propose a slightly different way of handling the > voting to still strive toward the desired operator representation while > advocating meritocracy: > > - Pick a TSC size (say 15) > - Take the top 15 ranking individuals (one per company) from the voting > - Those operators not represented in the top 15 are allowed to appoint a > TSC representative for this cycle only. This would be a one-time increase > in the size of the TSC above the desired size. > > The primary reason is to conduct a fully meritocratic vote for the top 15, > giving the community a sense of elected leadership. The implication could > be a larger than desired TSC for this cycle (maybe 20+) and maybe not a > full 50% operator representation. The vote would also give a feeling for > how many operators might be represented in a fully meritocractic TSC -- > that way the TSC knows for the next cycle if any adjustments to TSC > composition will be required to ensure adequate operator representation. > > Thoughts? > > > Regards, > Jason Hunt > Distinguished Engineer, IBM > > Phone: 314-749-7422 > Email: djh...@us.ibm.com > Twitter: @DJHunt > > > [image: Inactive hide details for Phil Robb ---06/14/2018 11:28:04 > AM---Hello ONAP TSC Members: Based on the survey [0] that was conduc]Phil > Robb ---06/14/2018 11:28:04 AM---Hello ONAP TSC Members: Based on the > survey [0] that was conducted across both the TSC members and > > From: Phil Robb > To: onap-tsc > Date: 06/14/2018 11:28 AM > Subject: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide > your input > Sent by: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org > -- > > > > Hello ONAP TSC Members: > > Based on the survey [0] that was conducted across both the TSC members and > the ONAP developer community at-large, the following general attributes for > this election have been identified: > TSC Composition > > general recommendations from the Survey > >- Allowed to run: Active Contributors > - Allowed to vote: Active Contributors > - Size of TSC: 15 to 19 > - Composition: Ideally, 50% (9) or more Operators > - Company Cap: > > *1 per company > - In this election, > > have reserved spots for Operators (AT&T, Bell, CMCC, China > Telecom, Orange, Reliance Jio, Turk Telecom, Verizon, Vodafone) - (A > narrow > majority in survey - Slide 14) > - Reserved spots for all ONAP Platinum members including Vendors > was a split vote (Slide 15) > > > > Given the above criteria, for this election, the following are 3 options > that could be considered: > > Option 1 > >- TSC Cap 17, 18, or 19 (to target 50% operators) > - At least one person from each of the 9 Operators must run > - Bios, pics, and “ > > statements of intent” up on the website for at least 1 week. > - One big ranked vote conducted via CIVS > - Top > > ranked operators are identified (9 spots - one per operator > company) > - Remaining positions taken by top ranking > > individuals - one per company > > > Option 2 > >- Each existing Platinum Member of ONAP circa Jan. 2018 invited to > appoint a TSC rep. (19 Members > > ) > > * Causes issue for LFN Platinum Members that were not originally > part of ONAP as of January 1st > > > Option 3 > >- Each existing Platinum Member of LFN invited to appoint a TSC rep. > (27 Members) (adds ARM, Lenovo, NEC/Netcracker, Qualcomm, Samsung, Suse, >
Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input
Phil,
Thanks for pulling this summary together. I think you've captured some of
the key decision points from the survey.
For Option 1, I might propose a slightly different way of handling the
voting to still strive toward the desired operator representation while
advocating meritocracy:
- Pick a TSC size (say 15)
- Take the top 15 ranking individuals (one per company) from the voting
- Those operators not represented in the top 15 are allowed to appoint a
TSC representative for this cycle only. This would be a one-time increase
in the size of the TSC above the desired size.
The primary reason is to conduct a fully meritocratic vote for the top 15,
giving the community a sense of elected leadership. The implication could
be a larger than desired TSC for this cycle (maybe 20+) and maybe not a
full 50% operator representation. The vote would also give a feeling for
how many operators might be represented in a fully meritocractic TSC --
that way the TSC knows for the next cycle if any adjustments to TSC
composition will be required to ensure adequate operator representation.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Jason Hunt
Distinguished Engineer, IBM
Phone: 314-749-7422
Email: djh...@us.ibm.com
Twitter: @DJHunt
From: Phil Robb
To: onap-tsc
Date: 06/14/2018 11:28 AM
Subject:[onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide
your input
Sent by:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org
Hello ONAP TSC Members:
Based on the survey [0] that was conducted across both the TSC members and
the ONAP developer community at-large, the following general attributes for
this election have been identified:
TSC Composition
general recommendations from the Survey
Allowed to run: Active Contributors
Allowed to vote: Active Contributors
Size of TSC: 15 to 19
Composition: Ideally, 50% (9) or more Operators
Company Cap:
*1 per company
In this election,
have reserved spots for Operators (AT&T, Bell, CMCC, China Telecom,
Orange, Reliance Jio, Turk Telecom, Verizon, Vodafone) - (A narrow
majority in survey - Slide 14)
Reserved spots for all ONAP Platinum members including Vendors
was a split vote (Slide 15)
Given the above criteria, for this election, the following are 3 options
that could be considered:
Option 1
TSC Cap 17, 18, or 19 (to target 50% operators)
At least one person from each of the 9 Operators must run
Bios, pics, and “
statements of intent” up on the website for at least 1 week.
One big ranked vote conducted via CIVS
Top
ranked operators are identified (9 spots - one per operator company)
Remaining positions taken by top ranking
individuals - one per company
Option 2
Each existing Platinum Member of ONAP circa Jan. 2018 invited to
appoint a TSC rep. (19 Members
)
* Causes issue for LFN Platinum Members that were not originally
part of ONAP as of January 1st
Option 3
Each existing Platinum Member of LFN invited to appoint a TSC rep.
(27 Members) (adds ARM, Lenovo, NEC/Netcracker, Qualcomm, Samsung,
Suse, Red Hat, Juniper)
Fails the ~50% Operator goal
, as well as desired size of TSC
Please consider these options and provide your thoughts, questions, and/or
alternatives to consider.
We need to close on this topic with a vote by the end of June, so time is
of the essence at this point.
* From previous experience, capping TSC membership to one person per
company can cause the side-effect of company employees who would otherwise
be very qualified for the position choose *not* to run against another,
often more senior, person within their company. This can produce a
sub-optimal result in TSC make-up.
[0]
https://wiki.onap.org/download/attachments/25428910/TSC-Composition-Survey-Community.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1528486003000&api=v2
Thanks and best regards,
Phil.
--
Phil Robb
VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation
(O) 970-229-5949
(M) 970-420-4292
Skype: Phil.Robb___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc
[onap-tsc] ONAP TSC Composition - TSC Members, please provide your input
Hello ONAP TSC Members: Based on the survey [0] that was conducted across both the TSC members and the ONAP developer community at-large, the following general attributes for this election have been identified: *TSC Composition general recommendations from the Survey - Allowed to run: Active Contributors- Allowed to vote: Active Contributors- Size of TSC: 15 to 19- Composition: Ideally, 50% (9) or more Operators- Company Cap: *1 per company- In this election, have reserved spots for Operators (AT&T, Bell, CMCC, China Telecom, Orange, Reliance Jio, Turk Telecom, Verizon, Vodafone) - (A narrow majority in survey - Slide 14)- Reserved spots for all ONAP Platinum members including Vendors was a split vote (Slide 15)* Given the above criteria, for this election, the following are 3 options that could be considered: *Option 1 - TSC Cap 17, 18, or 19 (to target 50% operators)- At least one person from each of the 9 Operators must run- Bios, pics, and “statements of intent” up on the website for at least 1 week.- One big ranked vote conducted via CIVS- Top ranked operators are identified (9 spots - one per operator company)- Remaining positions taken by top ranking individuals - one per company Option 2 - Each existing Platinum Member of ONAP circa Jan. 2018 invited to appoint a TSC rep. (19 Members) * Causes issue for LFN Platinum Members that were not originally part of ONAP as of January 1st Option 3 - Each existing Platinum Member of LFN invited to appoint a TSC rep. (27 Members) (adds ARM, Lenovo, NEC/Netcracker, Qualcomm, Samsung, Suse, Red Hat, Juniper)- Fails the ~50% Operator goal, as well as desired size of TSC* *Please consider these options and provide your thoughts, questions, and/or alternatives to consider.We need to close on this topic with a vote by the end of June, so time is of the essence at this point.* ** * From previous experience, capping TSC membership to one person per company can cause the side-effect of company employees who would otherwise be very qualified for the position choose *not* to run against another, often more senior, person within their company. This can produce a sub-optimal result in TSC make-up. [0] https://wiki.onap.org/download/attachments/25428910/TSC-Composition-Survey-Community.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1528486003000&api=v2 Thanks and best regards, Phil. -- Phil Robb VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation (O) 970-229-5949 (M) 970-420-4292 Skype: Phil.Robb ___ ONAP-TSC mailing list ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc
