Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

[Lingli Deng]

Thank you so much Phil for sharing the information and thoughts.

Appreciate the transparency.

 

Lingli

 

From: Phil Robb [mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org] 
Sent: 2017年7月12日 9:20
To: Lingli Deng 
Cc: Ed Warnicke ; onap-tsc 
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair 
Election

 

Hello Lingli and the ONAP development community:

 

First of all, please accept my apology for putting everyone in this position in 
the first place with regard to the election for the Use Case Subcommittee Chair 
position.  The irregularity stemming from the fact that some new members to the 
sub committee were added to the vote, and some were not is a clear operational 
error on the part of the Linux Foundation support team.  We won't let that 
happen again.

 

Further comments and clarifications are inline below

 

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Lingli Deng mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com> > wrote:

Phil and all,

 

I also agree that it is important to make up for the loopholes in the TSC 
charter, but I think the correction of irregularities is the key to building a 
truly trusting environment. Without this basic openness and fairness, the 
prosperity and success of the open source community is at high risk. 

 

Since when the voting is initiated, it was made clear that the vote would be 
carried out with reference to a specific version of membership. And hence all 
the new members, which China Mobile added later, did not ask to vote, but 
planned to participate in subsequent discussions. I strongly urge the LF to 
clarify the voting results, remove five votes that did not meet the clearly 
stated qualifications in the voting initiation email therefore gained unfair 
advantage to those who obeyed the regulations, and make the necessary public 
warning to the subject (individual or company).

 

​Lingli, you note that "when the voting is initiated, it was made clear that 
the vote would be carried out with reference to a specific version of 
membership".  I don't think this is actually true.  I believe the email you are 
referencing is here: 
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/private/onap-usecasesub/2017-June/15.html

While it does state that the source of the vote was taken from version 58 of 
the Use Case Subcommittee wiki page, it does not state that those are the only 
people allowed to vote.

 

I have worked in communities, OpenDaylight being one of them, where new members 
to a constituency are allowed to vote while an election is in process.  I have 
also worked in communities, where this is not allowed.  Hence, I do believe the 
rule needs to be specified if the community feels strongly one way or another.  
Such a rule is not articulated in the ONAP TSC Charter, in the Use Case 
Subcommittee Charter, nor is it articulated in the kick-off email of the 
Chairperson Election.  Regardless, the inconsistent implementation of allowing 
some new members to vote, but not all new members to vote is (as I mentioned 
above) an operational error on the LF, and we recognize and apologize for that.

 

Now, as for clarifying the voting results.  I am sorry but we are unable to do 
that.  The vote was set up as anonymous within the CIVS voting system and as a 
result, we *do not know* how the 5 added voters actually voted.  The output 
that we received, along with every other member who was invited to vote, shows 
the overall result, but it does not show the detailed ballot reporting and it 
keeps the actual voter information anonymous.  That URL is here for reference:  
http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_0acddbd223a75b25

 

I am however able to tell you the companies from which the 5 new voters came.  
4 came from Gigaspaces and 1 came from Orange.  But again, these 5 did not do 
anything wrong by making the request to be added to the vote.  We, the LF, 
should have either told those 5 that we were not allowing new voters, or we, 
the LF should have automatically included all new members to the sub-committee 
in the vote up until the voting ended.  I.e. in the absence of a clear rule 
from the TSC or subcommittee, the LF makes our best guess at the desire of the 
community, communicates that to the community, and implements it *consistently* 
across all participants.  We, the LF did not do that in this instance.

Firstly, it is normal and healthy that there must be different opinions in any 
open organization composed of many members. Therefore, it is necessary to agree 
as far as possible on clear and unambiguous rules to specify how to reach 
consensus when the dispute arises, including the formation of the rule itself, 
the election of officials, the resolution on a specific topic, and so on.

​Yes, I totally agree.​

 

Second, one has to admit that any pre-established rules or statutes are not 
likely to enumerate all the possible situations in a complete reality. In other 
words, there is always a gray area where the rule cannot

Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

[denghui (L)]

Hi Phil

You have done well to defense the transparency of open source culture, thank you

Best regards,

DENG Hui

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] 
On Behalf Of Phil Robb
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 9:20 AM
To: Lingli Deng 
Cc: onap-tsc 
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair 
Election

Hello Lingli and the ONAP development community:

First of all, please accept my apology for putting everyone in this position in 
the first place with regard to the election for the Use Case Subcommittee Chair 
position.  The irregularity stemming from the fact that some new members to the 
sub committee were added to the vote, and some were not is a clear operational 
error on the part of the Linux Foundation support team.  We won't let that 
happen again.

Further comments and clarifications are inline below

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Lingli Deng 
mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>> wrote:
Phil and all,

I also agree that it is important to make up for the loopholes in the TSC 
charter, but I think the correction of irregularities is the key to building a 
truly trusting environment. Without this basic openness and fairness, the 
prosperity and success of the open source community is at high risk.

Since when the voting is initiated, it was made clear that the vote would be 
carried out with reference to a specific version of membership. And hence all 
the new members, which China Mobile added later, did not ask to vote, but 
planned to participate in subsequent discussions. I strongly urge the LF to 
clarify the voting results, remove five votes that did not meet the clearly 
stated qualifications in the voting initiation email therefore gained unfair 
advantage to those who obeyed the regulations, and make the necessary public 
warning to the subject (individual or company).

​Lingli, you note that "when the voting is initiated, it was made clear that 
the vote would be carried out with reference to a specific version of 
membership".  I don't think this is actually true.  I believe the email you are 
referencing is here: 
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/private/onap-usecasesub/2017-June/15.html
While it does state that the source of the vote was taken from version 58 of 
the Use Case Subcommittee wiki page, it does not state that those are the only 
people allowed to vote.

I have worked in communities, OpenDaylight being one of them, where new members 
to a constituency are allowed to vote while an election is in process.  I have 
also worked in communities, where this is not allowed.  Hence, I do believe the 
rule needs to be specified if the community feels strongly one way or another.  
Such a rule is not articulated in the ONAP TSC Charter, in the Use Case 
Subcommittee Charter, nor is it articulated in the kick-off email of the 
Chairperson Election.  Regardless, the inconsistent implementation of allowing 
some new members to vote, but not all new members to vote is (as I mentioned 
above) an operational error on the LF, and we recognize and apologize for that.

Now, as for clarifying the voting results.  I am sorry but we are unable to do 
that.  The vote was set up as anonymous within the CIVS voting system and as a 
result, we *do not know* how the 5 added voters actually voted.  The output 
that we received, along with every other member who was invited to vote, shows 
the overall result, but it does not show the detailed ballot reporting and it 
keeps the actual voter information anonymous.  That URL is here for reference:  
http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_0acddbd223a75b25

I am however able to tell you the companies from which the 5 new voters came.  
4 came from Gigaspaces and 1 came from Orange.  But again, these 5 did not do 
anything wrong by making the request to be added to the vote.  We, the LF, 
should have either told those 5 that we were not allowing new voters, or we, 
the LF should have automatically included all new members to the sub-committee 
in the vote up until the voting ended.  I.e. in the absence of a clear rule 
from the TSC or subcommittee, the LF makes our best guess at the desire of the 
community, communicates that to the community, and implements it *consistently* 
across all participants.  We, the LF did not do that in this instance.

Firstly, it is normal and healthy that there must be different opinions in any 
open organization composed of many members. Therefore, it is necessary to agree 
as far as possible on clear and unambiguous rules to specify how to reach 
consensus when the dispute arises, including the formation of the rule itself, 
the election of officials, the resolution on a specific topic, and so on.
​Yes, I totally agree.​

Second, one has to admit that any pre-established rules or statutes are not 
likely to enumerate all the possible situations in a complete reality. In other 
words, there is always a gray are

Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

[Bob Monkman]

+1  Thanks, Phil

Robert (Bob) Monkman
Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs
ARM
150 Rose Orchard Way
San Jose, Ca 95134
M: +1.510.676.5490
Skype: robert.monkman

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] 
On Behalf Of Phil Robb
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 6:20 PM
To: Lingli Deng 
Cc: onap-tsc 
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair 
Election

Hello Lingli and the ONAP development community:

First of all, please accept my apology for putting everyone in this position in 
the first place with regard to the election for the Use Case Subcommittee Chair 
position.  The irregularity stemming from the fact that some new members to the 
sub committee were added to the vote, and some were not is a clear operational 
error on the part of the Linux Foundation support team.  We won't let that 
happen again.

Further comments and clarifications are inline below

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Lingli Deng 
mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>> wrote:
Phil and all,

I also agree that it is important to make up for the loopholes in the TSC 
charter, but I think the correction of irregularities is the key to building a 
truly trusting environment. Without this basic openness and fairness, the 
prosperity and success of the open source community is at high risk.

Since when the voting is initiated, it was made clear that the vote would be 
carried out with reference to a specific version of membership. And hence all 
the new members, which China Mobile added later, did not ask to vote, but 
planned to participate in subsequent discussions. I strongly urge the LF to 
clarify the voting results, remove five votes that did not meet the clearly 
stated qualifications in the voting initiation email therefore gained unfair 
advantage to those who obeyed the regulations, and make the necessary public 
warning to the subject (individual or company).

​Lingli, you note that "when the voting is initiated, it was made clear that 
the vote would be carried out with reference to a specific version of 
membership".  I don't think this is actually true.  I believe the email you are 
referencing is here: 
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/private/onap-usecasesub/2017-June/15.html
While it does state that the source of the vote was taken from version 58 of 
the Use Case Subcommittee wiki page, it does not state that those are the only 
people allowed to vote.

I have worked in communities, OpenDaylight being one of them, where new members 
to a constituency are allowed to vote while an election is in process.  I have 
also worked in communities, where this is not allowed.  Hence, I do believe the 
rule needs to be specified if the community feels strongly one way or another.  
Such a rule is not articulated in the ONAP TSC Charter, in the Use Case 
Subcommittee Charter, nor is it articulated in the kick-off email of the 
Chairperson Election.  Regardless, the inconsistent implementation of allowing 
some new members to vote, but not all new members to vote is (as I mentioned 
above) an operational error on the LF, and we recognize and apologize for that.

Now, as for clarifying the voting results.  I am sorry but we are unable to do 
that.  The vote was set up as anonymous within the CIVS voting system and as a 
result, we *do not know* how the 5 added voters actually voted.  The output 
that we received, along with every other member who was invited to vote, shows 
the overall result, but it does not show the detailed ballot reporting and it 
keeps the actual voter information anonymous.  That URL is here for reference:  
http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_0acddbd223a75b25

I am however able to tell you the companies from which the 5 new voters came.  
4 came from Gigaspaces and 1 came from Orange.  But again, these 5 did not do 
anything wrong by making the request to be added to the vote.  We, the LF, 
should have either told those 5 that we were not allowing new voters, or we, 
the LF should have automatically included all new members to the sub-committee 
in the vote up until the voting ended.  I.e. in the absence of a clear rule 
from the TSC or subcommittee, the LF makes our best guess at the desire of the 
community, communicates that to the community, and implements it *consistently* 
across all participants.  We, the LF did not do that in this instance.

Firstly, it is normal and healthy that there must be different opinions in any 
open organization composed of many members. Therefore, it is necessary to agree 
as far as possible on clear and unambiguous rules to specify how to reach 
consensus when the dispute arises, including the formation of the rule itself, 
the election of officials, the resolution on a specific topic, and so on.
​Yes, I totally agree.​

Second, one has to admit that any pre-established rules or statutes are not 
likely to enumerate all the possible situations in a com

Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

[Phil Robb]

he recurrence of such a
> phenomenon by simply amending the rule to make up for deficiencies in the
> rules.
>

​I agree here as well.​

> Third, the respect for the rule itself and the faithful implementation of
> the resolution of a group formed by a process that is in accordance with
> the rules are the premises of any rule. In an organization that is
> composed of complex members, it is essential that its members, especially
> its leadership, in the process of practice, show respect the existing rules
> rather than disrupt the implementation of the rules. Especially if
> unacceptable violations to existing rules/agreement happens, if no
> correction is made, but blindly blame and amend the rule itself, even if
> they have the perfect rules in theory (that covers every situation in
> reality), these rules will be useless.
>
​I agree if the rule has been established and understood for a period of
time and/or if there is clear malice on behalf of the actor(s) in the
situation.  I do not think that this is the case here though. ​

> Fourth, In the handling of this specific case, the core of the problem
> cannot be solved and the undesirable behavior will be undoubtedly happening
> again, if we only focus on the amendments to the TSC Charter, rather than
> emphasizing and establishing the spirit of the community to really respect
> and defend TSC Charter. Who will respect and implement the rules/agreement,
> if the violation of the rules will not be subject to any necessary warning,
> and once there is a problem, in any case can modify the existing rules at
> any time?
>
​Again, I don't think a violation occurred.  I think an open request was
made by some new members of the Use Case Subcommittee​ to be invited to the
vote for Chairperson and others did not make that request.  The LF
incorrectly created an inconsistency in the execution of the election by
inviting them to vote but not inviting all other new members to vote.

Therefore, it is my firm belief that the correction of irregularities is
> the key to truly building a trust environment. Without this basic openness
> and fairness, the prosperity and success of the open source community will
> be at high risk. With this incident, I am personally involved and deeply
> troubled. As a candidate, I am under no obligation to accept unwarranted
> suspicion. I believe that all members who were voting in accordance with
> the rules regularly have the right to call for rectification of their own
> respect for the rules.
>
​I believe that we have a misunderstanding in that you, and undoubtedly
others took the reference to election voters coming from version 58 of the
Use Case Subcommittee wiki​ meant that  version 58 locked into place those
that were allowed to vote.  I also believe that others on the
onap-usecase...@lists.onap.org email list, where that notification was
sent, interpreted that email as an indication that "if you are on this
email list, but you aren't on the wiki, then you weren't invited to vote,
so if you want to vote, please go put your name on the wiki".  As such, I
do not fault the 5 new members that requested an invitation to vote, and I
do not fault any other new member for *not* requesting an invitation to
vote.  I put the blame for the inconsistency on the LF.

> Therefore, I strongly call for resolute redress of those violations of the
> rules and the necessary public warnings of such behavior. We need more 
> *transparency
> and fairness* in this community.
>
​I have been as transparent and fair to all involved as I believe I can
be.  I do think this was a misunderstanding in the community, and an
operational error performed by the LF.  Let's learn and move on.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Best,

Phil.​

Thanks,
>
> Lingli
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-bounces@
> lists.onap.org] *On Behalf Of *Phil Robb
> *Sent:* 2017年7月7日 23:47
> *To:* Ed Warnicke 
>
> *Cc:* onap-tsc 
> *Subject:* Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee
> Chair Election
>
>
>
> Hi Ed and Bob:
>
>
>
> Given that the Subcommittees we are talking about are technical
> subcommittees serving at the pleasure of the TSC, I suggest the TSC own
> setting the parameters for voting and company representation within these
> subcommittees.  The TSC could punt to the Governing Board if they can't
> come to consensus, but otherwise, I suggest it stay within the purview of
> the TSC.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Phil.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Ed Warnicke  wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
>
>
> Your suggestion is goodness :)  Perhaps the TSC should draft something to
> propose to the board to give them a good starting point?
>
>
>
> On

Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

[Stephen Terrill]

Hi Mazin, Phil, All,

Please do allow at least 2 days between publication of the proposal and voting, 
I think we discussed this before.

BR,

Steve

Sent from my tablet, please forgive typos. 

> On 9 Jul 2017, at 23:58, GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)  
> wrote:
> 
> ONAP Community, 
> 
> Thank you for the healthy dialog, and thanks to Phil for outlining the key 
> issues. 
> I raised this issue to the Linux Foundation two weeks back as the 
> irregularities that led to Phil’s email
> is not healthy in growing our community. Although these irregularities are 
> not intentional, they are an indication of a lack of clear policies
> and guidelines. Addressing those will be the responsibility of the TSC. I 
> will set up a small subcommittee that will propose modifications 
> to the charter.  If you were part of the charter subcommittee and would like 
> to participate then LMK by Monday.
> 
> Phil, Kenny, 
> Please set up an hour later this week for the TSC to propose and vote on 
> those changes with respect to the election
> of PTLs and subcommittee chairs, as well as the number and diversity of 
> committers per project. 
> 
> While the TSC will provide additional more rigid language in the Charter, I 
> urge everyone to work together as a team to make
> our first release a big success.
> 
> Mazin
> 
> 
>> On Jul 5, 2017, at 5:44 PM, Phil Robb  wrote:
>> 
>> Hello ONAP TSC:
>> 
>> The Use Case Subcommittee Chairperson election has just recently completed.  
>> However, there have been several irregularities/inconsistencies in the 
>> implementation of this election that warrants your attention.  In particular:
>> 
>> 1) Inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case Subcommittee during 
>> the election time-frame.
>> There are no guidelines in the TSC Charter, nor in the call for 
>> nominations/election for this vote, indicating if individuals can add 
>> themselves to the Use Case Subcommittee during the Chairperson voting, and 
>> be allowed to vote.
>> a) 64 individuals were members of the Use Case Subcommittee when the voting 
>> began.  They were invited to vote.
>> b) Currently (at the end of the voting period), there are 83 members of the 
>> subcommittee, hence 19 people were added during the voting timeframe
>> c) Of those new 19 members, 5 asked to be added to the vote, and only those 
>> 5 were added.  The other 14 new members were not invited to vote in the 
>> election.  Hence the addition of new members was done inconsistently for 
>> this vote.
>> 
>> 2) No guidelines on company participation within a sub-committee.
>> While this subcommittees does not mandate, but rather advise the TSC on 
>> use-case selection/definition for a given release, we can expect the 
>> subcommittee to perform votes to get a clear resolve on what the advice to 
>> the TSC should be.  While we want participation to be as open as possible in 
>> this subcommittee, we also want to ensure that the advice rendered is 
>> representative of the ONAP community as a whole and is not biased toward 
>> one, or a small group of participating organizations.  Currently, the 
>> membership breakdown of Use Case Subcommittee participants looks like this:
>> amdocs.com 17
>> att.com 
>> 12
>> boco.com.cn 6
>> chinamobile.com 9
>> chinatelecom.cn
>> 1
>> ericsson.com 1
>> gigaspaces.com
>> 4
>> gmail.com
>> 1
>> huawei.com
>> 8
>> intel.com
>> 1
>> juniper.net
>> 1
>> nokia.com
>> 3
>> orange.com
>> 3
>> raisecom.com
>> 2
>> vmware.com
>> 4
>> zte.com.cn
>> 10
>> As you can see, of the 16 companies participating, the top 5 companies with 
>> the most participants (Amdocs, AT&T, China Mobile, Huawei and ZTE) hold 66% 
>> of the vote.  I believe the TSC may want to provide further guidelines to 
>> ensure a more equal voting distribution across subcommittee membership
>> 
>> 3) Typo/Error made on initial invitation to self-nominate for the Use Case 
>> Subcommittee Chairperson position.  This issue is relatively small, but may 
>> have caused some confusion for some potential candidates.  The original 
>> email (located here:  
>> https://lists.onap.org/mailman/private/onap-usecasesub/2017-June/12.html)
>>  calling for self-nominations stated that "Any member of the Open Lab 
>> Subcommittee may run for this position".  Some members of the Use Case 
>> Subcommittee may have been confused by that statement and chose not to 
>> self-nominate, and/or vote during this election.
>> 
>> I would like to get feedback from the TSC during the meeting tomorrow to see 
>> if members feel that refinement is needed in populating subcommittees and/or 
>> holding votes/elections.  Based on the outcome of that discussion, and the 
>> other inconsistencies documented above, we may then want to provide guidance 
>> to the Use Case Subcommittee in how to treat the outcome of this specific 
>> election.
>> 
>> Thanks in advance for your input on this matter.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Phil.
>> -- 
>> Phil Robb
>> Executive Director, OpenDaylight Projec

Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

[Lingli Deng]

Phil and all,

 

I also agree that it is important to make up for the loopholes in the TSC 
charter, but I think the correction of irregularities is the key to building a 
truly trusting environment. Without this basic openness and fairness, the 
prosperity and success of the open source community is at high risk. 

 

Since when the voting is initiated, it was made clear that the vote would be 
carried out with reference to a specific version of membership. And hence all 
the new members, which China Mobile added later, did not ask to vote, but 
planned to participate in subsequent discussions. I strongly urge the LF to 
clarify the voting results, remove five votes that did not meet the clearly 
stated qualifications in the voting initiation email therefore gained unfair 
advantage to those who obeyed the regulations, and make the necessary public 
warning to the subject (individual or company).

Firstly, it is normal and healthy that there must be different opinions in any 
open organization composed of many members. Therefore, it is necessary to agree 
as far as possible on clear and unambiguous rules to specify how to reach 
consensus when the dispute arises, including the formation of the rule itself, 
the election of officials, the resolution on a specific topic, and so on. 

Second, one has to admit that any pre-established rules or statutes are not 
likely to enumerate all the possible situations in a complete reality. In other 
words, there is always a gray area where the rule cannot be covered. It is also 
a normal and inevitable phenomenon that someone has taken advantage of these 
loopholes or gray areas. When it is found that such a situation has occurred 
and that it should be stopped in the future, it is necessary but not sufficient 
to prevent the recurrence of such a phenomenon by simply amending the rule to 
make up for deficiencies in the rules.

Third, the respect for the rule itself and the faithful implementation of the 
resolution of a group formed by a process that is in accordance with the rules 
are the premises of any rule. In an organization that is composed of complex 
members, it is essential that its members, especially its leadership, in the 
process of practice, show respect the existing rules rather than disrupt the 
implementation of the rules. Especially if unacceptable violations to existing 
rules/agreement happens, if no correction is made, but blindly blame and amend 
the rule itself, even if they have the perfect rules in theory (that covers 
every situation in reality), these rules will be useless. 

Fourth, In the handling of this specific case, the core of the problem cannot 
be solved and the undesirable behavior will be undoubtedly happening again, if 
we only focus on the amendments to the TSC Charter, rather than emphasizing and 
establishing the spirit of the community to really respect and defend TSC 
Charter. Who will respect and implement the rules/agreement, if the violation 
of the rules will not be subject to any necessary warning, and once there is a 
problem, in any case can modify the existing rules at any time? 

Therefore, it is my firm belief that the correction of irregularities is the 
key to truly building a trust environment. Without this basic openness and 
fairness, the prosperity and success of the open source community will be at 
high risk. With this incident, I am personally involved and deeply troubled. As 
a candidate, I am under no obligation to accept unwarranted suspicion. I 
believe that all members who were voting in accordance with the rules regularly 
have the right to call for rectification of their own respect for the rules. 

Therefore, I strongly call for resolute redress of those violations of the 
rules and the necessary public warnings of such behavior. We need more 
transparency and fairness in this community.

Thanks,

Lingli

 

 

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] 
On Behalf Of Phil Robb
Sent: 2017年7月7日 23:47
To: Ed Warnicke 
Cc: onap-tsc 
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair 
Election

 

Hi Ed and Bob:

 

Given that the Subcommittees we are talking about are technical subcommittees 
serving at the pleasure of the TSC, I suggest the TSC own setting the 
parameters for voting and company representation within these subcommittees.  
The TSC could punt to the Governing Board if they can't come to consensus, but 
otherwise, I suggest it stay within the purview of the TSC.

 

Best,

 

Phil.

 

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Ed Warnicke mailto:hagb...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Bob,

 

Your suggestion is goodness :)  Perhaps the TSC should draft something to 
propose to the board to give them a good starting point?

 

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Bob Monkman mailto:bob.monk...@arm.com> > wrote:

Phil, et al,

  I would like to echo Ed’s observation here regarding the Charter. 

  In Section 3.b

Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

[GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)]

ONAP Community,

Thank you for the healthy dialog, and thanks to Phil for outlining the key 
issues.
I raised this issue to the Linux Foundation two weeks back as the 
irregularities that led to Phil’s email
is not healthy in growing our community. Although these irregularities are not 
intentional, they are an indication of a lack of clear policies
and guidelines. Addressing those will be the responsibility of the TSC. I will 
set up a small subcommittee that will propose modifications
to the charter.  If you were part of the charter subcommittee and would like to 
participate then LMK by Monday.

Phil, Kenny,
Please set up an hour later this week for the TSC to propose and vote on those 
changes with respect to the election
of PTLs and subcommittee chairs, as well as the number and diversity of 
committers per project.

While the TSC will provide additional more rigid language in the Charter, I 
urge everyone to work together as a team to make
our first release a big success.

Mazin


On Jul 5, 2017, at 5:44 PM, Phil Robb 
mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

Hello ONAP TSC:

The Use Case Subcommittee Chairperson election has just recently completed.  
However, there have been several irregularities/inconsistencies in the 
implementation of this election that warrants your attention.  In particular:

1) Inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case Subcommittee during the 
election time-frame.
There are no guidelines in the TSC Charter, nor in the call for 
nominations/election for this vote, indicating if individuals can add 
themselves to the Use Case Subcommittee during the Chairperson voting, and be 
allowed to vote.
a) 64 individuals were members of the Use Case Subcommittee when the voting 
began.  They were invited to vote.
b) Currently (at the end of the voting period), there are 83 members of the 
subcommittee, hence 19 people were added during the voting timeframe
c) Of those new 19 members, 5 asked to be added to the vote, and only those 5 
were added.  The other 14 new members were not invited to vote in the election. 
 Hence the addition of new members was done inconsistently for this vote.

2) No guidelines on company participation within a sub-committee.
While this subcommittees does not mandate, but rather advise the TSC on 
use-case selection/definition for a given release, we can expect the 
subcommittee to perform votes to get a clear resolve on what the advice to the 
TSC should be.  While we want participation to be as open as possible in this 
subcommittee, we also want to ensure that the advice rendered is representative 
of the ONAP community as a whole and is not biased toward one, or a small group 
of participating organizations.  Currently, the membership breakdown of Use 
Case Subcommittee participants looks like this:
amdocs.com
 17
att.com 12
boco.com.cn
 6
chinamobile.com
 9
chinatelecom.cn
 1
ericsson.com
 1
gigaspaces.com
 4
gmail.com
 1
huawei.com
 8
intel.com
 1
juniper.net

Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

[Liron Shtraichman]

Dear TSC members,

In light of the recent events and the complexity of the ONAP community, I 
suggest that the TSC will take more rigid approach in regard to elected formal 
positions in the community.
It should be agreed that a person with a formal elected position, will not be 
able to run to another formal elected position, unless there is NO other 
nominees to that position.

Examples:

  1.  A PTL can be elected for only one project
  2.  A subcommittee chair can be for only one subcommittee, and can’t be 
elected as PTL
  3.  A TSC Chair / vice chair, cannot be elected to any other sub-committee, 
or lead any project

(*) a disclaimer for all is in case there are no other nominees for elected 
position. In this case, a position holder, can nominate himself/herself to this 
position

This way we can ensure a healthy community, where all companies and 
representatives have a chance to influence and lead. Diversity of opinions, and 
keypersons, are crucial for the success of this platform and this community.

If this suggestion is accepted, position holder, that has more than one role, 
should decide which of their existing roles they want to keep, and drop their 
other responsibilities. Those communities can either run a new election, or 
select the one that came second.


Thanx,

Liron Shtraichman
NFV R&D Director, amdocs




From:  on behalf of Ed Warnicke 

Date: Friday, July 7, 2017 at 6:50 PM
To: Phil Robb 
Cc: onap-tsc 
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair 
Election

Bob,

Would you be willing to do the first draft for the TSCs consideration?

Ed

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Phil Robb 
mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
Hi Ed and Bob:

Given that the Subcommittees we are talking about are technical subcommittees 
serving at the pleasure of the TSC, I suggest the TSC own setting the 
parameters for voting and company representation within these subcommittees.  
The TSC could punt to the Governing Board if they can't come to consensus, but 
otherwise, I suggest it stay within the purview of the TSC.

Best,

Phil.

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Ed Warnicke 
mailto:hagb...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Bob,

Your suggestion is goodness :)  Perhaps the TSC should draft something to 
propose to the board to give them a good starting point?

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Bob Monkman 
mailto:bob.monk...@arm.com>> wrote:
Phil, et al,
  I would like to echo Ed’s observation here regarding the Charter.
  In Section 3.b (GB) and Section 4.a.iii (TSC), specific care is 
taken to tightly limit the voting influence of any one Member Company/Related 
Companies, for good reason, I would say.

  While I did not see it explicitly stated for subcommittees, one 
would hope that same care is taken to ensure to ensure that no one company or 
group of companies have undue voting influence over the decisions made. It also 
should not matter how quickly one gets ones participants “on the list/at the 
available seats at the table”.

  To my mind, there is a distinction between encouraging broad 
participation (we all know of cases where we wish we had more participants) and 
ensuring equity wrt to voting decisions.

  I believe the Governing Board should immediately consider 
defining the voting representation parameters for all subcommittees, putting in 
place limits of how many votes Company/Related Companies can have, and consider 
whether any votes done needed to be cancelled and redone under more equitable 
guidelines.

  One opinion…comments welcome,
Bob

Robert (Bob) Monkman
Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs
ARM
150 Rose Orchard Way
San Jose, Ca 95134
M: +1.510.676.5490
Skype: robert.monkman

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 Ed Warnicke
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 8:00 AM
To: Lingli Deng mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>>
Cc: onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair 
Election

Thinking for the last few days around these issues.  I think we have a flaw in 
our governance around subcommittees.  If you look at the charter:


On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Lingli Deng 
mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>> wrote:
Hi Phil and all,

It is a pity that we did not have time to discuss this issue yesterday on the 
TSC call.

As for the typo in the call for nomination, I agree that this is minor and have 
no impact to the election, as neither of the nominees are coming from open labs 
subcommittee, and they are clearly stating their interest in running for 
Usecase subcommittee.

But regarding the inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case 
Subcommittee during the election time-frame, I find it not acceptable and 

Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

[Stephen Terrill]

Hi,

I also agree this is under the TSC perview as it relates to the health of the 
community.  As we are in a formation stage some hiccups will arise and its how 
we deal with them that is important.  I find it encouraging that there is an 
open debate about this and an interest to address it with the expressed aim of 
having a healthily functioning community.

They way we are using the sub-committees is a relatively new construct and will 
need fine tuning over time, and now is such a time.  We have taking an implied 
assumption to elect the chairs in the same way that the projects elect chairs, 
however when thinking about it we do state the following in the TSC Charter:

  *   Each subcommittee shall determine its own membership eligibility, in 
consultation with the TSC. It is expected that subcommittee membership shall be 
open to all ONAP Contributors; however, subcommittees may impose restrictions 
such as the number of participants from a single company.
  *   Each subcommittee may elect a Chair who is responsible for leading 
meetings and representing the subcommittee to the TSC.
  *   Subcommittees are advisory in nature, and not authoritative. They provide 
advice to projects and to the TSC.
  *   Subcommittees operate on a rough consensus basis. If the subcommittee is 
unable to reach consensus on what advice to offer, the subcommittee Chair shall 
raise the issue with the TSC, where a formal vote can be taken, or advise the 
project that the subcommittee cannot reach consensus.

When I combine the above I see the following:

  *   In general I don’t see that want to provide guidance from the TSC on 
membership limits from companies, though it is in our scope to do so if 
required.  If we have a formal way to limit the representation to a number of 
companies and still anyway have it open discussion, then the representation 
won’t reflect the attendance and participation which may not be ideal.
  *   (Here, if we could provide guidance, I think it would be that the chair 
could remove participants that have not been attending for an extended period 
of time in the same way as is considered for committers in projects).
  *   Since the election of a chair is a decision, and the subcommittees are 
advisory by nature, the decision should be taken to the TSC for ratification 
the same as any other decision/recommendation from the sub-committee.  In the 
case that consensus is not formed, then the voting of the chair could be done 
by the TSC.

This could be one approach anyway.

BR,

Steve

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] 
On Behalf Of Bob Monkman
Sent: 07 July 2017 17:57
To: Ed Warnicke ; Phil Robb 
Cc: onap-tsc 
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair 
Election

Phil,
  After re-reading the TSC portion, I would absolutely agree that 
this would be under TSC purview, and not GB.
Ed,
  I would be happy to do so. I will do so but will need to run my 
draft by a Legal dept colleague who is in UK. I should have something solid by 
Monday COB.

Regards,
Bob

Robert (Bob) Monkman
Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs
ARM
150 Rose Orchard Way
San Jose, Ca 95134
M: +1.510.676.5490
Skype: robert.monkman

From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 8:50 AM
To: Phil Robb mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>>
Cc: Bob Monkman mailto:bob.monk...@arm.com>>; onap-tsc 
mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair 
Election

Bob,

Would you be willing to do the first draft for the TSCs consideration?

Ed

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Phil Robb 
mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
Hi Ed and Bob:

Given that the Subcommittees we are talking about are technical subcommittees 
serving at the pleasure of the TSC, I suggest the TSC own setting the 
parameters for voting and company representation within these subcommittees.  
The TSC could punt to the Governing Board if they can't come to consensus, but 
otherwise, I suggest it stay within the purview of the TSC.

Best,

Phil.

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Ed Warnicke 
mailto:hagb...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Bob,

Your suggestion is goodness :)  Perhaps the TSC should draft something to 
propose to the board to give them a good starting point?

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Bob Monkman 
mailto:bob.monk...@arm.com>> wrote:
Phil, et al,
  I would like to echo Ed’s observation here regarding the Charter.
  In Section 3.b (GB) and Section 4.a.iii (TSC), specific care is 
taken to tightly limit the voting influence of any one Member Company/Related 
Companies, for good reason, I would say.

  While I did not see it explicitly stated for subcommittees, one 
would hope that same care is taken to ensure to ensure that no one company or 
group of companies have undue voting influence over t

Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

[jamil.chawki]

The irregularities is not a good starting point for our projet.
How we can attract new members with this kind of situation ?
As we have discussed during our last project review we can consider also an 
irregularity in the PTL election as we have agreed to review the list of 
committees
Best
Jamil

Le 7 juil. 2017 à 17:56, Bob Monkman 
mailto:bob.monk...@arm.com>> a écrit :

Phil,
  After re-reading the TSC portion, I would absolutely agree that 
this would be under TSC purview, and not GB.
Ed,
  I would be happy to do so. I will do so but will need to run my 
draft by a Legal dept colleague who is in UK. I should have something solid by 
Monday COB.

Regards,
Bob

Robert (Bob) Monkman
Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs
ARM
150 Rose Orchard Way
San Jose, Ca 95134
M: +1.510.676.5490
Skype: robert.monkman

From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 8:50 AM
To: Phil Robb mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>>
Cc: Bob Monkman mailto:bob.monk...@arm.com>>; onap-tsc 
mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair 
Election

Bob,

Would you be willing to do the first draft for the TSCs consideration?

Ed

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Phil Robb 
mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
Hi Ed and Bob:

Given that the Subcommittees we are talking about are technical subcommittees 
serving at the pleasure of the TSC, I suggest the TSC own setting the 
parameters for voting and company representation within these subcommittees.  
The TSC could punt to the Governing Board if they can't come to consensus, but 
otherwise, I suggest it stay within the purview of the TSC.

Best,

Phil.

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Ed Warnicke 
mailto:hagb...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Bob,

Your suggestion is goodness :)  Perhaps the TSC should draft something to 
propose to the board to give them a good starting point?

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Bob Monkman 
mailto:bob.monk...@arm.com>> wrote:
Phil, et al,
  I would like to echo Ed’s observation here regarding the Charter.
  In Section 3.b (GB) and Section 4.a.iii (TSC), specific care is 
taken to tightly limit the voting influence of any one Member Company/Related 
Companies, for good reason, I would say.

  While I did not see it explicitly stated for subcommittees, one 
would hope that same care is taken to ensure to ensure that no one company or 
group of companies have undue voting influence over the decisions made. It also 
should not matter how quickly one gets ones participants “on the list/at the 
available seats at the table”.

  To my mind, there is a distinction between encouraging broad 
participation (we all know of cases where we wish we had more participants) and 
ensuring equity wrt to voting decisions.

  I believe the Governing Board should immediately consider 
defining the voting representation parameters for all subcommittees, putting in 
place limits of how many votes Company/Related Companies can have, and consider 
whether any votes done needed to be cancelled and redone under more equitable 
guidelines.

  One opinion…comments welcome,
Bob

Robert (Bob) Monkman
Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs
ARM
150 Rose Orchard Way
San Jose, Ca 95134
M: +1.510.676.5490
Skype: robert.monkman

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 Ed Warnicke
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 8:00 AM
To: Lingli Deng mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>>
Cc: onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair 
Election

Thinking for the last few days around these issues.  I think we have a flaw in 
our governance around subcommittees.  If you look at the charter:


On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Lingli Deng 
mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>> wrote:
Hi Phil and all,

It is a pity that we did not have time to discuss this issue yesterday on the 
TSC call.

As for the typo in the call for nomination, I agree that this is minor and have 
no impact to the election, as neither of the nominees are coming from open labs 
subcommittee, and they are clearly stating their interest in running for 
Usecase subcommittee.

But regarding the inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case 
Subcommittee during the election time-frame, I find it not acceptable and would 
like to ask Kenny to remove them in order to clear the result of the election, 
and strongly suggest to consider publish these five extra voters as a warning.

Thanks,
Lingli

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 Beha

Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

[Bob Monkman]

Phil,
  After re-reading the TSC portion, I would absolutely agree that 
this would be under TSC purview, and not GB.
Ed,
  I would be happy to do so. I will do so but will need to run my 
draft by a Legal dept colleague who is in UK. I should have something solid by 
Monday COB.

Regards,
Bob

Robert (Bob) Monkman
Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs
ARM
150 Rose Orchard Way
San Jose, Ca 95134
M: +1.510.676.5490
Skype: robert.monkman

From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 8:50 AM
To: Phil Robb 
Cc: Bob Monkman ; onap-tsc 
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair 
Election

Bob,

Would you be willing to do the first draft for the TSCs consideration?

Ed

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Phil Robb 
mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
Hi Ed and Bob:

Given that the Subcommittees we are talking about are technical subcommittees 
serving at the pleasure of the TSC, I suggest the TSC own setting the 
parameters for voting and company representation within these subcommittees.  
The TSC could punt to the Governing Board if they can't come to consensus, but 
otherwise, I suggest it stay within the purview of the TSC.

Best,

Phil.

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Ed Warnicke 
mailto:hagb...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Bob,

Your suggestion is goodness :)  Perhaps the TSC should draft something to 
propose to the board to give them a good starting point?

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Bob Monkman 
mailto:bob.monk...@arm.com>> wrote:
Phil, et al,
  I would like to echo Ed’s observation here regarding the Charter.
  In Section 3.b (GB) and Section 4.a.iii (TSC), specific care is 
taken to tightly limit the voting influence of any one Member Company/Related 
Companies, for good reason, I would say.

  While I did not see it explicitly stated for subcommittees, one 
would hope that same care is taken to ensure to ensure that no one company or 
group of companies have undue voting influence over the decisions made. It also 
should not matter how quickly one gets ones participants “on the list/at the 
available seats at the table”.

  To my mind, there is a distinction between encouraging broad 
participation (we all know of cases where we wish we had more participants) and 
ensuring equity wrt to voting decisions.

  I believe the Governing Board should immediately consider 
defining the voting representation parameters for all subcommittees, putting in 
place limits of how many votes Company/Related Companies can have, and consider 
whether any votes done needed to be cancelled and redone under more equitable 
guidelines.

  One opinion…comments welcome,
Bob

Robert (Bob) Monkman
Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs
ARM
150 Rose Orchard Way
San Jose, Ca 95134
M: +1.510.676.5490
Skype: robert.monkman

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 Ed Warnicke
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 8:00 AM
To: Lingli Deng mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>>
Cc: onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair 
Election

Thinking for the last few days around these issues.  I think we have a flaw in 
our governance around subcommittees.  If you look at the charter:


On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Lingli Deng 
mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>> wrote:
Hi Phil and all,

It is a pity that we did not have time to discuss this issue yesterday on the 
TSC call.

As for the typo in the call for nomination, I agree that this is minor and have 
no impact to the election, as neither of the nominees are coming from open labs 
subcommittee, and they are clearly stating their interest in running for 
Usecase subcommittee.

But regarding the inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case 
Subcommittee during the election time-frame, I find it not acceptable and would 
like to ask Kenny to remove them in order to clear the result of the election, 
and strongly suggest to consider publish these five extra voters as a warning.

Thanks,
Lingli

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: 2017年7月6日 5:44
To: onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

Hello ONAP TSC:

The Use Case Subcommittee Chairperson election has just recently completed.  
However, there have been several irregularities/inconsistencies in the 
implementation of this election that warrants your attention.  In particular:

1) Inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case Subcommittee during t

Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

[Ed Warnicke]

Bob,

Would you be willing to do the first draft for the TSCs consideration?

Ed

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Phil Robb  wrote:

> Hi Ed and Bob:
>
> Given that the Subcommittees we are talking about are technical
> subcommittees serving at the pleasure of the TSC, I suggest the TSC own
> setting the parameters for voting and company representation within these
> subcommittees.  The TSC could punt to the Governing Board if they can't
> come to consensus, but otherwise, I suggest it stay within the purview of
> the TSC.
>
> Best,
>
> Phil.
>
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Ed Warnicke  wrote:
>
>> Bob,
>>
>> Your suggestion is goodness :)  Perhaps the TSC should draft something to
>> propose to the board to give them a good starting point?
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Bob Monkman  wrote:
>>
>>> Phil, et al,
>>>
>>>   I would like to echo Ed’s observation here regarding the
>>> Charter.
>>>
>>>   In Section 3.b (GB) and Section 4.a.iii (TSC), specific
>>> care is taken to tightly limit the voting influence of any one Member
>>> Company/Related Companies, for good reason, I would say.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   While I did not see it explicitly stated for
>>> subcommittees, one would hope that same care is taken to ensure to ensure
>>> that no one company or group of companies have undue voting influence over
>>> the decisions made. It also should not matter how quickly one gets ones
>>> participants “on the list/at the available seats at the table”.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   To my mind, there is a distinction between encouraging
>>> broad participation (we all know of cases where we wish we had more
>>> participants) and ensuring equity wrt to voting decisions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   I believe the Governing Board should immediately consider
>>> defining the voting representation parameters for all subcommittees,
>>> putting in place limits of how many votes Company/Related Companies can
>>> have, and consider whether any votes done needed to be cancelled and redone
>>> under more equitable guidelines.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   One opinion…comments welcome,
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Robert (Bob) Monkman
>>>
>>> Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs
>>>
>>> ARM
>>>
>>> 150 Rose Orchard Way
>>>
>>> San Jose, Ca 95134
>>>
>>> M: +1.510.676.5490 <(510)%20676-5490>
>>>
>>> Skype: robert.monkman
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-bounces@lists
>>> .onap.org] *On Behalf Of *Ed Warnicke
>>> *Sent:* Friday, July 7, 2017 8:00 AM
>>> *To:* Lingli Deng 
>>> *Cc:* onap-tsc 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee
>>> Chair Election
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thinking for the last few days around these issues.  I think we have a
>>> flaw in our governance around subcommittees.  If you look at the charter:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Lingli Deng 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Phil and all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is a pity that we did not have time to discuss this issue yesterday
>>> on the TSC call.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As for the typo in the call for nomination, I agree that this is minor
>>> and have no impact to the election, as neither of the nominees are coming
>>> from open labs subcommittee, and they are clearly stating their interest in
>>> running for Usecase subcommittee.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But regarding the inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case
>>> Subcommittee during the election time-frame, I find it not acceptable and
>>> would like to ask Kenny to remove them in order to clear the result of the
>>> election, and strongly suggest to consider publish these five extra voters
>>> as a warning.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Lingli
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-bounces@lists
>>> .onap.org] *On Behalf Of *Phil Robb
>>> *Sent:* 2017年7月6日 5:44
>>> *To:* o

Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

[Phil Robb]

Hi Ed and Bob:

Given that the Subcommittees we are talking about are technical
subcommittees serving at the pleasure of the TSC, I suggest the TSC own
setting the parameters for voting and company representation within these
subcommittees.  The TSC could punt to the Governing Board if they can't
come to consensus, but otherwise, I suggest it stay within the purview of
the TSC.

Best,

Phil.

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Ed Warnicke  wrote:

> Bob,
>
> Your suggestion is goodness :)  Perhaps the TSC should draft something to
> propose to the board to give them a good starting point?
>
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Bob Monkman  wrote:
>
>> Phil, et al,
>>
>>   I would like to echo Ed’s observation here regarding the
>> Charter.
>>
>>   In Section 3.b (GB) and Section 4.a.iii (TSC), specific
>> care is taken to tightly limit the voting influence of any one Member
>> Company/Related Companies, for good reason, I would say.
>>
>>
>>
>>   While I did not see it explicitly stated for subcommittees,
>> one would hope that same care is taken to ensure to ensure that no one
>> company or group of companies have undue voting influence over the
>> decisions made. It also should not matter how quickly one gets ones
>> participants “on the list/at the available seats at the table”.
>>
>>
>>
>>   To my mind, there is a distinction between encouraging
>> broad participation (we all know of cases where we wish we had more
>> participants) and ensuring equity wrt to voting decisions.
>>
>>
>>
>>   I believe the Governing Board should immediately consider
>> defining the voting representation parameters for all subcommittees,
>> putting in place limits of how many votes Company/Related Companies can
>> have, and consider whether any votes done needed to be cancelled and redone
>> under more equitable guidelines.
>>
>>
>>
>>   One opinion…comments welcome,
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert (Bob) Monkman
>>
>> Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs
>>
>> ARM
>>
>> 150 Rose Orchard Way
>>
>> San Jose, Ca 95134
>>
>> M: +1.510.676.5490 <(510)%20676-5490>
>>
>> Skype: robert.monkman
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-bounces@lists
>> .onap.org] *On Behalf Of *Ed Warnicke
>> *Sent:* Friday, July 7, 2017 8:00 AM
>> *To:* Lingli Deng 
>> *Cc:* onap-tsc 
>> *Subject:* Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee
>> Chair Election
>>
>>
>>
>> Thinking for the last few days around these issues.  I think we have a
>> flaw in our governance around subcommittees.  If you look at the charter:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Lingli Deng 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Phil and all,
>>
>>
>>
>> It is a pity that we did not have time to discuss this issue yesterday on
>> the TSC call.
>>
>>
>>
>> As for the typo in the call for nomination, I agree that this is minor
>> and have no impact to the election, as neither of the nominees are coming
>> from open labs subcommittee, and they are clearly stating their interest in
>> running for Usecase subcommittee.
>>
>>
>>
>> But regarding the inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case
>> Subcommittee during the election time-frame, I find it not acceptable and
>> would like to ask Kenny to remove them in order to clear the result of the
>> election, and strongly suggest to consider publish these five extra voters
>> as a warning.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Lingli
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-bounces@lists
>> .onap.org] *On Behalf Of *Phil Robb
>> *Sent:* 2017年7月6日 5:44
>> *To:* onap-tsc 
>> *Subject:* [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair
>> Election
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello ONAP TSC:
>>
>>
>>
>> The Use Case Subcommittee Chairperson election has just recently
>> completed.  However, there have been several irregularities/inconsistencies
>> in the implementation of this election that warrants your attention.  In
>> particular:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) Inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case Subcommittee
>> during the election time-frame.
>>
>> There are no guidelines in the TSC Charter, nor in the ca

Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

[Ed Warnicke]

Bob,

Your suggestion is goodness :)  Perhaps the TSC should draft something to
propose to the board to give them a good starting point?

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Bob Monkman  wrote:

> Phil, et al,
>
>   I would like to echo Ed’s observation here regarding the
> Charter.
>
>   In Section 3.b (GB) and Section 4.a.iii (TSC), specific care
> is taken to tightly limit the voting influence of any one Member
> Company/Related Companies, for good reason, I would say.
>
>
>
>   While I did not see it explicitly stated for subcommittees,
> one would hope that same care is taken to ensure to ensure that no one
> company or group of companies have undue voting influence over the
> decisions made. It also should not matter how quickly one gets ones
> participants “on the list/at the available seats at the table”.
>
>
>
>   To my mind, there is a distinction between encouraging broad
> participation (we all know of cases where we wish we had more participants)
> and ensuring equity wrt to voting decisions.
>
>
>
>   I believe the Governing Board should immediately consider
> defining the voting representation parameters for all subcommittees,
> putting in place limits of how many votes Company/Related Companies can
> have, and consider whether any votes done needed to be cancelled and redone
> under more equitable guidelines.
>
>
>
>   One opinion…comments welcome,
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> Robert (Bob) Monkman
>
> Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs
>
> ARM
>
> 150 Rose Orchard Way
>
> San Jose, Ca 95134
>
> M: +1.510.676.5490 <(510)%20676-5490>
>
> Skype: robert.monkman
>
>
>
> *From:* onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-bounces@
> lists.onap.org] *On Behalf Of *Ed Warnicke
> *Sent:* Friday, July 7, 2017 8:00 AM
> *To:* Lingli Deng 
> *Cc:* onap-tsc 
> *Subject:* Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee
> Chair Election
>
>
>
> Thinking for the last few days around these issues.  I think we have a
> flaw in our governance around subcommittees.  If you look at the charter:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Lingli Deng 
> wrote:
>
> Hi Phil and all,
>
>
>
> It is a pity that we did not have time to discuss this issue yesterday on
> the TSC call.
>
>
>
> As for the typo in the call for nomination, I agree that this is minor and
> have no impact to the election, as neither of the nominees are coming from
> open labs subcommittee, and they are clearly stating their interest in
> running for Usecase subcommittee.
>
>
>
> But regarding the inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case
> Subcommittee during the election time-frame, I find it not acceptable and
> would like to ask Kenny to remove them in order to clear the result of the
> election, and strongly suggest to consider publish these five extra voters
> as a warning.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lingli
>
>
>
> *From:* onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-bounces@
> lists.onap.org] *On Behalf Of *Phil Robb
> *Sent:* 2017年7月6日 5:44
> *To:* onap-tsc 
> *Subject:* [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair
> Election
>
>
>
> Hello ONAP TSC:
>
>
>
> The Use Case Subcommittee Chairperson election has just recently
> completed.  However, there have been several irregularities/inconsistencies
> in the implementation of this election that warrants your attention.  In
> particular:
>
>
>
> 1) Inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case Subcommittee
> during the election time-frame.
>
> There are no guidelines in the TSC Charter, nor in the call for
> nominations/election for this vote, indicating if individuals can add
> themselves to the Use Case Subcommittee during the Chairperson voting, and
> be allowed to vote.
>
> a) 64 individuals were members of the Use Case Subcommittee when the
> voting began.  They were invited to vote.
>
> b) Currently (at the end of the voting period), there are 83 members of
> the subcommittee, hence 19 people were added during the voting timeframe
>
> c) Of those new 19 members, 5 asked to be added to the vote, and only
> those 5 were added.  The other 14 new members were not invited to vote in
> the election.  Hence the addition of new members was done inconsistently
> for this vote.
>
>
>
> 2) No guidelines on company participation within a sub-committee.
>
> While this subcommittees does not mandate, but rather advise the TSC on
> use-case selection/definition for a given release, we can expect the
> subcommittee to perfo

Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

[Ed Warnicke]

It's also quite important for an open source project's long-term health to
cultivate breadth of leadership.  The different people in leadership roles,
the more leaders grow in the community, and the better the
community functions :)

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Alla Goldner 
wrote:

> Ed, all,
>
>
>
> I support Ed’s proposal.
>
>
>
> Not only having broad and diverse membership, but also having broad and
> diverse leadership is a key requirement for any Open source project to
> succeed, definitely for such a big project as ONAP. We should find a ways
> to allow this diversity in the subcommittees, and the way suggested by Ed
> seem to be a good way forward.
>
>
>
> 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 *Ed Warnicke
> *Sent:* Friday, July 07, 2017 6:05 PM
> *To:* Lingli Deng 
> *Cc:* onap-tsc 
> *Subject:* Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee
> Chair Election
>
>
>
> Apologies, sent the last email to soon.  If you look at the TSC charter:
>
>
>
> https://wiki.onap.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=
> 4719160&preview=%2F4719160%2F4719377%2FONAP+TSC+Charter+
> APPROVED+7+1+CLEAN.pdf
>
>
>
> section 5.4.1 we leave how membership is handled delegated to the
> subcommittee.  While I love that approach in principle, it appears to have
> created problems in practice.
>
>
>
> I would recommend that we amend the TSC charter to require the initial
> proposal for the subcommittee to include a set of initial members (as we do
> for project), with the proposer of the subcommittee holding the pen there,
> and appropriate language about encouraging broad and diverse membership.  I
> would then suggest that we be clear about how a subcommittee adds and
> removes members, likely in a fashion similar to how we handle projects,
> with a TSC vote at the end to approve adds.  Finally, I suggest for
> existing subcommittees we have them come back and submit their initial
> membership for ratification to TSC, and have PTL elections rerun based on
> those approved membership lists.  This will bring an orderly process to
> subcommittees that will hopefully reduce radically these sorts of
> irregularities.
>
>
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Ed Warnicke  wrote:
>
> Thinking for the last few days around these issues.  I think we have a
> flaw in our governance around subcommittees.  If you look at the charter:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Lingli Deng 
> wrote:
>
> Hi Phil and all,
>
>
>
> It is a pity that we did not have time to discuss this issue yesterday on
> the TSC call.
>
>
>
> As for the typo in the call for nomination, I agree that this is minor and
> have no impact to the election, as neither of the nominees are coming from
> open labs subcommittee, and they are clearly stating their interest in
> running for Usecase subcommittee.
>
>
>
> But regarding the inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case
> Subcommittee during the election time-frame, I find it not acceptable and
> would like to ask Kenny to remove them in order to clear the result of the
> election, and strongly suggest to consider publish these five extra voters
> as a warning.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lingli
>
>
>
> *From:* onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-bounces@
> lists.onap.org] *On Behalf Of *Phil Robb
> *Sent:* 2017年7月6日 5:44
> *To:* onap-tsc 
> *Subject:* [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair
> Election
>
>
>
> Hello ONAP TSC:
>
>
>
> The Use Case Subcommittee Chairperson election has just recently
> completed.  However, there have been several irregularities/inconsistencies
> in the implementation of this election that warrants your attention.  In
> particular:
>
>
>
> 1) Inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case Subcommittee
> during the election time-frame.
>
> There are no guidelines in the TSC Charter, nor in the call for
> nominations/election for this vote, indicating if individuals can add
> themselves to the Use Case Subcommittee during the Chairperson voting, and
> be allowed to vote.
>
> a) 64 individuals were members of the Use Case Subcommittee when the
> voting began.  They were invited to vote.
>
> b) Currently (at the end of the voting period), there are 83 members of
> the subcommittee, hence 19 people were added during the voting timeframe
>
> c) Of those new 19 members, 5 asked to be added to

Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

[Bob Monkman]

Phil, et al,
  I would like to echo Ed’s observation here regarding the Charter.
  In Section 3.b (GB) and Section 4.a.iii (TSC), specific care is 
taken to tightly limit the voting influence of any one Member Company/Related 
Companies, for good reason, I would say.

  While I did not see it explicitly stated for subcommittees, one 
would hope that same care is taken to ensure to ensure that no one company or 
group of companies have undue voting influence over the decisions made. It also 
should not matter how quickly one gets ones participants “on the list/at the 
available seats at the table”.

  To my mind, there is a distinction between encouraging broad 
participation (we all know of cases where we wish we had more participants) and 
ensuring equity wrt to voting decisions.

  I believe the Governing Board should immediately consider 
defining the voting representation parameters for all subcommittees, putting in 
place limits of how many votes Company/Related Companies can have, and consider 
whether any votes done needed to be cancelled and redone under more equitable 
guidelines.

  One opinion…comments welcome,
Bob

Robert (Bob) Monkman
Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs
ARM
150 Rose Orchard Way
San Jose, Ca 95134
M: +1.510.676.5490
Skype: robert.monkman

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] 
On Behalf Of Ed Warnicke
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 8:00 AM
To: Lingli Deng 
Cc: onap-tsc 
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair 
Election

Thinking for the last few days around these issues.  I think we have a flaw in 
our governance around subcommittees.  If you look at the charter:


On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Lingli Deng 
mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>> wrote:
Hi Phil and all,

It is a pity that we did not have time to discuss this issue yesterday on the 
TSC call.

As for the typo in the call for nomination, I agree that this is minor and have 
no impact to the election, as neither of the nominees are coming from open labs 
subcommittee, and they are clearly stating their interest in running for 
Usecase subcommittee.

But regarding the inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case 
Subcommittee during the election time-frame, I find it not acceptable and would 
like to ask Kenny to remove them in order to clear the result of the election, 
and strongly suggest to consider publish these five extra voters as a warning.

Thanks,
Lingli

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: 2017年7月6日 5:44
To: onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

Hello ONAP TSC:

The Use Case Subcommittee Chairperson election has just recently completed.  
However, there have been several irregularities/inconsistencies in the 
implementation of this election that warrants your attention.  In particular:

1) Inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case Subcommittee during the 
election time-frame.
There are no guidelines in the TSC Charter, nor in the call for 
nominations/election for this vote, indicating if individuals can add 
themselves to the Use Case Subcommittee during the Chairperson voting, and be 
allowed to vote.
a) 64 individuals were members of the Use Case Subcommittee when the voting 
began.  They were invited to vote.
b) Currently (at the end of the voting period), there are 83 members of the 
subcommittee, hence 19 people were added during the voting timeframe
c) Of those new 19 members, 5 asked to be added to the vote, and only those 5 
were added.  The other 14 new members were not invited to vote in the election. 
 Hence the addition of new members was done inconsistently for this vote.

2) No guidelines on company participation within a sub-committee.
While this subcommittees does not mandate, but rather advise the TSC on 
use-case selection/definition for a given release, we can expect the 
subcommittee to perform votes to get a clear resolve on what the advice to the 
TSC should be.  While we want participation to be as open as possible in this 
subcommittee, we also want to ensure that the advice rendered is representative 
of the ONAP community as a whole and is not biased toward one, or a small group 
of participating organizations.  Currently, the membership breakdown of Use 
Case Subcommittee participants looks like this:
amdocs.com<http://amdocs.com> 17
att.com<http://att.com>12
boco.com.cn<http://boco.com.cn>6
chinamobile.com<http://chinamobile.com> 9
chinatelecom.cn<http://chinatelecom.cn>   1
ericsson.com<http://ericsson.com>   1
gigaspaces.com<http://gigaspaces.com> 4
gmail.com<http://gmail.com&g

Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

[Alla Goldner]

Ed, all,

I support Ed’s proposal.

Not only having broad and diverse membership, but also having broad and diverse 
leadership is a key requirement for any Open source project to succeed, 
definitely for such a big project as ONAP. We should find a ways to allow this 
diversity in the subcommittees, and the way suggested by Ed seem to be a good 
way forward.

Best regards,

Alla Goldner

Open Network Division
Amdocs Technology


[cid:image001.png@01D2F74C.ED56F580]

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] 
On Behalf Of Ed Warnicke
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 6:05 PM
To: Lingli Deng 
Cc: onap-tsc 
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair 
Election

Apologies, sent the last email to soon.  If you look at the TSC charter:

https://wiki.onap.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4719160&preview=%2F4719160%2F4719377%2FONAP+TSC+Charter+APPROVED+7+1+CLEAN.pdf

section 5.4.1 we leave how membership is handled delegated to the subcommittee. 
 While I love that approach in principle, it appears to have created problems 
in practice.

I would recommend that we amend the TSC charter to require the initial proposal 
for the subcommittee to include a set of initial members (as we do for 
project), with the proposer of the subcommittee holding the pen there, and 
appropriate language about encouraging broad and diverse membership.  I would 
then suggest that we be clear about how a subcommittee adds and removes 
members, likely in a fashion similar to how we handle projects, with a TSC vote 
at the end to approve adds.  Finally, I suggest for existing subcommittees we 
have them come back and submit their initial membership for ratification to 
TSC, and have PTL elections rerun based on those approved membership lists.  
This will bring an orderly process to subcommittees that will hopefully reduce 
radically these sorts of irregularities.

Ed

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Ed Warnicke 
mailto:hagb...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thinking for the last few days around these issues.  I think we have a flaw in 
our governance around subcommittees.  If you look at the charter:


On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Lingli Deng 
mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>> wrote:
Hi Phil and all,

It is a pity that we did not have time to discuss this issue yesterday on the 
TSC call.

As for the typo in the call for nomination, I agree that this is minor and have 
no impact to the election, as neither of the nominees are coming from open labs 
subcommittee, and they are clearly stating their interest in running for 
Usecase subcommittee.

But regarding the inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case 
Subcommittee during the election time-frame, I find it not acceptable and would 
like to ask Kenny to remove them in order to clear the result of the election, 
and strongly suggest to consider publish these five extra voters as a warning.

Thanks,
Lingli

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: 2017年7月6日 5:44
To: onap-tsc mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

Hello ONAP TSC:

The Use Case Subcommittee Chairperson election has just recently completed.  
However, there have been several irregularities/inconsistencies in the 
implementation of this election that warrants your attention.  In particular:

1) Inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case Subcommittee during the 
election time-frame.
There are no guidelines in the TSC Charter, nor in the call for 
nominations/election for this vote, indicating if individuals can add 
themselves to the Use Case Subcommittee during the Chairperson voting, and be 
allowed to vote.
a) 64 individuals were members of the Use Case Subcommittee when the voting 
began.  They were invited to vote.
b) Currently (at the end of the voting period), there are 83 members of the 
subcommittee, hence 19 people were added during the voting timeframe
c) Of those new 19 members, 5 asked to be added to the vote, and only those 5 
were added.  The other 14 new members were not invited to vote in the election. 
 Hence the addition of new members was done inconsistently for this vote.

2) No guidelines on company participation within a sub-committee.
While this subcommittees does not mandate, but rather advise the TSC on 
use-case selection/definition for a given release, we can expect the 
subcommittee to perform votes to get a clear resolve on what the advice to the 
TSC should be.  While we want participation to be as open as possible in this 
subcommittee, we also want to ensure that the advice rendered is representative 
of the ONAP community as a whole and is not biased toward one, or a small group 
of participating organizations.  Currently, the membership breakdown of Use 
Case Subcomm

Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

[Ed Warnicke]

Apologies, sent the last email to soon.  If you look at the TSC charter:

https://wiki.onap.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4719160&preview=%2F4719160%2F4719377%2FONAP+TSC+Charter+APPROVED+7+1+CLEAN.pdf

section 5.4.1 we leave how membership is handled delegated to the
subcommittee.  While I love that approach in principle, it appears to have
created problems in practice.

I would recommend that we amend the TSC charter to require the initial
proposal for the subcommittee to include a set of initial members (as we do
for project), with the proposer of the subcommittee holding the pen there,
and appropriate language about encouraging broad and diverse membership.  I
would then suggest that we be clear about how a subcommittee adds and
removes members, likely in a fashion similar to how we handle projects,
with a TSC vote at the end to approve adds.  Finally, I suggest for
existing subcommittees we have them come back and submit their initial
membership for ratification to TSC, and have PTL elections rerun based on
those approved membership lists.  This will bring an orderly process to
subcommittees that will hopefully reduce radically these sorts of
irregularities.

Ed

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Ed Warnicke  wrote:

> Thinking for the last few days around these issues.  I think we have a
> flaw in our governance around subcommittees.  If you look at the charter:
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Lingli Deng 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Phil and all,
>>
>>
>>
>> It is a pity that we did not have time to discuss this issue yesterday on
>> the TSC call.
>>
>>
>>
>> As for the typo in the call for nomination, I agree that this is minor
>> and have no impact to the election, as neither of the nominees are coming
>> from open labs subcommittee, and they are clearly stating their interest in
>> running for Usecase subcommittee.
>>
>>
>>
>> But regarding the inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case
>> Subcommittee during the election time-frame, I find it not acceptable and
>> would like to ask Kenny to remove them in order to clear the result of the
>> election, and strongly suggest to consider publish these five extra voters
>> as a warning.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Lingli
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-bounces@lists
>> .onap.org] *On Behalf Of *Phil Robb
>> *Sent:* 2017年7月6日 5:44
>> *To:* onap-tsc 
>> *Subject:* [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair
>> Election
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello ONAP TSC:
>>
>>
>>
>> The Use Case Subcommittee Chairperson election has just recently
>> completed.  However, there have been several irregularities/inconsistencies
>> in the implementation of this election that warrants your attention.  In
>> particular:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) Inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case Subcommittee
>> during the election time-frame.
>>
>> There are no guidelines in the TSC Charter, nor in the call for
>> nominations/election for this vote, indicating if individuals can add
>> themselves to the Use Case Subcommittee during the Chairperson voting, and
>> be allowed to vote.
>>
>> a) 64 individuals were members of the Use Case Subcommittee when the
>> voting began.  They were invited to vote.
>>
>> b) Currently (at the end of the voting period), there are 83 members of
>> the subcommittee, hence 19 people were added during the voting timeframe
>>
>> c) Of those new 19 members, 5 asked to be added to the vote, and only
>> those 5 were added.  The other 14 new members were not invited to vote in
>> the election.  Hence the addition of new members was done inconsistently
>> for this vote.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2) No guidelines on company participation within a sub-committee.
>>
>> While this subcommittees does not mandate, but rather advise the TSC on
>> use-case selection/definition for a given release, we can expect the
>> subcommittee to perform votes to get a clear resolve on what the advice to
>> the TSC should be.  While we want participation to be as open as possible
>> in this subcommittee, we also want to ensure that the advice rendered is
>> representative of the ONAP community as a whole and is not biased toward
>> one, or a small group of participating organizations.  Currently, the
>> membership breakdown of Use Case Subcommittee participants looks like this:
>>
>> amdocs.com 17
>>
>> att.com12
>>
>> boco.com.cn6
>>
>> chinamobile.com 9
>>
>> chinatelecom.cn   1
>>
>> ericsson.com   1
>>
>> gigaspaces.com 4
>>
>> gmail.com  1
>>
>> huawei.com 8
>>
>> intel.com  1
>>
>> juniper.net   1
>>
>> nokia.com  3
>>
>> orange.com 3
>>
>> raisecom.com   2
>>
>> vmware.com 4
>>
>> zte.com.cn 10
>>
>> As you can see, of the 16 companies participating, the top 5 companies
>> with the most participants (Amdocs, AT&T, China Mobile, Huawei and ZTE)
>> hold 66% of the vote.  I believe the TSC may want to provide further
>> guidelines to ensure a more equal voting distribution across subcommittee
>> membership
>>
>>
>

Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

[Ed Warnicke]

Thinking for the last few days around these issues.  I think we have a flaw
in our governance around subcommittees.  If you look at the charter:


On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Lingli Deng 
wrote:

> Hi Phil and all,
>
>
>
> It is a pity that we did not have time to discuss this issue yesterday on
> the TSC call.
>
>
>
> As for the typo in the call for nomination, I agree that this is minor and
> have no impact to the election, as neither of the nominees are coming from
> open labs subcommittee, and they are clearly stating their interest in
> running for Usecase subcommittee.
>
>
>
> But regarding the inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case
> Subcommittee during the election time-frame, I find it not acceptable and
> would like to ask Kenny to remove them in order to clear the result of the
> election, and strongly suggest to consider publish these five extra voters
> as a warning.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lingli
>
>
>
> *From:* onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-bounces@
> lists.onap.org] *On Behalf Of *Phil Robb
> *Sent:* 2017年7月6日 5:44
> *To:* onap-tsc 
> *Subject:* [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair
> Election
>
>
>
> Hello ONAP TSC:
>
>
>
> The Use Case Subcommittee Chairperson election has just recently
> completed.  However, there have been several irregularities/inconsistencies
> in the implementation of this election that warrants your attention.  In
> particular:
>
>
>
> 1) Inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case Subcommittee
> during the election time-frame.
>
> There are no guidelines in the TSC Charter, nor in the call for
> nominations/election for this vote, indicating if individuals can add
> themselves to the Use Case Subcommittee during the Chairperson voting, and
> be allowed to vote.
>
> a) 64 individuals were members of the Use Case Subcommittee when the
> voting began.  They were invited to vote.
>
> b) Currently (at the end of the voting period), there are 83 members of
> the subcommittee, hence 19 people were added during the voting timeframe
>
> c) Of those new 19 members, 5 asked to be added to the vote, and only
> those 5 were added.  The other 14 new members were not invited to vote in
> the election.  Hence the addition of new members was done inconsistently
> for this vote.
>
>
>
> 2) No guidelines on company participation within a sub-committee.
>
> While this subcommittees does not mandate, but rather advise the TSC on
> use-case selection/definition for a given release, we can expect the
> subcommittee to perform votes to get a clear resolve on what the advice to
> the TSC should be.  While we want participation to be as open as possible
> in this subcommittee, we also want to ensure that the advice rendered is
> representative of the ONAP community as a whole and is not biased toward
> one, or a small group of participating organizations.  Currently, the
> membership breakdown of Use Case Subcommittee participants looks like this:
>
> amdocs.com 17
>
> att.com12
>
> boco.com.cn6
>
> chinamobile.com 9
>
> chinatelecom.cn   1
>
> ericsson.com   1
>
> gigaspaces.com 4
>
> gmail.com  1
>
> huawei.com 8
>
> intel.com  1
>
> juniper.net   1
>
> nokia.com  3
>
> orange.com 3
>
> raisecom.com   2
>
> vmware.com 4
>
> zte.com.cn 10
>
> As you can see, of the 16 companies participating, the top 5 companies
> with the most participants (Amdocs, AT&T, China Mobile, Huawei and ZTE)
> hold 66% of the vote.  I believe the TSC may want to provide further
> guidelines to ensure a more equal voting distribution across subcommittee
> membership
>
>
>
> 3) Typo/Error made on initial invitation to self-nominate for the Use Case
> Subcommittee Chairperson position.  This issue is relatively small, but may
> have caused some confusion for some potential candidates.  The original
> email (located here:  https://lists.onap.org/mailman/private/onap-
> usecasesub/2017-June/12.html) calling for self-nominations stated
> that "Any member of the Open Lab Subcommittee may run for this position".
> Some members of the Use Case Subcommittee may have been confused by that
> statement and chose not to self-nominate, and/or vote during this election.
>
>
>
> I would like to get feedback from the TSC during the meeting tomorrow to
> see if members feel that refinement is needed in populating subcommittees
> and/or holding votes/elections.  Based on the outcome of that discussion,
> and the other inconsistencies documented above, we may then want to provide
> guidance to the Use Case Subcommittee in how to treat the outcome of this
> specific election.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance for your input on this matter.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Phil.
>
> --
>
> Phil Robb
>
> Executive Director, OpenDaylight Project
>
> VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation
>
> (O) 970-229-5949 <(970)%20229-5949>
>
> (M) 970-420-4292 <(970)%20420-4292>
>
> Skype: Phil.Robb
>
> _

Re: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

[Lingli Deng]

Hi Phil and all,

 

It is a pity that we did not have time to discuss this issue yesterday on the 
TSC call. 

 

As for the typo in the call for nomination, I agree that this is minor and have 
no impact to the election, as neither of the nominees are coming from open labs 
subcommittee, and they are clearly stating their interest in running for 
Usecase subcommittee.

 

But regarding the inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case 
Subcommittee during the election time-frame, I find it not acceptable and would 
like to ask Kenny to remove them in order to clear the result of the election, 
and strongly suggest to consider publish these five extra voters as a warning.

 

Thanks,

Lingli

 

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] 
On Behalf Of Phil Robb
Sent: 2017年7月6日 5:44
To: onap-tsc 
Subject: [onap-tsc] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

 

Hello ONAP TSC:

 

The Use Case Subcommittee Chairperson election has just recently completed.  
However, there have been several irregularities/inconsistencies in the 
implementation of this election that warrants your attention.  In particular:

 

1) Inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case Subcommittee during the 
election time-frame.

There are no guidelines in the TSC Charter, nor in the call for 
nominations/election for this vote, indicating if individuals can add 
themselves to the Use Case Subcommittee during the Chairperson voting, and be 
allowed to vote.

a) 64 individuals were members of the Use Case Subcommittee when the voting 
began.  They were invited to vote.

b) Currently (at the end of the voting period), there are 83 members of the 
subcommittee, hence 19 people were added during the voting timeframe

c) Of those new 19 members, 5 asked to be added to the vote, and only those 5 
were added.  The other 14 new members were not invited to vote in the election. 
 Hence the addition of new members was done inconsistently for this vote.

 

2) No guidelines on company participation within a sub-committee.

While this subcommittees does not mandate, but rather advise the TSC on 
use-case selection/definition for a given release, we can expect the 
subcommittee to perform votes to get a clear resolve on what the advice to the 
TSC should be.  While we want participation to be as open as possible in this 
subcommittee, we also want to ensure that the advice rendered is representative 
of the ONAP community as a whole and is not biased toward one, or a small group 
of participating organizations.  Currently, the membership breakdown of Use 
Case Subcommittee participants looks like this:

amdocs.com   17

att.com  12

boco.com.cn  6

chinamobile.com   9

chinatelecom.cn 1

ericsson.com 1

gigaspaces.com   4

gmail.com    1

huawei.com   8

intel.com    1

juniper.net 1

nokia.com    3

orange.com   3

raisecom.com 2

vmware.com   4

zte.com.cn   10

As you can see, of the 16 companies participating, the top 5 companies with the 
most participants (Amdocs, AT&T, China Mobile, Huawei and ZTE) hold 66% of the 
vote.  I believe the TSC may want to provide further guidelines to ensure a 
more equal voting distribution across subcommittee membership

 

3) Typo/Error made on initial invitation to self-nominate for the Use Case 
Subcommittee Chairperson position.  This issue is relatively small, but may 
have caused some confusion for some potential candidates.  The original email 
(located here:  
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/private/onap-usecasesub/2017-June/12.html) 
calling for self-nominations stated that "Any member of the Open Lab 
Subcommittee may run for this position".  Some members of the Use Case 
Subcommittee may have been confused by that statement and chose not to 
self-nominate, and/or vote during this election.

 

I would like to get feedback from the TSC during the meeting tomorrow to see if 
members feel that refinement is needed in populating subcommittees and/or 
holding votes/elections.  Based on the outcome of that discussion, and the 
other inconsistencies documented above, we may then want to provide guidance to 
the Use Case Subcommittee in how to treat the outcome of this specific election.

 

Thanks in advance for your input on this matter.

 

Best,

 

Phil.

-- 

Phil Robb

Executive Director, OpenDaylight Project

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] Irregularities in the Use Case Subcommittee Chair Election

[jamil.chawki]

Hello
Thank you Phil for this analysis, we need also to analyse  the election of 
other subcommittee. I will ask during the TSC meeting to cancel this election 
and to review the process.
Regards
Jamil



Cordialement
Jamil
Le 5 juil. 2017 à 23:44, Phil Robb 
mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> a écrit :

Hello ONAP TSC:

The Use Case Subcommittee Chairperson election has just recently completed.  
However, there have been several irregularities/inconsistencies in the 
implementation of this election that warrants your attention.  In particular:

1) Inconsistent handling of new members of the Use Case Subcommittee during the 
election time-frame.
There are no guidelines in the TSC Charter, nor in the call for 
nominations/election for this vote, indicating if individuals can add 
themselves to the Use Case Subcommittee during the Chairperson voting, and be 
allowed to vote.
a) 64 individuals were members of the Use Case Subcommittee when the voting 
began.  They were invited to vote.
b) Currently (at the end of the voting period), there are 83 members of the 
subcommittee, hence 19 people were added during the voting timeframe
c) Of those new 19 members, 5 asked to be added to the vote, and only those 5 
were added.  The other 14 new members were not invited to vote in the election. 
 Hence the addition of new members was done inconsistently for this vote.

2) No guidelines on company participation within a sub-committee.
While this subcommittees does not mandate, but rather advise the TSC on 
use-case selection/definition for a given release, we can expect the 
subcommittee to perform votes to get a clear resolve on what the advice to the 
TSC should be.  While we want participation to be as open as possible in this 
subcommittee, we also want to ensure that the advice rendered is representative 
of the ONAP community as a whole and is not biased toward one, or a small group 
of participating organizations.  Currently, the membership breakdown of Use 
Case Subcommittee participants looks like this:
amdocs.com 17
att.com 12
boco.com.cn 6
chinamobile.com 9
chinatelecom.cn 1
ericsson.com 1
gigaspaces.com 4
gmail.com 1
huawei.com 8
intel.com 1
juniper.net 1
nokia.com 3
orange.com 3
raisecom.com 2
vmware.com 4
zte.com.cn 10
As you can see, of the 16 companies participating, the top 5 companies with the 
most participants (Amdocs, AT&T, China Mobile, Huawei and ZTE) hold 66% of the 
vote.  I believe the TSC may want to provide further guidelines to ensure a 
more equal voting distribution across subcommittee membership

3) Typo/Error made on initial invitation to self-nominate for the Use Case 
Subcommittee Chairperson position.  This issue is relatively small, but may 
have caused some confusion for some potential candidates.  The original email 
(located here:  
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/private/onap-usecasesub/2017-June/12.html) 
calling for self-nominations stated that "Any member of the Open Lab 
Subcommittee may run for this position".  Some members of the Use Case 
Subcommittee may have been confused by that statement and chose not to 
self-nominate, and/or vote during this election.

I would like to get feedback from the TSC during the meeting tomorrow to see if 
members feel that refinement is needed in populating subcommittees and/or 
holding votes/elections.  Based on the outcome of that discussion, and the 
other inconsistencies documented above, we may then want to provide guidance to 
the Use Case Subcommittee in how to treat the outcome of this specific election.

Thanks in advance for your input on this matter.

Best,

Phil.
--
Phil Robb
Executive Director, OpenDaylight Project
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

_

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed,