I thought from previous conversation we could reach 5 seats easily (e.g. Robert, Guillaume, Rangan, Anil and myself), but if not, lets go for 3.
On Oct 22, 2020, at 10:08 AM, Jamo Luhrsen < jluhrsen@...> wrote:
I think with the low participation happening at this point, that
lesser
seats is better otherwise you end up filling seats with folks that
really
will not participate and any vote you get from them does not carry
much value to the project. I would think just taking 3 now and use some sort of real
measurement
of "more committers" (pick number) and engagement (what does that
mean?) before the 3 member TSC can decide that it's time to bring
in
more folks. At that point, they can just revisit the whole thing
and make
it any size they want. $0.02
JamO
On 10/22/20 10:00 AM, Luis Gomez wrote:
Please continue the governance discussion here so we can reach
concrete proposals for TSC vote. I personally do not see
difference between "5 seats now + 2 seats later" vs "5 seats now
and new TSC will review the TSC composition once there are more
committers and engagement in the community".
BR/Luis
On Oct 15, 2020, at 9:52 PM, Casey Cain < ccain@...>
wrote:
I have created a
draft proposal for TSC Election Process here:
We can discuss this at tonight's TSC
meeting.
Best,
Casey Cain
Technical
Program Manager /
Community
Architect
Linux
Foundation
_________________
IRC:
CaseyLF
WeChat:
okaru6
Voice:
+1.408.641.0193
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020
at 10:38 AM Luis Gomez < ecelgp@...>
wrote:
+1,
the simpler, the better.
Hi Casey,
My suggestion is to keep it
simple:
1. Keep it to be a 5 member
TSC - all Committer-at-large.
2. Conduct elections as
before - same timeline - so the new TSC
is in by December 1st week.
3. If there are more members
interested & eligible in early
February, at that point the TSC can
decide whether to add a couple of seats
or keep the existing number of seats but
refresh the entire TSC or any other
option including no changes.
4. Conduct by-elections or
elections based on what is decided in
step 3.
This way we take things one
step at a time and most decisions are
made by the new TSC rather than the
current TSC.
Thanks,
On Fri,
Oct 9, 2020 at 12:24 PM Casey Cain < ccain@...>
wrote:
Hello, everyone.
On yesterday's TSC
meeting there was a discussion about
restructuring the TSC. There have
been a few suggestions and I would
like to take this opportunity to
present some of the current
proposals and open the floor to
other recommendations. The current
election mechanics can be found here.
The main areas of discussion have
been around the timing of the
election and the number of seats
that should be available. I have
listed some of the current
suggestions below:
- Timing - The timing
of the election could possibly
provide an opportunity for newer
contributors to the community an
opportunity to become committers
and take on new leadership
roles. The currently suggested
options are:
- Open the election
self-nomination period on
October 22nd for 2 weeks as
currently scheduled
- Open the election
self-nomination period but
extend the time of
self-nomination until late
November, early December, or
the new year
- Elect #x seats as
scheduled, differ #x seats for
election in the new year
- Delay the election
until the new year
- Size of
the TSC -
The community has suggested that
the TSC be resized to better
reflect the active development
community.
- No changes. The
TSC size remains at 11 seats.
- Reduce the size of
the TSC to 5 seats, 3 for
Managed Projects, 2 for CaL.
- Reduce the size of
the TSC to 3 seats,
Committers-at-Large (CaL)
- Reduce the size of
the TSC to 5 seats
- 3 Seats reserved
for managed projects,
election held now
- 2 seats reserved
for Committers-at-Large,
differed to Jan/Feb 2021 to
allow an opportunity for new
Contributors to become
eligible for the TSC.
Please
provide your
feedback.
Best,
Casey
Cain
Technical
Program
Manager /
Community
Architect
Linux
Foundation
_________________
IRC:
CaseyLF
WeChat:
okaru6
Voice:
+1.408.641.0193
|
