TSC elections format vote - please vote option 1, 2 or 3


Abhijit Kumbhare
 

Hi folks,

In the past I had created an email discussion about the TSC elections format:


Also we had discussed the topic on one of the TSC calls where the General consensus was that the TSC elections should be held October/November; all seats to be committer-at-large; reduced number of seats - please refer:


My action item was that I had to initiate an email vote regarding the format.

Hence I am starting a vote on the following question from the categories from that email first as the follow-on questions (number of seats, which categories for option 3) will become easier to frame based on the results on the categories.

So please vote on the following:

Which of the options for the representative group categories should be used for the TSC elections for the next term? Option 1 (status quo), Option 2 (effectively entire TSC committer-at-large seats) or Option 3 (hybrid of option 1 and 2 i.e. keep seats for some categories but make remaining seats committer-at-large)?

Options for Representative Group Categories:
  • Option 1: Keep the status quo i.e. categories are: Committer-at-large (CAL) and the PTLs for Kernel, Support, Protocol & Apps.
  • Option 2: Effectively make the entire TSC elected via committer-at-large seats. This would be done by increasing the number of seats of the committer-at-large and reduce all the other categories to have zero seats. One possible benefit for this is: this makes the elections very simple as there is only a single category. So adjusting the total number of seats would be very straightforward - just decide on number of total seats we want and the committer-at-large elections will have the same number of slots.
  • Option 3: Keep seats for only some categories with the remaining as committer-at-large: e.g. we might decide that kernel and support may be kept but not protocols and apps. If this option wins - we will need a follow-on vote regarding which categories.
Please vote only one of the three options - option 1, option 2 or option 3. It will be good to make this vote soon.

Thanks,
Abhijit


Thanh ha <zxiiro@...>
 

Option 2

With the current size of our community it makes sense to simplify our voting process so I think Option 2 makes a lot of sense for us.

Regards,
Thanh


On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 16:42, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:
Hi folks,

In the past I had created an email discussion about the TSC elections format:


Also we had discussed the topic on one of the TSC calls where the General consensus was that the TSC elections should be held October/November; all seats to be committer-at-large; reduced number of seats - please refer:


My action item was that I had to initiate an email vote regarding the format.

Hence I am starting a vote on the following question from the categories from that email first as the follow-on questions (number of seats, which categories for option 3) will become easier to frame based on the results on the categories.

So please vote on the following:

Which of the options for the representative group categories should be used for the TSC elections for the next term? Option 1 (status quo), Option 2 (effectively entire TSC committer-at-large seats) or Option 3 (hybrid of option 1 and 2 i.e. keep seats for some categories but make remaining seats committer-at-large)?

Options for Representative Group Categories:
  • Option 1: Keep the status quo i.e. categories are: Committer-at-large (CAL) and the PTLs for Kernel, Support, Protocol & Apps.
  • Option 2: Effectively make the entire TSC elected via committer-at-large seats. This would be done by increasing the number of seats of the committer-at-large and reduce all the other categories to have zero seats. One possible benefit for this is: this makes the elections very simple as there is only a single category. So adjusting the total number of seats would be very straightforward - just decide on number of total seats we want and the committer-at-large elections will have the same number of slots.
  • Option 3: Keep seats for only some categories with the remaining as committer-at-large: e.g. we might decide that kernel and support may be kept but not protocols and apps. If this option wins - we will need a follow-on vote regarding which categories.
Please vote only one of the three options - option 1, option 2 or option 3. It will be good to make this vote soon.

Thanks,
Abhijit

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#11965): https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/message/11965
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opendaylight.org/mt/34303252/1869318
Group Owner: TSC+owner@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/unsub  [zxiiro@...]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


Luis Gomez
 

+1 for option 2, at this moment the simpler the better. 

On Oct 1, 2019, at 5:55 AM, Thanh ha <zxiiro@...> wrote:

Option 2

With the current size of our community it makes sense to simplify our voting process so I think Option 2 makes a lot of sense for us.

Regards,
Thanh

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 16:42, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:
Hi folks,

In the past I had created an email discussion about the TSC elections format:


Also we had discussed the topic on one of the TSC calls where the General consensus was that the TSC elections should be held October/November; all seats to be committer-at-large; reduced number of seats - please refer:


My action item was that I had to initiate an email vote regarding the format.

Hence I am starting a vote on the following question from the categories from that email first as the follow-on questions (number of seats, which categories for option 3) will become easier to frame based on the results on the categories.

So please vote on the following:

Which of the options for the representative group categories should be used for the TSC elections for the next term? Option 1 (status quo), Option 2 (effectively entire TSC committer-at-large seats) or Option 3 (hybrid of option 1 and 2 i.e. keep seats for some categories but make remaining seats committer-at-large)?

Options for Representative Group Categories:
  • Option 1: Keep the status quo i.e. categories are: Committer-at-large (CAL) and the PTLs for Kernel, Support, Protocol & Apps.
  • Option 2: Effectively make the entire TSC elected via committer-at-large seats. This would be done by increasing the number of seats of the committer-at-large and reduce all the other categories to have zero seats. One possible benefit for this is: this makes the elections very simple as there is only a single category. So adjusting the total number of seats would be very straightforward - just decide on number of total seats we want and the committer-at-large elections will have the same number of slots.
  • Option 3: Keep seats for only some categories with the remaining as committer-at-large: e.g. we might decide that kernel and support may be kept but not protocols and apps. If this option wins - we will need a follow-on vote regarding which categories.
Please vote only one of the three options - option 1, option 2 or option 3. It will be good to make this vote soon.

Thanks,
Abhijit

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#11965): https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/message/11965
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opendaylight.org/mt/34303252/1869318
Group Owner: TSC+owner@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/unsub  [zxiiro@...]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#11977): https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/message/11977
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opendaylight.org/mt/34303252/1217165
Group Owner: TSC+owner@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/unsub  [ecelgp@...]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


Anil Vishnoi
 

+1 for option 2


On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 10:49 AM Luis Gomez <ecelgp@...> wrote:
+1 for option 2, at this moment the simpler the better. 

On Oct 1, 2019, at 5:55 AM, Thanh ha <zxiiro@...> wrote:

Option 2

With the current size of our community it makes sense to simplify our voting process so I think Option 2 makes a lot of sense for us.

Regards,
Thanh

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 16:42, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:
Hi folks,

In the past I had created an email discussion about the TSC elections format:


Also we had discussed the topic on one of the TSC calls where the General consensus was that the TSC elections should be held October/November; all seats to be committer-at-large; reduced number of seats - please refer:


My action item was that I had to initiate an email vote regarding the format.

Hence I am starting a vote on the following question from the categories from that email first as the follow-on questions (number of seats, which categories for option 3) will become easier to frame based on the results on the categories.

So please vote on the following:

Which of the options for the representative group categories should be used for the TSC elections for the next term? Option 1 (status quo), Option 2 (effectively entire TSC committer-at-large seats) or Option 3 (hybrid of option 1 and 2 i.e. keep seats for some categories but make remaining seats committer-at-large)?

Options for Representative Group Categories:
  • Option 1: Keep the status quo i.e. categories are: Committer-at-large (CAL) and the PTLs for Kernel, Support, Protocol & Apps.
  • Option 2: Effectively make the entire TSC elected via committer-at-large seats. This would be done by increasing the number of seats of the committer-at-large and reduce all the other categories to have zero seats. One possible benefit for this is: this makes the elections very simple as there is only a single category. So adjusting the total number of seats would be very straightforward - just decide on number of total seats we want and the committer-at-large elections will have the same number of slots.
  • Option 3: Keep seats for only some categories with the remaining as committer-at-large: e.g. we might decide that kernel and support may be kept but not protocols and apps. If this option wins - we will need a follow-on vote regarding which categories.
Please vote only one of the three options - option 1, option 2 or option 3. It will be good to make this vote soon.

Thanks,
Abhijit

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#11965): https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/message/11965
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opendaylight.org/mt/34303252/1869318
Group Owner: TSC+owner@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/unsub  [zxiiro@...]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#11977): https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/message/11977
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opendaylight.org/mt/34303252/1217165
Group Owner: TSC+owner@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/unsub  [ecelgp@...]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#11980): https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/message/11980
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opendaylight.org/mt/34303252/1199232
Group Owner: TSC+owner@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/unsub  [vishnoianil@...]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


--
Thanks
Anil


JamO Luhrsen
 

I agree with option 2.

JamO

On 10/1/19 11:24 AM, Anil Vishnoi wrote:

+1 for option 2

On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 10:49 AM Luis Gomez <ecelgp@...> wrote:
+1 for option 2, at this moment the simpler the better. 

On Oct 1, 2019, at 5:55 AM, Thanh ha <zxiiro@...> wrote:

Option 2

With the current size of our community it makes sense to simplify our voting process so I think Option 2 makes a lot of sense for us.

Regards,
Thanh

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 16:42, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:
Hi folks,

In the past I had created an email discussion about the TSC elections format:


Also we had discussed the topic on one of the TSC calls where the General consensus was that the TSC elections should be held October/November; all seats to be committer-at-large; reduced number of seats - please refer:


My action item was that I had to initiate an email vote regarding the format.

Hence I am starting a vote on the following question from the categories from that email first as the follow-on questions (number of seats, which categories for option 3) will become easier to frame based on the results on the categories.

So please vote on the following:

Which of the options for the representative group categories should be used for the TSC elections for the next term? Option 1 (status quo), Option 2 (effectively entire TSC committer-at-large seats) or Option 3 (hybrid of option 1 and 2 i.e. keep seats for some categories but make remaining seats committer-at-large)?

Options for Representative Group Categories:
  • Option 1: Keep the status quo i.e. categories are: Committer-at-large (CAL) and the PTLs for Kernel, Support, Protocol & Apps.
  • Option 2: Effectively make the entire TSC elected via committer-at-large seats. This would be done by increasing the number of seats of the committer-at-large and reduce all the other categories to have zero seats. One possible benefit for this is: this makes the elections very simple as there is only a single category. So adjusting the total number of seats would be very straightforward - just decide on number of total seats we want and the committer-at-large elections will have the same number of slots.
  • Option 3: Keep seats for only some categories with the remaining as committer-at-large: e.g. we might decide that kernel and support may be kept but not protocols and apps. If this option wins - we will need a follow-on vote regarding which categories.
Please vote only one of the three options - option 1, option 2 or option 3. It will be good to make this vote soon.

Thanks,
Abhijit

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#11965): https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/message/11965
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opendaylight.org/mt/34303252/1869318
Group Owner: TSC+owner@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/unsub  [zxiiro@...]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#11977): https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/message/11977
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opendaylight.org/mt/34303252/1217165
Group Owner: TSC+owner@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/unsub  [ecelgp@...]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#11980): https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/message/11980
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opendaylight.org/mt/34303252/1199232
Group Owner: TSC+owner@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/unsub  [vishnoianil@...]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


--
Thanks
Anil

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#11981): https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/message/11981
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opendaylight.org/mt/34303252/535209
Group Owner: TSC+owner@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/unsub  [jluhrsen@...]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


Stephen Kitt <skitt@...>
 

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:41:57PM +0200, Abhijit Kumbhare wrote:
*Which of the options for the representative group categories should be
used for the TSC elections for the next term? Option 1* (status quo), *Option
2* (effectively entire TSC committer-at-large seats) or *Option 3* (hybrid
of option 1 and 2 i.e. keep seats for some categories but make remaining
seats committer-at-large)?

Options for Representative Group Categories:

- Option 1: Keep the status quo i.e. categories are: Committer-at-large
(CAL) and the PTLs for Kernel, Support, Protocol & Apps.
- Option 2: Effectively make the entire TSC elected via
committer-at-large seats. This would be done by increasing the number of
seats of the committer-at-large and reduce all the other categories to have
zero seats. One possible benefit for this is: this makes the elections very
simple as there is only a single category. So adjusting the total number of
seats would be very straightforward - just decide on number of total seats
we want and the committer-at-large elections will have the same number of
slots.
- Option 3: Keep seats for only some categories with the remaining as
committer-at-large: e.g. we might decide that kernel and support may be
kept but not protocols and apps. If this option wins - we will need a
follow-on vote regarding which categories.

*Please vote only one of the three options - option 1, option 2 or option
3. It will be good to make this vote soon.*
Option 2 for me.

Regards,

--
Stephen Kitt
Principal Software Engineer, OpenShift Multi Cluster Networking
Red Hat


Anil Belur
 



On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 2:12 AM Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:
Hi folks,

In the past I had created an email discussion about the TSC elections format:


Also we had discussed the topic on one of the TSC calls where the General consensus was that the TSC elections should be held October/November; all seats to be committer-at-large; reduced number of seats - please refer:


My action item was that I had to initiate an email vote regarding the format.

Hence I am starting a vote on the following question from the categories from that email first as the follow-on questions (number of seats, which categories for option 3) will become easier to frame based on the results on the categories.

So please vote on the following:

Which of the options for the representative group categories should be used for the TSC elections for the next term? Option 1 (status quo), Option 2 (effectively entire TSC committer-at-large seats) or Option 3 (hybrid of option 1 and 2 i.e. keep seats for some categories but make remaining seats committer-at-large)?

Options for Representative Group Categories:
  • Option 1: Keep the status quo i.e. categories are: Committer-at-large (CAL) and the PTLs for Kernel, Support, Protocol & Apps.
  • Option 2: Effectively make the entire TSC elected via committer-at-large seats. This would be done by increasing the number of seats of the committer-at-large and reduce all the other categories to have zero seats. One possible benefit for this is: this makes the elections very simple as there is only a single category. So adjusting the total number of seats would be very straightforward - just decide on number of total seats we want and the committer-at-large elections will have the same number of slots.
  • Option 3: Keep seats for only some categories with the remaining as committer-at-large: e.g. we might decide that kernel and support may be kept but not protocols and apps. If this option wins - we will need a follow-on vote regarding which categories.
Please vote only one of the three options - option 1, option 2 or option 3. It will be good to make this vote soon.


Option 2 - suitable atm. 


Faseela K
 

+1 for option 2

 

From: TSC@... <TSC@...> On Behalf Of Luis Gomez via Lists.Opendaylight.Org
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 11:20 PM
To: Thanh ha <zxiiro@...>
Cc: TSC@...
Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] TSC elections format vote - please vote option 1, 2 or 3

 

+1 for option 2, at this moment the simpler the better. 



On Oct 1, 2019, at 5:55 AM, Thanh ha <zxiiro@...> wrote:

 

Option 2

 

With the current size of our community it makes sense to simplify our voting process so I think Option 2 makes a lot of sense for us.

 

Regards,

Thanh

 

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 16:42, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:

Hi folks,

 

In the past I had created an email discussion about the TSC elections format:

 

 

Also we had discussed the topic on one of the TSC calls where the General consensus was that the TSC elections should be held October/November; all seats to be committer-at-large; reduced number of seats - please refer:



 

My action item was that I had to initiate an email vote regarding the format.

 

Hence I am starting a vote on the following question from the categories from that email first as the follow-on questions (number of seats, which categories for option 3) will become easier to frame based on the results on the categories.

 

So please vote on the following:

 

Which of the options for the representative group categories should be used for the TSC elections for the next term? Option 1 (status quo), Option 2 (effectively entire TSC committer-at-large seats) or Option 3 (hybrid of option 1 and 2 i.e. keep seats for some categories but make remaining seats committer-at-large)?

 

Options for Representative Group Categories:

  • Option 1: Keep the status quo i.e. categories are: Committer-at-large (CAL) and the PTLs for Kernel, Support, Protocol & Apps.
  • Option 2: Effectively make the entire TSC elected via committer-at-large seats. This would be done by increasing the number of seats of the committer-at-large and reduce all the other categories to have zero seats. One possible benefit for this is: this makes the elections very simple as there is only a single category. So adjusting the total number of seats would be very straightforward - just decide on number of total seats we want and the committer-at-large elections will have the same number of slots.
  • Option 3: Keep seats for only some categories with the remaining as committer-at-large: e.g. we might decide that kernel and support may be kept but not protocols and apps. If this option wins - we will need a follow-on vote regarding which categories.

Please vote only one of the three options - option 1, option 2 or option 3. It will be good to make this vote soon.

 

Thanks,

Abhijit

 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#11965): https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/message/11965
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opendaylight.org/mt/34303252/1869318
Group Owner: TSC+owner@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/unsub  [zxiiro@...]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#11977): 
https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/message/11977
Mute This Topic: 
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mt/34303252/1217165
Group Owner: 
TSC+owner@...
Unsubscribe: 
https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/unsub  [ecelgp@...]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

 


Prem Sankar
 

+1 for option 2 
Thanks,
Prem 


On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 4:42 PM Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:
Hi folks,

In the past I had created an email discussion about the TSC elections format:


Also we had discussed the topic on one of the TSC calls where the General consensus was that the TSC elections should be held October/November; all seats to be committer-at-large; reduced number of seats - please refer:


My action item was that I had to initiate an email vote regarding the format.

Hence I am starting a vote on the following question from the categories from that email first as the follow-on questions (number of seats, which categories for option 3) will become easier to frame based on the results on the categories.

So please vote on the following:

Which of the options for the representative group categories should be used for the TSC elections for the next term? Option 1 (status quo), Option 2 (effectively entire TSC committer-at-large seats) or Option 3 (hybrid of option 1 and 2 i.e. keep seats for some categories but make remaining seats committer-at-large)?

Options for Representative Group Categories:
  • Option 1: Keep the status quo i.e. categories are: Committer-at-large (CAL) and the PTLs for Kernel, Support, Protocol & Apps.
  • Option 2: Effectively make the entire TSC elected via committer-at-large seats. This would be done by increasing the number of seats of the committer-at-large and reduce all the other categories to have zero seats. One possible benefit for this is: this makes the elections very simple as there is only a single category. So adjusting the total number of seats would be very straightforward - just decide on number of total seats we want and the committer-at-large elections will have the same number of slots.
  • Option 3: Keep seats for only some categories with the remaining as committer-at-large: e.g. we might decide that kernel and support may be kept but not protocols and apps. If this option wins - we will need a follow-on vote regarding which categories.
Please vote only one of the three options - option 1, option 2 or option 3. It will be good to make this vote soon.

Thanks,
Abhijit

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#11965): https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/message/11965
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opendaylight.org/mt/34303252/1438087
Group Owner: TSC+owner@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/unsub  [premsankar@...]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


Abhijit Kumbhare
 

+1 from my side for option 2 as well.

So option 2 wins with 9 votes: Thanh Ha, Luis Gomez, Anil Vishnoi, Jamo Luhrsen, Stephen Kitt, Anil Belur, Faseela K, Prem Sankar G and Abhijit Kumbhare. 

We still have one or two other issues that we should resolve before we start the elections. I will create a separate discussion for that - and hopefully we can wrap it up either tomorrow in the TSC meeting or via a quick email vote.

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 11:04 AM Prem Sankar G <premsankar@...> wrote:
+1 for option 2 
Thanks,
Prem 

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 4:42 PM Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:
Hi folks,

In the past I had created an email discussion about the TSC elections format:


Also we had discussed the topic on one of the TSC calls where the General consensus was that the TSC elections should be held October/November; all seats to be committer-at-large; reduced number of seats - please refer:


My action item was that I had to initiate an email vote regarding the format.

Hence I am starting a vote on the following question from the categories from that email first as the follow-on questions (number of seats, which categories for option 3) will become easier to frame based on the results on the categories.

So please vote on the following:

Which of the options for the representative group categories should be used for the TSC elections for the next term? Option 1 (status quo), Option 2 (effectively entire TSC committer-at-large seats) or Option 3 (hybrid of option 1 and 2 i.e. keep seats for some categories but make remaining seats committer-at-large)?

Options for Representative Group Categories:
  • Option 1: Keep the status quo i.e. categories are: Committer-at-large (CAL) and the PTLs for Kernel, Support, Protocol & Apps.
  • Option 2: Effectively make the entire TSC elected via committer-at-large seats. This would be done by increasing the number of seats of the committer-at-large and reduce all the other categories to have zero seats. One possible benefit for this is: this makes the elections very simple as there is only a single category. So adjusting the total number of seats would be very straightforward - just decide on number of total seats we want and the committer-at-large elections will have the same number of slots.
  • Option 3: Keep seats for only some categories with the remaining as committer-at-large: e.g. we might decide that kernel and support may be kept but not protocols and apps. If this option wins - we will need a follow-on vote regarding which categories.
Please vote only one of the three options - option 1, option 2 or option 3. It will be good to make this vote soon.

Thanks,
Abhijit

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#11965): https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/message/11965
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opendaylight.org/mt/34303252/1438087
Group Owner: TSC+owner@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/unsub  [premsankar@...]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-