|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
+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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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".
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
|
|
|
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:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Hi all
Following today TSC call, here is my feedback on the topic.
Today we do not have any certainty on the number of people who are interested to present themselves to joint the TSC,
and moreover on which kind of projects they work.
I share both Robert and Luis' concerns, on the necessity, on one hand, to have kernel projects represented at the TSC
and, on the other hand, what is the point to have a number of reserved seats if we are not sure to fill them.
With only 5 people, a fair representation of all kind of projects (kernel, managed/platforms, SM, ...) at the TSC might be difficult to achieve.
To have a better vision of what can be done, a pragmatic approach would be to start an official call for candidates.
This way, we will know how many people are interested in joining the TSC, and on which kind of projects they work.
Then it will be easier to evaluate if there is a point to increase the number of seats or to have reserved seats.
Hope this helps
Guillaume
De : TSC@... [TSC@...] de la part de Abhijit Kumbhare [abhijitkoss@...]
Envoyé : mercredi 14 octobre 2020 07:53
À : Casey Cain
Cc : TSC
Objet : Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Governance Discussion
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
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
|
|
|
Fair enough, what if we just start an "open" thread before the official nomination period to see who has intention to self-nominate? although this is not final, it can give us a faster feedback than waiting for the official nomination dates.
Hi all
Following today TSC call, here is my feedback on the topic.
Today we do not have any certainty on the number of people who are interested to present themselves to joint the TSC,
and moreover on which kind of projects they work.
I share both Robert and Luis' concerns, on the necessity, on one hand, to have kernel projects represented at the TSC and, on the other hand, what is the point to have a number of reserved seats if we are not sure to fill them.
With only 5 people, a fair representation of all kind of projects (kernel, managed/platforms, SM, ...) at the TSC might be difficult to achieve.
To have a better vision of what can be done, a pragmatic approach would be to start an official call for candidates.
This way, we will know how many people are interested in joining the TSC, and on which kind of projects they work.
Then it will be easier to evaluate if there is a point to increase the number of seats or to have reserved seats.
Hope this helps Guillaume
De : TSC@... [TSC@...] de la part de Abhijit Kumbhare [abhijitkoss@...]
Envoyé : mercredi 14 octobre 2020 07:53
À : Casey Cain
Cc : TSC
Objet : Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Governance Discussion
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
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
|
|
|
Why not do the following?
Declare we will have 2 elections - one main election immediately and another one 3 months after the main election to give new members a chance to establish contribution/engagement history to be eligible for TSC elections. 1) Start the self nomination now. 2) Based on the strength of the candidate pool, the existing TSC votes for the number of seats to have in the first election. The TSC should consider the contribution/engagement history while evaluating the candidate pool. 3) Have the elections.
For the by-election in 3 months, the new TSC decides the rules including who is eligible as well as the number of seats. However the new TSC may choose to follow the above blueprint for determining the number of seats.
The advantage of the suggestion is: 1) It is simple. 2) It will take care of the engagement concern that Jamo has. 3) It is pragmatic in where we are as a community - and takes into account Guillaume's suggestion. 4) It gets the new TSC elected sooner than later - which is important as some of the existing TSC members have moved on to different jobs and are no longer as engaged as they were before.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 10:22 AM Luis Gomez < ecelgp@...> wrote: Fair enough, what if we just start an "open" thread before the official nomination period to see who has intention to self-nominate? although this is not final, it can give us a faster feedback than waiting for the official nomination dates.
BR/Luis
Hi all
Following today TSC call, here is my feedback on the topic.
Today we do not have any certainty on the number of people who are interested to present themselves to joint the TSC,
and moreover on which kind of projects they work.
I share both Robert and Luis' concerns, on the necessity, on one hand, to have kernel projects represented at the TSC and, on the other hand, what is the point to have a number of reserved seats if we are not sure to fill them.
With only 5 people, a fair representation of all kind of projects (kernel, managed/platforms, SM, ...) at the TSC might be difficult to achieve.
To have a better vision of what can be done, a pragmatic approach would be to start an official call for candidates.
This way, we will know how many people are interested in joining the TSC, and on which kind of projects they work.
Then it will be easier to evaluate if there is a point to increase the number of seats or to have reserved seats.
Hope this helps Guillaume
De : TSC@... [TSC@...] de la part de Abhijit Kumbhare [abhijitkoss@...]
Envoyé : mercredi 14 octobre 2020 07:53
À : Casey Cain
Cc : TSC
Objet : Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Governance Discussion
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
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
|
|
|
I do not have objections to this proposal. Also starting the first elections right away seems better than waiting.
Why not do the following?
Declare we will have 2 elections - one main election immediately and another one 3 months after the main election to give new members a chance to establish contribution/engagement history to be eligible for TSC elections. 1) Start the self nomination now. 2) Based on the strength of the candidate pool, the existing TSC votes for the number of seats to have in the first election. The TSC should consider the contribution/engagement history while evaluating the candidate pool. 3) Have the elections.
For the by-election in 3 months, the new TSC decides the rules including who is eligible as well as the number of seats. However the new TSC may choose to follow the above blueprint for determining the number of seats.
The advantage of the suggestion is: 1) It is simple. 2) It will take care of the engagement concern that Jamo has. 3) It is pragmatic in where we are as a community - and takes into account Guillaume's suggestion. 4) It gets the new TSC elected sooner than later - which is important as some of the existing TSC members have moved on to different jobs and are no longer as engaged as they were before.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 10:22 AM Luis Gomez < ecelgp@...> wrote: Fair enough, what if we just start an "open" thread before the official nomination period to see who has intention to self-nominate? although this is not final, it can give us a faster feedback than waiting for the official nomination dates.
BR/Luis
Hi all
Following today TSC call, here is my feedback on the topic.
Today we do not have any certainty on the number of people who are interested to present themselves to joint the TSC,
and moreover on which kind of projects they work.
I share both Robert and Luis' concerns, on the necessity, on one hand, to have kernel projects represented at the TSC and, on the other hand, what is the point to have a number of reserved seats if we are not sure to fill them.
With only 5 people, a fair representation of all kind of projects (kernel, managed/platforms, SM, ...) at the TSC might be difficult to achieve.
To have a better vision of what can be done, a pragmatic approach would be to start an official call for candidates.
This way, we will know how many people are interested in joining the TSC, and on which kind of projects they work.
Then it will be easier to evaluate if there is a point to increase the number of seats or to have reserved seats.
Hope this helps Guillaume
De : TSC@... [TSC@...] de la part de Abhijit Kumbhare [abhijitkoss@...]
Envoyé : mercredi 14 octobre 2020 07:53
À : Casey Cain
Cc : TSC
Objet : Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Governance Discussion
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
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
|
|
|
Anyone else - any thoughts? Especially about this proposal that I had proposed in the previous email. Any other suggestions?
Declare we will have 2 elections - one main election immediately and another one 3 months after the main election to give new members a chance to establish contribution/engagement history to be eligible for TSC elections. 1) Start the self nomination now. 2) Based on the strength of the candidate pool, the existing TSC votes for the number of seats to have in the first election. The TSC should consider the contribution/engagement history while evaluating the candidate pool. 3) Have the elections.
For the by-election in 3 months, the new TSC decides the rules including who is eligible as well as the number of seats. However the new TSC may choose to follow the above blueprint for determining the number of seats.
The advantage of the suggestion is: 1) It is simple. 2) It will take care of the engagement concern that Jamo has (avoid making the TSC larger than it needs to be). 3) It is pragmatic in where we are as a community - and takes into account Guillaume's suggestion (decide the number of members based on the actual pool of candidates). 4) It gets the new TSC elected sooner than later - which is important as some of the existing TSC members have moved on to different jobs and are no longer as engaged as they were before.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 12:17 PM Luis Gomez < ecelgp@...> wrote: I do not have objections to this proposal. Also starting the first elections right away seems better than waiting.
Why not do the following?
Declare we will have 2 elections - one main election immediately and another one 3 months after the main election to give new members a chance to establish contribution/engagement history to be eligible for TSC elections. 1) Start the self nomination now. 2) Based on the strength of the candidate pool, the existing TSC votes for the number of seats to have in the first election. The TSC should consider the contribution/engagement history while evaluating the candidate pool. 3) Have the elections.
For the by-election in 3 months, the new TSC decides the rules including who is eligible as well as the number of seats. However the new TSC may choose to follow the above blueprint for determining the number of seats.
The advantage of the suggestion is: 1) It is simple. 2) It will take care of the engagement concern that Jamo has. 3) It is pragmatic in where we are as a community - and takes into account Guillaume's suggestion. 4) It gets the new TSC elected sooner than later - which is important as some of the existing TSC members have moved on to different jobs and are no longer as engaged as they were before.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 10:22 AM Luis Gomez < ecelgp@...> wrote: Fair enough, what if we just start an "open" thread before the official nomination period to see who has intention to self-nominate? although this is not final, it can give us a faster feedback than waiting for the official nomination dates.
BR/Luis
Hi all
Following today TSC call, here is my feedback on the topic.
Today we do not have any certainty on the number of people who are interested to present themselves to joint the TSC,
and moreover on which kind of projects they work.
I share both Robert and Luis' concerns, on the necessity, on one hand, to have kernel projects represented at the TSC and, on the other hand, what is the point to have a number of reserved seats if we are not sure to fill them.
With only 5 people, a fair representation of all kind of projects (kernel, managed/platforms, SM, ...) at the TSC might be difficult to achieve.
To have a better vision of what can be done, a pragmatic approach would be to start an official call for candidates.
This way, we will know how many people are interested in joining the TSC, and on which kind of projects they work.
Then it will be easier to evaluate if there is a point to increase the number of seats or to have reserved seats.
Hope this helps Guillaume
De : TSC@... [TSC@...] de la part de Abhijit Kumbhare [abhijitkoss@...]
Envoyé : mercredi 14 octobre 2020 07:53
À : Casey Cain
Cc : TSC
Objet : Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Governance Discussion
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
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
|
|
|
Hi Abhijit
Thanks for this proposal. This is fair enough for me.
Guillaume
De : TSC@... [mailto:TSC@...]
De la part de Abhijit Kumbhare
Envoyé : mardi 27 octobre 2020 01:03
À : Luis Gomez
Cc : LAMBERT Guillaume TGI/OLN; Casey Cain; TSC
Objet : Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Governance Discussion
Anyone else - any thoughts? Especially about this proposal that I had proposed in the previous email. Any other suggestions?
Declare we will have 2 elections - one main election immediately and another one 3 months after the main election to give new members a chance to establish contribution/engagement history to be eligible for TSC elections.
1) Start the self nomination now.
2) Based on the strength of the candidate pool, the existing TSC votes for the number of seats to have in the first election. The TSC should consider the contribution/engagement history while evaluating the candidate pool.
For the by-election in 3 months, the new TSC decides the rules including who is eligible as well as the number of seats. However the new TSC may choose to follow the above blueprint for determining the number of seats.
The advantage of the suggestion is:
2) It will take care of the engagement concern that Jamo has (avoid making the TSC larger than it needs to be).
3) It is pragmatic in where we are as a community - and takes into account Guillaume's suggestion (decide the number of members based on the actual pool of candidates).
4) It gets the new TSC elected sooner than later - which is important as some of the existing TSC members have moved on to different jobs and are no longer as engaged as they were before.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 12:17 PM Luis Gomez < ecelgp@...> wrote:
I do not have objections to this proposal. Also starting the first elections right away seems better than waiting.
Why not do the following?
Declare we will have 2 elections - one main election immediately and another one 3 months after the main election to give new members a chance to establish contribution/engagement
history to be eligible for TSC elections.
1) Start the self nomination now.
2) Based on the strength of the candidate pool, the existing TSC votes for the number of seats to have in the first election. The TSC should consider the contribution/engagement
history while evaluating the candidate pool.
For the by-election in 3 months, the new TSC decides the rules including who is eligible as well as the number of seats. However the new TSC may choose to follow the above
blueprint for determining the number of seats.
The advantage of the suggestion is:
2) It will take care of the engagement concern that Jamo has.
3) It is pragmatic in where we are as a community - and takes into account Guillaume's suggestion.
4) It gets the new TSC elected sooner than later - which is important as some of the existing TSC members have moved on to different jobs and are no longer as engaged as
they were before.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 10:22 AM Luis Gomez <ecelgp@...> wrote:
Fair enough, what if we just start an "open" thread before the official nomination period to see who has intention to self-nominate? although this is not final, it can give
us a faster feedback than waiting for the official nomination dates.
BR/Luis
Following today TSC call, here is my feedback on the topic.
Today we do not have any certainty on the number of people who are interested to present themselves to joint the TSC,
and moreover on which kind of projects they work.
I share both Robert and Luis' concerns, on the necessity, on one hand, to have kernel projects represented at the TSC
and, on the other hand, what is the point to have a number of reserved seats if we are not sure to fill them.
With only 5 people, a fair representation of all kind of projects (kernel, managed/platforms, SM, ...) at the TSC might be difficult to achieve.
To have a better vision of what can be done, a pragmatic approach would be to start an official call for candidates.
This way, we will know how many people are interested in joining the TSC, and on which kind of projects they work.
Then it will be easier to evaluate if there is a point to increase the number of seats or to have reserved seats.
Hope this helps
De : TSC@... [TSC@...]
de la part de Abhijit Kumbhare [abhijitkoss@...]
Envoyé : mercredi 14 octobre 2020 07:53
À : Casey Cain
Cc : TSC
Objet : Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Governance Discussion
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.
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.
Casey Cain
Technical Program Manager / Community Architect
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
|
|
|
Venkatrangan Govindarajan
Hi,
Works for me as well.
Hi Abhijit
Thanks for this proposal. This is fair enough for me.
Guillaume
De : TSC@... [mailto:TSC@...]
De la part de Abhijit Kumbhare
Envoyé : mardi 27 octobre 2020 01:03
À : Luis Gomez
Cc : LAMBERT Guillaume TGI/OLN; Casey Cain; TSC
Objet : Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Governance Discussion
Anyone else - any thoughts? Especially about this proposal that I had proposed in the previous email. Any other suggestions?
Declare we will have 2 elections - one main election immediately and another one 3 months after the main election to give new members a chance to establish contribution/engagement history to be eligible for TSC elections.
1) Start the self nomination now.
2) Based on the strength of the candidate pool, the existing TSC votes for the number of seats to have in the first election. The TSC should consider the contribution/engagement history while evaluating the candidate pool.
For the by-election in 3 months, the new TSC decides the rules including who is eligible as well as the number of seats. However the new TSC may choose to follow the above blueprint for determining the number of seats.
The advantage of the suggestion is:
2) It will take care of the engagement concern that Jamo has (avoid making the TSC larger than it needs to be).
3) It is pragmatic in where we are as a community - and takes into account Guillaume's suggestion (decide the number of members based on the actual pool of candidates).
4) It gets the new TSC elected sooner than later - which is important as some of the existing TSC members have moved on to different jobs and are no longer as engaged as they were before.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 12:17 PM Luis Gomez <ecelgp@...> wrote:
I do not have objections to this proposal. Also starting the first elections right away seems better than waiting.
Why not do the following?
Declare we will have 2 elections - one main election immediately and another one 3 months after the main election to give new members a chance to establish contribution/engagement
history to be eligible for TSC elections.
1) Start the self nomination now.
2) Based on the strength of the candidate pool, the existing TSC votes for the number of seats to have in the first election. The TSC should consider the contribution/engagement
history while evaluating the candidate pool.
For the by-election in 3 months, the new TSC decides the rules including who is eligible as well as the number of seats. However the new TSC may choose to follow the above
blueprint for determining the number of seats.
The advantage of the suggestion is:
2) It will take care of the engagement concern that Jamo has.
3) It is pragmatic in where we are as a community - and takes into account Guillaume's suggestion.
4) It gets the new TSC elected sooner than later - which is important as some of the existing TSC members have moved on to different jobs and are no longer as engaged as
they were before.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 10:22 AM Luis Gomez <ecelgp@...> wrote:
Fair enough, what if we just start an "open" thread before the official nomination period to see who has intention to self-nominate? although this is not final, it can give
us a faster feedback than waiting for the official nomination dates.
BR/Luis
Following today TSC call, here is my feedback on the topic.
Today we do not have any certainty on the number of people who are interested to present themselves to joint the TSC,
and moreover on which kind of projects they work.
I share both Robert and Luis' concerns, on the necessity, on one hand, to have kernel projects represented at the TSC
and, on the other hand, what is the point to have a number of reserved seats if we are not sure to fill them.
With only 5 people, a fair representation of all kind of projects (kernel, managed/platforms, SM, ...) at the TSC might be difficult to achieve.
To have a better vision of what can be done, a pragmatic approach would be to start an official call for candidates.
This way, we will know how many people are interested in joining the TSC, and on which kind of projects they work.
Then it will be easier to evaluate if there is a point to increase the number of seats or to have reserved seats.
Hope this helps
De : TSC@... [TSC@...]
de la part de Abhijit Kumbhare [abhijitkoss@...]
Envoyé : mercredi 14 octobre 2020 07:53
À : Casey Cain
Cc : TSC
Objet : Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Governance Discussion
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.
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.
Casey Cain
Technical Program Manager / Community Architect
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
-- Venkatrangan Govindarajan
( When there is no wind...Row )
|
|
|
Folks,
- Casey talked about the possibility of adding an "Active Community Member" representation to the TSC.
- Active Community Members: Anyone from the ODL community with twenty (20?) or more measurable contributions during the previous 12-month period, inclusive of code merged, code reviews performed, wiki page edits, or JIRA activities.
- Casey recommended 3 Committers and 3 "Active Community Members".
- Discussion ensued about the number of seats the TSC should have.
- The general consensus seemed to lean to 5 Committer seats and 2-4 contributor seats in February.
Tomorrow Casey will be formalizing this proposal of 5 committers (now - after formalized) and 2-4 contributors (in February) - after which we will have a TSC vote approving the election format. The target is to have self nominations roughly Nov 5-18 and elections Nov 19-Dec 3. Since we needed to have the TSC vote concluded before Nov 5, I am sending these rough details of the format.
Abhijit
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 3:47 AM Venkatrangan Govindarajan < gvrangan@...> wrote: Hi,
Works for me as well.
Hi Abhijit
Thanks for this proposal. This is fair enough for me.
Guillaume
De : TSC@... [mailto:TSC@...]
De la part de Abhijit Kumbhare
Envoyé : mardi 27 octobre 2020 01:03
À : Luis Gomez
Cc : LAMBERT Guillaume TGI/OLN; Casey Cain; TSC
Objet : Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Governance Discussion
Anyone else - any thoughts? Especially about this proposal that I had proposed in the previous email. Any other suggestions?
Declare we will have 2 elections - one main election immediately and another one 3 months after the main election to give new members a chance to establish contribution/engagement history to be eligible for TSC elections.
1) Start the self nomination now.
2) Based on the strength of the candidate pool, the existing TSC votes for the number of seats to have in the first election. The TSC should consider the contribution/engagement history while evaluating the candidate pool.
For the by-election in 3 months, the new TSC decides the rules including who is eligible as well as the number of seats. However the new TSC may choose to follow the above blueprint for determining the number of seats.
The advantage of the suggestion is:
2) It will take care of the engagement concern that Jamo has (avoid making the TSC larger than it needs to be).
3) It is pragmatic in where we are as a community - and takes into account Guillaume's suggestion (decide the number of members based on the actual pool of candidates).
4) It gets the new TSC elected sooner than later - which is important as some of the existing TSC members have moved on to different jobs and are no longer as engaged as they were before.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 12:17 PM Luis Gomez <ecelgp@...> wrote:
I do not have objections to this proposal. Also starting the first elections right away seems better than waiting.
Why not do the following?
Declare we will have 2 elections - one main election immediately and another one 3 months after the main election to give new members a chance to establish contribution/engagement
history to be eligible for TSC elections.
1) Start the self nomination now.
2) Based on the strength of the candidate pool, the existing TSC votes for the number of seats to have in the first election. The TSC should consider the contribution/engagement
history while evaluating the candidate pool.
For the by-election in 3 months, the new TSC decides the rules including who is eligible as well as the number of seats. However the new TSC may choose to follow the above
blueprint for determining the number of seats.
The advantage of the suggestion is:
2) It will take care of the engagement concern that Jamo has.
3) It is pragmatic in where we are as a community - and takes into account Guillaume's suggestion.
4) It gets the new TSC elected sooner than later - which is important as some of the existing TSC members have moved on to different jobs and are no longer as engaged as
they were before.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 10:22 AM Luis Gomez <ecelgp@...> wrote:
Fair enough, what if we just start an "open" thread before the official nomination period to see who has intention to self-nominate? although this is not final, it can give
us a faster feedback than waiting for the official nomination dates.
BR/Luis
Following today TSC call, here is my feedback on the topic.
Today we do not have any certainty on the number of people who are interested to present themselves to joint the TSC,
and moreover on which kind of projects they work.
I share both Robert and Luis' concerns, on the necessity, on one hand, to have kernel projects represented at the TSC
and, on the other hand, what is the point to have a number of reserved seats if we are not sure to fill them.
With only 5 people, a fair representation of all kind of projects (kernel, managed/platforms, SM, ...) at the TSC might be difficult to achieve.
To have a better vision of what can be done, a pragmatic approach would be to start an official call for candidates.
This way, we will know how many people are interested in joining the TSC, and on which kind of projects they work.
Then it will be easier to evaluate if there is a point to increase the number of seats or to have reserved seats.
Hope this helps
De : TSC@... [TSC@...]
de la part de Abhijit Kumbhare [abhijitkoss@...]
Envoyé : mercredi 14 octobre 2020 07:53
À : Casey Cain
Cc : TSC
Objet : Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Governance Discussion
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.
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.
Casey Cain
Technical Program Manager / Community Architect
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
--
Venkatrangan Govindarajan
( When there is no wind...Row )
|
|
|
