Governance Discussion


Casey Cain
 

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:
  1. 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:
    1. Open the election self-nomination period on October 22nd for 2 weeks as currently scheduled
    2. Open the election self-nomination period but extend the time of self-nomination until late November, early December, or the new year
    3. Elect #x seats as scheduled, differ #x seats for election in the new year
    4. Delay the election until the new year 
  2. Size of the TSC - The community has suggested that the TSC be resized to better reflect the active development community.
    1. No changes.  The TSC size remains at 11 seats.
    2. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats, 3 for Managed Projects, 2 for CaL.
    3. Reduce the size of the TSC to 3 seats, Committers-at-Large (CaL)
    4. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats
      1. 3 Seats reserved for managed projects, election held now
      2. 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


Abhijit Kumbhare
 

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,
Abhijit


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:
  1. 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:
    1. Open the election self-nomination period on October 22nd for 2 weeks as currently scheduled
    2. Open the election self-nomination period but extend the time of self-nomination until late November, early December, or the new year
    3. Elect #x seats as scheduled, differ #x seats for election in the new year
    4. Delay the election until the new year 
  2. Size of the TSC - The community has suggested that the TSC be resized to better reflect the active development community.
    1. No changes.  The TSC size remains at 11 seats.
    2. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats, 3 for Managed Projects, 2 for CaL.
    3. Reduce the size of the TSC to 3 seats, Committers-at-Large (CaL)
    4. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats
      1. 3 Seats reserved for managed projects, election held now
      2. 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




Luis Gomez
 

+1, the simpler, the better.

On Oct 13, 2020, at 10:53 PM, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:

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,
Abhijit


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:
  1. 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:
    1. Open the election self-nomination period on October 22nd for 2 weeks as currently scheduled
    2. Open the election self-nomination period but extend the time of self-nomination until late November, early December, or the new year
    3. Elect #x seats as scheduled, differ #x seats for election in the new year
    4. Delay the election until the new year 
  2. Size of the TSC - The community has suggested that the TSC be resized to better reflect the active development community.
    1. No changes.  The TSC size remains at 11 seats.
    2. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats, 3 for Managed Projects, 2 for CaL.
    3. Reduce the size of the TSC to 3 seats, Committers-at-Large (CaL)
    4. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats
      1. 3 Seats reserved for managed projects, election held now
      2. 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






Casey Cain
 

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.

On Oct 13, 2020, at 10:53 PM, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:

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,
Abhijit


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:
  1. 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:
    1. Open the election self-nomination period on October 22nd for 2 weeks as currently scheduled
    2. Open the election self-nomination period but extend the time of self-nomination until late November, early December, or the new year
    3. Elect #x seats as scheduled, differ #x seats for election in the new year
    4. Delay the election until the new year 
  2. Size of the TSC - The community has suggested that the TSC be resized to better reflect the active development community.
    1. No changes.  The TSC size remains at 11 seats.
    2. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats, 3 for Managed Projects, 2 for CaL.
    3. Reduce the size of the TSC to 3 seats, Committers-at-Large (CaL)
    4. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats
      1. 3 Seats reserved for managed projects, election held now
      2. 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






Luis Gomez
 

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.

On Oct 13, 2020, at 10:53 PM, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:

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,
Abhijit


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:
  1. 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:
    1. Open the election self-nomination period on October 22nd for 2 weeks as currently scheduled
    2. Open the election self-nomination period but extend the time of self-nomination until late November, early December, or the new year
    3. Elect #x seats as scheduled, differ #x seats for election in the new year
    4. Delay the election until the new year 
  2. Size of the TSC - The community has suggested that the TSC be resized to better reflect the active development community.
    1. No changes.  The TSC size remains at 11 seats.
    2. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats, 3 for Managed Projects, 2 for CaL.
    3. Reduce the size of the TSC to 3 seats, Committers-at-Large (CaL)
    4. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats
      1. 3 Seats reserved for managed projects, election held now
      2. 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








JamO Luhrsen
 

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.

On Oct 13, 2020, at 10:53 PM, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:

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,
Abhijit


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:
  1. 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:
    1. Open the election self-nomination period on October 22nd for 2 weeks as currently scheduled
    2. Open the election self-nomination period but extend the time of self-nomination until late November, early December, or the new year
    3. Elect #x seats as scheduled, differ #x seats for election in the new year
    4. Delay the election until the new year 
  2. Size of the TSC - The community has suggested that the TSC be resized to better reflect the active development community.
    1. No changes.  The TSC size remains at 11 seats.
    2. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats, 3 for Managed Projects, 2 for CaL.
    3. Reduce the size of the TSC to 3 seats, Committers-at-Large (CaL)
    4. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats
      1. 3 Seats reserved for managed projects, election held now
      2. 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











Luis Gomez
 

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.

BR/Luis

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.

On Oct 13, 2020, at 10:53 PM, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:

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,
Abhijit


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:
  1. 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:
    1. Open the election self-nomination period on October 22nd for 2 weeks as currently scheduled
    2. Open the election self-nomination period but extend the time of self-nomination until late November, early December, or the new year
    3. Elect #x seats as scheduled, differ #x seats for election in the new year
    4. Delay the election until the new year 
  2. Size of the TSC - The community has suggested that the TSC be resized to better reflect the active development community.
    1. No changes.  The TSC size remains at 11 seats.
    2. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats, 3 for Managed Projects, 2 for CaL.
    3. Reduce the size of the TSC to 3 seats, Committers-at-Large (CaL)
    4. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats
      1. 3 Seats reserved for managed projects, election held now
      2. 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











Guillaume Lambert
 

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,
Abhijit


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:
  1. 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:
    1. Open the election self-nomination period on October 22nd for 2 weeks as currently scheduled
    2. Open the election self-nomination period but extend the time of self-nomination until late November, early December, or the new year
    3. Elect #x seats as scheduled, differ #x seats for election in the new year
    4. Delay the election until the new year 
  2. Size of the TSC - The community has suggested that the TSC be resized to better reflect the active development community.
    1. No changes.  The TSC size remains at 11 seats.
    2. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats, 3 for Managed Projects, 2 for CaL.
    3. Reduce the size of the TSC to 3 seats, Committers-at-Large (CaL)
    4. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats
      1. 3 Seats reserved for managed projects, election held now
      2. 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.


Luis Gomez
 

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

On Oct 22, 2020, at 10:15 AM, Guillaume Lambert via lists.opendaylight.org <guillaume.lambert=orange.com@...> wrote:

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,
Abhijit


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:
  1. 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:
    1. Open the election self-nomination period on October 22nd for 2 weeks as currently scheduled
    2. Open the election self-nomination period but extend the time of self-nomination until late November, early December, or the new year
    3. Elect #x seats as scheduled, differ #x seats for election in the new year
    4. Delay the election until the new year 
  2. Size of the TSC - The community has suggested that the TSC be resized to better reflect the active development community.
    1. No changes.  The TSC size remains at 11 seats.
    2. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats, 3 for Managed Projects, 2 for CaL.
    3. Reduce the size of the TSC to 3 seats, Committers-at-Large (CaL)
    4. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats
      1. 3 Seats reserved for managed projects, election held now
      2. 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.





Abhijit Kumbhare
 

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

On Oct 22, 2020, at 10:15 AM, Guillaume Lambert via lists.opendaylight.org <guillaume.lambert=orange.com@...> wrote:

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,
Abhijit


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:
  1. 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:
    1. Open the election self-nomination period on October 22nd for 2 weeks as currently scheduled
    2. Open the election self-nomination period but extend the time of self-nomination until late November, early December, or the new year
    3. Elect #x seats as scheduled, differ #x seats for election in the new year
    4. Delay the election until the new year 
  2. Size of the TSC - The community has suggested that the TSC be resized to better reflect the active development community.
    1. No changes.  The TSC size remains at 11 seats.
    2. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats, 3 for Managed Projects, 2 for CaL.
    3. Reduce the size of the TSC to 3 seats, Committers-at-Large (CaL)
    4. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats
      1. 3 Seats reserved for managed projects, election held now
      2. 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.





Luis Gomez
 

I do not have objections to this proposal. Also starting the first elections right away seems better than waiting.

On Oct 22, 2020, at 11:51 AM, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:

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

On Oct 22, 2020, at 10:15 AM, Guillaume Lambert via lists.opendaylight.org <guillaume.lambert=orange.com@...> wrote:

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,
Abhijit


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:
  1. 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:
    1. Open the election self-nomination period on October 22nd for 2 weeks as currently scheduled
    2. Open the election self-nomination period but extend the time of self-nomination until late November, early December, or the new year
    3. Elect #x seats as scheduled, differ #x seats for election in the new year
    4. Delay the election until the new year 
  2. Size of the TSC - The community has suggested that the TSC be resized to better reflect the active development community.
    1. No changes.  The TSC size remains at 11 seats.
    2. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats, 3 for Managed Projects, 2 for CaL.
    3. Reduce the size of the TSC to 3 seats, Committers-at-Large (CaL)
    4. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats
      1. 3 Seats reserved for managed projects, election held now
      2. 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.







Abhijit Kumbhare
 

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.

On Oct 22, 2020, at 11:51 AM, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:

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

On Oct 22, 2020, at 10:15 AM, Guillaume Lambert via lists.opendaylight.org <guillaume.lambert=orange.com@...> wrote:

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,
Abhijit


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:
  1. 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:
    1. Open the election self-nomination period on October 22nd for 2 weeks as currently scheduled
    2. Open the election self-nomination period but extend the time of self-nomination until late November, early December, or the new year
    3. Elect #x seats as scheduled, differ #x seats for election in the new year
    4. Delay the election until the new year 
  2. Size of the TSC - The community has suggested that the TSC be resized to better reflect the active development community.
    1. No changes.  The TSC size remains at 11 seats.
    2. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats, 3 for Managed Projects, 2 for CaL.
    3. Reduce the size of the TSC to 3 seats, Committers-at-Large (CaL)
    4. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats
      1. 3 Seats reserved for managed projects, election held now
      2. 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.







Guillaume Lambert
 

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.

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.



On Oct 22, 2020, at 11:51 AM, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:

 

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



On Oct 22, 2020, at 10:15 AM, Guillaume Lambert via lists.opendaylight.org <guillaume.lambert=orange.com@...> wrote:

 

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,

Abhijit

 

 

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:

  1. 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:
    1. Open the election self-nomination period on October 22nd for 2 weeks as currently scheduled
    2. Open the election self-nomination period but extend the time of self-nomination until late November, early December, or the new year
    3. Elect #x seats as scheduled, differ #x seats for election in the new year
    4. Delay the election until the new year 
  1. Size of the TSC - The community has suggested that the TSC be resized to better reflect the active development community.
    1. No changes.  The TSC size remains at 11 seats.
    2. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats, 3 for Managed Projects, 2 for CaL.
    3. Reduce the size of the TSC to 3 seats, Committers-at-Large (CaL)
    4. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats
      1. 3 Seats reserved for managed projects, election held now
      2. 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.




 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.


செவ்., 27 அக்., 2020, பிற்பகல் 4:11 அன்று, Guillaume Lambert via lists.opendaylight.org <guillaume.lambert=orange.com@...> எழுதியது:

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.

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.



On Oct 22, 2020, at 11:51 AM, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:

 

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



On Oct 22, 2020, at 10:15 AM, Guillaume Lambert via lists.opendaylight.org <guillaume.lambert=orange.com@...> wrote:

 

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,

Abhijit

 

 

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:

  1. 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:
    1. Open the election self-nomination period on October 22nd for 2 weeks as currently scheduled
    2. Open the election self-nomination period but extend the time of self-nomination until late November, early December, or the new year
    3. Elect #x seats as scheduled, differ #x seats for election in the new year
    4. Delay the election until the new year 
  1. Size of the TSC - The community has suggested that the TSC be resized to better reflect the active development community.
    1. No changes.  The TSC size remains at 11 seats.
    2. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats, 3 for Managed Projects, 2 for CaL.
    3. Reduce the size of the TSC to 3 seats, Committers-at-Large (CaL)
    4. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats
      1. 3 Seats reserved for managed projects, election held now
      2. 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.




 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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 )


Abhijit Kumbhare
 

Folks,

Please note that there was a detailed discussion in the TSC meeting and following was the general summary noted in the meeting minutes (https://wiki.opendaylight.org/x/HhUF):

  • 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.


செவ்., 27 அக்., 2020, பிற்பகல் 4:11 அன்று, Guillaume Lambert via lists.opendaylight.org <guillaume.lambert=orange.com@...> எழுதியது:

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.

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.



On Oct 22, 2020, at 11:51 AM, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:

 

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



On Oct 22, 2020, at 10:15 AM, Guillaume Lambert via lists.opendaylight.org <guillaume.lambert=orange.com@...> wrote:

 

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,

Abhijit

 

 

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:

  1. 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:
    1. Open the election self-nomination period on October 22nd for 2 weeks as currently scheduled
    2. Open the election self-nomination period but extend the time of self-nomination until late November, early December, or the new year
    3. Elect #x seats as scheduled, differ #x seats for election in the new year
    4. Delay the election until the new year 
  1. Size of the TSC - The community has suggested that the TSC be resized to better reflect the active development community.
    1. No changes.  The TSC size remains at 11 seats.
    2. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats, 3 for Managed Projects, 2 for CaL.
    3. Reduce the size of the TSC to 3 seats, Committers-at-Large (CaL)
    4. Reduce the size of the TSC to 5 seats
      1. 3 Seats reserved for managed projects, election held now
      2. 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.




 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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 )