Re: draft for new membership selection and transition procedures
Deferring final resolution on the size makes good sense to me.
We should decide for the phase 2 transition how many at large members we want to add, 1, 2, or 3.
From: George Zhao [mailto:George.Y.Zhao@...]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 1:27 PM
To: Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@...>; Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbarach@...>; Kinsella, Ray <ray.kinsella@...>; 'tsc@...' <tsc@...>
Subject: RE: [tsc] draft for new membership selection and transition procedures
Got your points, I agree with you that we don’t have to force the size to be big unless we see needs. Since during transition, most likely there would be 7 TSC (I assume 2 core PTL + 1 CAL TSC), at the end of the transition, we should have a better feeling about TSC size, then TSC can vote how many of those 4 company reserved seats to be put into CAL category.
From: Joel Halpern [mailto:joel.halpern@...]
I guess I am more worried about the balance between Core and at-large than I am about the TSC size. Part of our disagreement is that given the limited role of the TSC, I do not see making it larger a benefit in and of itself. The TSC lists and meetings are open to all, so I do not want to turn membership into a proxy for information distribution.
So while the transition will result in an 8 or 9 member TSC for some period of time, I am concerned about aiming for 8 members after the Platinum members no longer hold reserved seats. That would be 2 Core projects and 6 or 7 at large members.
I am also concerned that with the size of our active pool, and the intended limitations on the number of people from any single company, it can seems likely to be hard to fill 7 at large TSC seats.
Joel did a very good draft.
As I said in the TSC meeting, DPDK has 9 technical board members, I think FD.io TSC probably should or would grow to that size, personally, I think 7-9 TSC is a reasonable number.
During transition time period, we can have platinum designates(4) + Core PTL(2) + CAL (?0-3), after transition period we can determine how many of the 4 seats to be put to CAL pool if not all, and there might be more projects promoted as core project. I think transition period should be one TSC term.
Just my 2 cents.
+1... Thanks… Dave
I stand corrected on pruning on VPP (and I imagine CSIT as well).
I do think a general revision of committers status in fd.io sub-projects in advance of a TSC election is warranted.
We have pruned vpp project committers who stopped contributing by soliciting resignations. In these cases, we waited a good long time; by the time we asked the question, folks were perfectly OK with it.
Thank for this – this is really good work.
Some additional questions/points I would add for discussion.
Can be found at:
Please comment here.
Please fix typographic and grammatical errors on the wiki.