Hi Bin, I wouldn't classify this as a "power struggle". I would rather say that there is a perception of lopsidedness in the governance. This was one of the things that came up at the November Plugfest. I really thought it would have been addressed by now. I guess I was wrong.
Best, Ash On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 9:37 PM, HU, BIN <bh5...@att.com> wrote: > Guys, > > What I see here is power struggle. We all have seen this type of things > many times before, especially with strong opinion. > > Here are my 2 cents: > > (1) TSC shouldn't interfere with the internal management of a project. It > will be a bad precedent for TSC to intervene a project's internal matters > here unless there is an evidenced misconduct. Otherwise it will open a can > of worm for future. > > (2) One vote per committer cannot be changed at project level. Again, it > will be a bad precedent to introduce one vote per company within a project. > Project is contribution driven, and committer promotion is based on merit. > That's the principle. If one person has made significant contribution, the > person deserves the promotion no matter what company he works for. If we > change the principle, basically we lose the credibility as an open source > community. > > (3) All of those different opinion should be addressed at project level. > If you are not the majority of opinion, and you lose the vote, sorry you > lose. You have to accept the result of the voting. Power struggling happens > everywhere, and I personally experienced it too. You have to negotiate and > make compromise, even if you have strong opinion. Sorry, you need to learn > "compromise". Exaggerating power struggle is not a right way to move > forward. > > (4) If there is an *evidence* that there is a *misconduct* within a > project, please submit the evidence, and describe the nature of misconduct. > TSC can discuss the nature of the misconduct based on evidence, further > investigate it and take disciplinary actions based on the result of > investigation of the misconduct according to authorized power by TSC > Charter. > > (5) If there is a concern that a project is driven by a single vendor, TSC > should take one or more of the following actions: > - Appreciate that company's investment in supporting our open source > community. Everyone is volunteer here. We should appreciate the investment > instead of discouraging the investment. We want more company to invest more > resources in OPNFV. > - Encourage more contributors from other companies to this project. This > is a hard part we need to know: > * What is the percentage of code that is contributed by this single > vendor v.s. others? > * Are others code contribution intentionally blocked by this single > vendor? Or just lack of code contribution from others? > - Investigate if there is misconduct > * Is your code carefully reviewed by others? > * How many code rejections did you get? > * Are those rejection reasonable? > * If you suspect misconduct in code review and your code is rejected > unreasonably, please submit evidence. > - TSC may make a motion to defer this project's participation in E > Release, and may suggest to Board to defer CVP, if majority concerns single > vendor-driven. > > So there are many things TSC can do - to appreciate investment, to > encourage contribution, to investigate misconduct if evidence is provided, > and to defer its participation in E Release, and to recommend to Board to > defer CVP until single vendor concern is addressed. > > But the last thing we want to do is to interfere with project's internal > management, change the principle of contribution-driven, and > meritocracy-based committer election, change the voting model, or > discourage investment. Those are fundamental to an open source community. > We cannot change the cornerstone of a house. > > My 2 cents. > Thanks > Bin > -----Original Message----- > From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto: > opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Cooper, Trevor > Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 6:39 PM > To: Dave Neary <dne...@redhat.com>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; > Tallgren, Tapio (Nokia - FI/Espoo) <tapio.tallg...@nokia.com> > Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Standing down as a committer > on DoveTail > > Dovetail is a unique project because there can only be one CVP > implementation and CVP will no doubt have impact on the OPNFV brand (either > positively or negatively). Without reasonably wide involvement and > representation the viability of the CVP program is questionable IMO. I > think that the TSC should consider rules that strongly encourage or even > enforce a composition that would adequately represent the community as a > whole for launch of the program > > /Trevor > > > -----Original Message----- > From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto: > opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Dave Neary > Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 10:40 AM > To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; Tallgren, Tapio (Nokia - > FI/Espoo) <tapio.tallg...@nokia.com> > Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Standing down as a committer > on DoveTail > > Hi, > > In light of Chris's resignation and request, I would like to propose that > we bring our plans to evolve the project to the TSC sooner, rather than > later, and get TSC guidance on a number of key questions related to > Dovetail, which is not like other projects because of its relationship to > the CVP: > > * Should we allow multiple committers from a single vendor? > * How should we handle the expansion of the committers during the > restructuring of the Dovetail project? > > I do not believe that another project has considered, as we have recently, > an addition of many new committers to a project, nor is there another > project so directly related to a board committee. I think it will be useful > and necessary for us to get TSC guidance on any changes to the project - > and with Chris stepping down, I think we should get this guidance before > extending invitations to new committer candidates. > > Thanks, > Dave. > > On 05/01/2017 12:11 PM, Christopher Price wrote: > > Hi Hongbo, > > > > > > > > I will be standing down as a committer on the Dovetail project. > > > > > > > > When I established the project it was intended to reflect as fairly as > > possible a common set of voices from all member companies that had a > > stake in our project. > > > > I feel that the balance in the project is not ideal today, I certainly > > feel that my voice counts for little and is often ignored by the > > majority votes and I do not think I am able to provide value as a > > committer in the current structure. > > > > > > > > I strongly urge you to approach the TSC for support in re-structuring > > DoveTail in as meritocratic manner as possible, committers > > contributing to the repo, with a structure that limits the votes for > > any single commercial interest on the project. I believe this would > > be in the best interest of the project. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list > > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org_m > > ailman_listinfo_opnfv-2Dtech-2Ddiscuss&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvj > > Ig&r=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw&m=5vIs1He5M6_dMco0De3tiyFfrLFHH4qsMOgkyVcY > > ytI&s=MyfJLOD-CiFk_AKQImC008az778rSVA2BgEjEoNIT2c&e= > > > > -- > Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy > Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - https://urldefense.proofpoint. > com/v2/url?u=http-3A__community.redhat.com&d=DwICAg& > c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw&m=5vIs1He5M6_ > dMco0De3tiyFfrLFHH4qsMOgkyVcYytI&s=LTcoHIZEcCa5_C8- > iGls3cGgOF1HKopHQF4chFMirCc&e= > Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338 ______________________________ > _________________ > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists. > opnfv.org_mailman_listinfo_opnfv-2Dtech-2Ddiscuss&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_ > HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw&m=5vIs1He5M6_ > dMco0De3tiyFfrLFHH4qsMOgkyVcYytI&s=MyfJLOD-CiFk_ > AKQImC008az778rSVA2BgEjEoNIT2c&e= > _______________________________________________ > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists. > opnfv.org_mailman_listinfo_opnfv-2Dtech-2Ddiscuss&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_ > HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw&m=5vIs1He5M6_ > dMco0De3tiyFfrLFHH4qsMOgkyVcYytI&s=MyfJLOD-CiFk_ > AKQImC008az778rSVA2BgEjEoNIT2c&e= > _______________________________________________ > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss >
_______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
