In fairness to Chris, this was the #1 concern that came to me back at our November Plugfest, from numerous sources. I think Chris is actually the first to go on record as doing something about it. In his case, he has opted to resign as a committer. Honestly, I do not think it's the best resolution to a problem. But I can certainly understand it.
This is one of those areas in our community where the BoD has a stronger than normal influence on the direction of the project community. But at the end of the day, the implementation is going to come from individuals, from companies, or from neither. And there is a distinction between individual vs company forms of project contributors. Individuals will move from company to company. Does their integrity and leadership change with each company they represent? If we're counting on companies to deliver on this project, then it's really more of a joint venture than it is a traditional open source project. And if this is the case then perhaps CVP really needs to be funded differently, and Dovetail is the wrong output. Personally, I think this specific situation reveals some concerning territory for us. I do not think it's a good idea for us to lend special criteria to Dovetail, to accommodate the CVP. It will likely set a bad precedence. I think Dovetail should be focused on implementing something in alignment with its scope and charter. And if its scope and charter are out of alignment with our community's needs, then perhaps something else is warranted. From a project perspective, this is pretty simple. A project has a PTL and it has a community. It should be fairly autonomous at that level. If the community feels the project is a dead end then it will show in the contributions/commits. Anyway, just my 2 cents. And again, this issue first surfaced to my attention in November. So it's neither new, nor is it the concern of just one individual. Hence I do not see this as an issue of a power struggle, as it was previously characterized. Best, Ash On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Christopher Price < christopher.pr...@ericsson.com> wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Thanks for reaching out, and happy to try and answer your questions. > > In reference to my statement around “my voice counts for little”. > I have raised since mid last-year the need to try to bring in a diversity > of membership and to try and reimagine how the project has been operating > to drive to conclusion. We have collectively been unable to transition how > we run the project and act on that as a group of four committers. I feel as > though the group intends for the project to head in a different direction > than I felt we should pursue. > I didn’t make that statement due to any unfairness that I feel should be > raised, nor did I raise any, rather from difference of opinion as an > explanation of why I am stepping down. > > With regard to my comment that the balance is not ideal. As I mentioned I > have been promoting a diversity and transition for a while in and amongst > our committer group. > I don’t feel that the small group of committers we have are sufficiently > representative of our community and that we need to find ways to attract > competence and diversity in the dovetail work. I can’t see my retaining a > committer role where I lack the technical competence or time to > sufficiently vote on the merit of one test case or another provides > sufficient value. > I intend to remain involved in the work, just not as a committer where I > feel a different competence than mine is required. > > Cheers, > Chris > > > On 2017-05-02, 14:56, "CARVER, PAUL" <pc2...@att.com> wrote: > > Chris, > > I'm a complete outsider here, I have no familiarity with the Dovetail > project and had to Google it to find out what it does. I also don't know > what CVP is because it wasn't mentioned on the page I read about Dovetail. > I mostly skim read the OPNFV mailing list or even delete without reading > when I'm swamped in email. However I agree with Bin because your > resignation email said "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". > > If you feel that you're being prevented from expressing your opinion > in discussion that would be different, but if your issue is that when it > comes to a vote, you're in the minority and you'd like the balance of power > changed so that your minority opinion prevails over the majority opinion. > That's just not an acceptable way to run a project. > > I don't know what the balance of votes is in Dovetail, but if you're > typically in the minority then by resigning you're making the minority > smaller and the majority larger as a percentage of the remaining voters. > That's the wrong thing to do if you really believe in your position. You > should be trying to find and encourage new contributors who share your > position if you believe that your minority opinion could appeal to a > majority if there were more and/or different voters. > > It's one thing to appeal to the TSC if there are voting irregularities > (e.g. ballot box stuffing by one company) but it's none of the TSC's > business if the votes are fair and according to the rules and you just > don't like being on the losing side of a fair vote. It's also appropriate > to appeal to the TSC if potential contributors who would vote along the > lines you prefer are being unfairly blocked from voting, but as Bin said, > the way to handle that is to present evidence of such alleged misconduct. > > -----Original Message----- > From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto: > opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Price > Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 08:12 > To: HU, BIN <bh5...@att.com>; Cooper, Trevor <trevor.coo...@intel.com>; > Dave Neary <dne...@redhat.com>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; > Tallgren, Tapio (Nokia - FI/Espoo) <tapio.tallg...@nokia.com>; > opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org > Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Standing down as a > committer on DoveTail > > Hi Bin, > > > > Thanks for sharing your thoughts. > > I’d like to further understand the power struggle you clearly see > here, I would be very interested to understand your views further. > > > > My views are quite clear that dovetail should be established with the > best competence we have available to judge test cases for application in > the CVP, in as neutral as manner as possible across as many stakeholders as > possible. > > I am not the right person in the community to bring that forward so I > have stood down, I hope the right people step forward to do so without > accusations that they do so for some form of power. > > > > Cheers, > > Chris > > > > On 2017-05-02, 04:37, "opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org on > behalf of HU, BIN" <opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org on behalf > of 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_dMco0De3tiyFfrLFHH4qsMOgkyVcYy > tI&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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists. > opnfv.org_mailman_listinfo_opnfv-2Dtech-2Ddiscuss&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_ > HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=xtmPik_TP2fjPVGWP4yBRQ&m=J3S53nAMAQLzBu-0- > 5DhlisxV9RRzax7vhb0L4Rk-S8&s=f7zTntNz1NaHAhum1GJHzIhxFdc-_ > ShzHHsHAjcXGLs&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=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_ > HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=xtmPik_TP2fjPVGWP4yBRQ&m=J3S53nAMAQLzBu-0- > 5DhlisxV9RRzax7vhb0L4Rk-S8&s=f7zTntNz1NaHAhum1GJHzIhxFdc-_ > ShzHHsHAjcXGLs&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
