Re: Request for discussion: Proposal to update the ARB section of the Community Governance doc

Sukhdev Kapur
 

Folks, 
There was a reason to have the ARB structure the way it is. I would like to propose a modification to the proposed draft. 
The proposed enhancement can be activated by TSC only if the code contribution from non Juniper contributors exceeds the code contribution from the Juniper contributors - both in terms of number of patches and number of lines of code. Otherwise, we risk risking the integrity of the code base. 

If anybody has a different opinion, I would love to hear your thoughts.

Thanks
-Sukhdev



On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 3:36 PM VM (Vicky) Brasseur <vmb@...> wrote:
Though the TAC doesn't get to define the governance of the member projects, their feedback is still welcome. In this week's TAC call, during discussion of the TF induction to LFN, some TAC members pointed out that while the TF TSC has limitations on how many representatives any single company can have, the ARB does not. This was a good catch.

Using the TSC section of the doc as a template, I've put together a proposed change to the ARB section of the Community Governance document. We discussed it in the Community WG call earlier today and the resulting document includes that feedback. The summary of the proposed changes:

* Decrease ARB term from 24 months to 12. This allows flexibility for individual ARB members without losing potential architectural continuity, since there is no limit on consecutive terms for an individual member.

* Mirror the documented TSC policy of 1 seat per company for the ARB as well. This policy can be overridden by a resolution from the TSC, which will be necessary with the current state of architectural knowledge about TF (right now the folks w/the most knowledge are from Juniper) but which the community will work to change for future ARB tenures.

The full proposal is here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U8KJgV-_OhXR5zjvaFMLMVZHIcfgiOJaPWoaVP9RnBk/edit?usp=sharing

On today's Community WG call Casey said he'd like to aim for a vote on this in early January, so comments and discussion are welcome as soon as you feel like sharing them.

--V




Join tsc@lists.tungsten.io to automatically receive all group messages.