[CentOS-devel] NFV SIG - update

[Karsten Wade]

On 09/26/2016 03:15 PM, Dave Neary wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> There has been a recent resurgence of interest in the NFV SIG, and in
> the interest of keeping the momentum going, I would like to step aside
> as SIG char, and recommend that Tom Herbert take over. Tom has taken on
> the packaging and building of VPP and DPDK-accelerated OVS for OPNFV,
> and has been active in the SIG in recent weeks, and I think he will help
> add the structure that has been sorely lacking from me in recent months.
> 
> I'm not sure what the process is for replacing a SIG chair - can someone
> let us know, please?
> 

I'll gladly be the policy wonk with some thoughts. ;-)

Although I helped write it, it's been a while so I went to review SIG
governance:

https://www.centos.org/about/governance/sigs/

Thanks to the Easter eggs in there from our past selves, here's my
summary of the situations & steps:

tl;dnr
======

You need to talk with me, your Board mentor, and we need to get approval
from the Board. A video face-to-face with you and Tom is also in order.
Let's go ahead and thrash out the details in this thread, I'm expecting
some input from others, and we'll just drive it to resolution.

SIG members, RDO folks, KB, Jim, -- I'm looking at you for input on
leadership changes and mission, toward helping the NFV SIG get a clear
path forward. I concur I'm seeing the resurgence of energy and want to
help it/get out of its way.

wonky details
=============

A. With a SIG in the early stages, a move to replace leadership of the
SIG needs to managed hand-in-hand with your SIG mentor from the CentOS
Board. Oh, hey, appears that's me![0]

B. That person's recommendation to the overall Board is going to carry a
lot of weight, so make that person comfortable with the process and
decision.[1] Let's talk here on list & maybe some directly, as needed,
to work that out so we can get it to a Board vote in a reasonable time.

C. A video conference with the Board and the current & proposed SIG
chairs would be a good idea. Public or private is a different question.[2]

D. Ultimately, at this early SIG maturity level ("Sandbox"), all new SIG
members require Board approval. In practice we've been doing super-soft
consensus, where we trust the Board mentor to oversee the project and
member approvals without requiring an explicit +1.[3]

My last thought is to wonder if you and/or Tom Herbert are able to come
to the CentOS Interlock on 9/10 of November in Paris? It might be a good
chance to close a hand-off of the ecosystem relationships.

https://wiki.centos.org/Events/Interlock2016

Regards,

- Karsten, who was keeping notes anyway ...

Below quotes are from https://www.centos.org/about/governance/sigs/ :

[0] https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/NFV

[1] Conduct the business of the SIG following accepted open source
practices around meritocracy and consensus decision making.

[2] All new committers, developers, SIG core team members, etc. must be
approved by the Board.

[3] In both the Sandbox and Early SIGs, the role of the Board is
primarily to facilitate the movement of those SIGs towards the Mature
level; it serves as an initial gateway with the goal of getting out of
the way of the SIGs.



> Thanks,
> Dave.
> 
> 

-- 
Karsten Wade
Community Infra & Platform (Mgr)
Open Source and Standards, @redhatopen
@quaid gpg: AD0E0C41

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20160926/8dcc2d65/attachment.sig>