Karsten, Thanks for the detail info about governance and the process in Centos. More comments in line below: --Tom On 09/26/2016 08:51 PM, Karsten Wade wrote: > > > 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] OK, I will set up video con via BJN with you and Dave and anyone else that indicates interest. > > 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 I would love to but I am booked for OVSCON on the 7th 8th and the ovs/dpdk design summit on the 10th. > > 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. >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-devel mailing list > CentOS-devel at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel > -- *Thomas F Herbert* SDN Group Office of Technology *Red Hat*