TSC Chair definition and election procedure

[dzimine]

TCS chair definition and election proposal, draft, per our last TCS meeting action item

This should be relatively straight-forward.

[dzimine]

Looking for an input on the mechanics of the voting.

1. I did not consider an in-person TCS meeting vote for respect to timezones and other situations that are on the way to TCS member's meeting participation.
2. Email would be easier if we were heavy users of mailing lists; but we are not.
3. Github comes to mind. Maybe use a discussion for both nominations (posts by nominees) and the vote (comments by voters with numbered list of preferences)? Or maybe have a PR on the "OWNERS.md" Chair section and express votes in the PR reviews?

Better ideas on executing the voting most welcome.

[arm4b]

A winner is selected using Shulze variant of Condorset method.

Talking about Voting mechanism, seen that in other projects too :+1: LFN Chair Election Process (https://wiki.lfnetworking.org/display/LN/2020+TAC+Chair+Election) has a good description we could follow as an example.

~More info about the mechanics of voting:~ ~https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Voting+Best+Practices~

~It suggests using the 3rd party neutral platform for Voting:~ ~https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/~

~So the system will send a one-time voting link to the TSC folks via email we have included for the Vote. Used by some LF projects, this would allow us to do an automated and private voting.~

Update: Because StackStorm Governance assumes different voting points for the different Maintainer groups, we need to do the voting calculation on our own.

[arm4b]

Updated previous ^^ comment to take into account the voting points.

Also, do we need Private or Public voting?

• In case of Public one, - I agree with @dzimine that just "comment voting" in the github discussion (statement of intent) originally created by the each nominee would work.
• In case of Private vote, - may need help of someone from TSC who will be coordinating the vote?

[amanda11]

Updated previous ^^ comment to take into account the voting points.

Also, do we need Private or Public voting?

• In case of Public one, - I agree with @dzimine that just "comment voting" in the github discussion (statement of intent) originally created by the each nominee would work.
• In case of Private vote, - may need help of someone from TSC who will be coordinating the vote?

Is their any consensus or guidance from LF as to whether voting is private or public?

[arm4b]

@amanda11 From what I understand Voting Mechanism is up to TSC to decide. We however can do our research and find more examples of TSC Chair voting for the LF/CNCF projects, - which mechanism is used more frequently and follow that.

Also during the TSC Meeting today https://github.com/StackStorm/discussions/issues/55 @nmaludy noted that having a public vote would be easier and I agree. If there are no strong believers in a private vote, - we could just go with the public one in Github Discussion(s). @StackStorm/tsc WDYT?

[amanda11]

I have no objection for having the vote public - it's nice and transparent then

[punkrokk]

A few thoughts after re-reading this:

• I believe a quorum is absolutely necessary. Not of significant importance should happen without a quorum. A forcing function must be in place which does not rely on lack of participation equaling a nay.
• I have a desire to implement a management structure which allows for the Chair (@dzimine ) to delegate or allow voting for a person to be the COO of the TSC and manage day to day tasks with guidance. Which is what we are effectively doing at the moment.
• I believe that the current structure of the project creates an imbalance of transparency across the tiers of the TSC. For example, I for one, keep learning about new things I didn't know about with. For example, we have no transparency around number of inbound leads. I still hear about new components to marketing and technical operations on a seemingly monthly basis. This should be addressed and it creates the appearance of an absence of information for some parties.

[stale[bot]]

Thanks for contributing to this issue. As it has been 90 days since the last activity, we are automatically marking is as stale. If this issue is not relevant or applicable anymore (problem has been fixed in a new version or similar), please close the issue or let us know so we can close it. On the contrary, if the issue is still relevant, there is nothing you need to do, but if you have any additional details or context which would help us when working on this issue, please include it as a comment to this issue.

[CLAassistant]

Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.

---

Dmitri Zimin(e) seems not to be a GitHub user. You need a GitHub account to be able to sign the CLA. If you have already a GitHub account, please add the email address used for this commit to your account.
_{You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.}

[stale[bot]]

Thanks for contributing to this issue. As it has been 90 days since the last activity, we are automatically marking is as stale. If this issue is not relevant or applicable anymore (problem has been fixed in a new version or similar), please close the issue or let us know so we can close it. On the contrary, if the issue is still relevant, there is nothing you need to do, but if you have any additional details or context which would help us when working on this issue, please include it as a comment to this issue.