Is the TSC the right size? Should it be expanded?
Proposal: Extend the size of the TSC to 15 (pending Board approval). To get started, add the next 4 candidates from the last election results to the current term.
I believe I read the discussion(s) from the previous TSC meetings on this topic, but I'm not really sure what we are trying to accomplish with expanding the size of the TSC.
I think the basic arguments are the following:
I think Hart got it right. There are many ways and certainly more sophisticated ones to go at this that have been mentioned and that could maybe lead to a more diverse representation but I understand from the staff that if we simply took the next 4 people from the election results this would already improve diversity so I'm happy to go with this as a first step. It has the advantage of being simple and implementable very quickly.
I'm a strong believer in iterative processes and open to refining this further down the line but I don't want investigating other possible ways to come at the cost of doing nothing for months.
OK ... got it. I just worry that people will interpret "diversity" in different ways .... if the real outcome here is just that we think that we need a larger number of members given the current size of the community, then simply adding 4 makes sense.
I totally second Arnaud's and Hart's inputs. The ecosystem has evolved and grown quite a lot last 2 years. I think there should also be a right spread of the TSC members across geographies. Would also be good to think of how can someone still contribute to the TSC without going thru the election process.
The TSC calls and mailing list are open to anyone and several people have been contributing for years without being official members.
One idea that came out of some discussions about increasing diversity on the TSC - geographic, project representation, gender or other demographic variables - is for a newly-elected TSC to appoint a set of additional TSC seats to increase its own diversity intentionally. This is different from simply changing "top 11" to "top 15 or 17". This would be a delicate process, of course, but could be a powerful way to get additional diversity quickly. I believe this was done in the CNCF community.
This is exactly the kind of other ways I was referring to as "more sophisticated ones [...] that have been mentioned and that could maybe lead to a more diverse representation". There are others. For instance, we could also allocate one seat per project/group we want represented and leave it to each group to figure out who will represent them.
I just fear that figuring out which method to use and all of its details can take quite a while to sort out.
am glad you said that Brian. I was coming from the same school fo thought. I see below that Arnaud also concurs to this idea. Would be glad to contribute further on this.
Having given this quite some thoughts I'm back to my original proposal because I think every way has its own downside.
I thought adding a seat per project might make sense but that actually makes having a project or not much more sensitive. One might want to have a project because it's a way to get a seat, and one might not want to be a subproject or get archived not to lose their seat.
Having 11 people handpicking four more seems equally doomed. I think we'd end up having to hold some internal election again. But then, why not use the result of the first one?
So, I'm back to my proposal: Extend the size of the TSC to 15 (pending Board approval). To get started, add the next 4 candidates from the last election results to the current term.
"I thought adding a seat per project might make sense but that actually makes having a project or not much more sensitive. One might want to have a project because it's a way to get a seat, and one might not want to be a subproject or get archived not to lose their seat."
I've thought about this kind of federated approach a little bit. I think if you wanted to do it, you would need to allocate seats to active projects based on the number of active contributors (with zero seats being a possibility for small projects) according to some (probably sublinear) formula.
This would partially solve the subproject issue–presumably if a group was large enough to get a seat, they could increase an existing project's size by joining as a subproject and get a seat that way as well. If the formula was sublinear, this might not exactly be the case (and the group might not get the number of seats they would otherwise) but it would partially alleviate the problem.
Powered by a free Atlassian Confluence Community License granted to The Linux Foundation. Evaluate Confluence today.