Discussion on the formation and voting process for the TSC #52
ColinEberhardt
started this conversation in
General
Replies: 1 comment 1 reply
-
Looks solid. 50% still seems low. Perhaps we can aim higher with an option for using delegate when needed. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
1 reply
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
The FINOS Governing Board have approved the formation of the TSC. An important next step is to determine the more permanent make-up of the TSC and how we achieve that.
This discussion thread re-opens a conversation I started on the FINOS Community project:
This process draws on prior art, having considered the similar committees within similar organisations (e.g. CNCF TOC, Hyperledger TSC, LFN TAB …)
For the TSC to be a success, we need members that are:
In other organisations it is common for the TSC (or similar) to have seats allocated to different classes of vote. This reflects the FINOS GB, where the different membership levels (platinum, gold, silver) have different levels of elected representation. It is proposed that with the TSC we do the same.
The TSC would have 13 seats, each having a two year term
Nominations would be encouraged from both the community and the GB. Nominees must either be active contributors (as defined by LFX Insights) or an employee of a member organisation. FINOS already has a process for collecting nominations, and tallying votes (which is used for GB representation), we would use the same process and mechanisms for the TSC.
The voting process would have two rounds:
Following the voting process, the TSC would meet to elect a Chair, with the initial meetings focussed on elaborating the TSC responsibilities and formalising this as part of the overall FINOS Governance.
After community consultation, the goal is to bring a proposal to the Membership & Governance Committee (a group that assists the GB in governance related matters) in March and the Governing Body in April.
Through the pilot, we have have that the level of engagement from some members has been very high, while for others it has been comparatively low. I also think that we should formalise the level of commitment we expect from TSC members. I'd propose that if a member doesn't attend 50% or more meetings, this triggers a conversation with the Chair, who may decide that they should step-down, with their seat filled by another suitable candidate.
There are clearly some more details required in the above, but I'd be interested in initial opinions on the overall shape outlines above.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions