There are 3 5 alternative for the TAC to consider / choose from. The 3 5 alternatives differ in the prerequisites a candidate for the LGBMCR has to fulfill and whether the TAC elects an alternate LGBMCR or not.
Overview of the 3 5 alternatives:
- "Serve-at-least 2": Candidate must be an active contributor to at least 2 LFN projects. A person is considered an “active contributor” to a LFN project, if the person is eligible to vote as part of the TSC election process in that project.
Note: The rationale for requiring the candidate to be active in at least 2 LFN projects is to ensure some level of balancing among projects - so that no single large project (with lots of eligible voters) could easily dominate the process. Distinguishing between a "committer" on one, and "contributor" on the 2nd project it so ensure that the bar for potential candidates isn't put too high.
Concern: The need to be active in 2 projects limits the number of candidates. - "Cycle every year": Candidates must be an active committer to a LFN project which differs from the LFN project that the currently servicing LGBMCR is an active committer of.
Note: The rationale for not allowing the LGBMCR to be from the same project for back-to-back years is to ensure some level of balancing among projects in the long term. E.g. if the LGBMCR is elected from ONAP in Year 1. In Year 2, only committers from projects outside of ONAP would be eligible.
Concern: While over a longer period of time there'd be balancing across projects, for the term of a year, there would be no balancing - hence a single project would still dominate. - "Two-in-a-box": The TAC elects two candidates: A LGBMCR and an alternate-LGBMCR. The candidates for the positions of LGBMCR and alternate-LGBMCR must be active committers to LFN projects. LGBMCR and alternate-LGBMCR must not be active committers to of the same LFN project.
Note: This alternative creates a balance across projects by creating a "2 in a box" situation. Either LGBMCR or alternate-LGBMCR, but not both, would attend the GB meetings. It is expected that LGBMCR and alternate-LGBMCR each attend approx. 50% of the GB meetings. The 2-in-a-box approach also balances the load across 2 shoulders and ensures that the LGBMCR has a clearly defined alternate, in case she/he cannot attend a GB meeting.
Concern: Consistency between meetings could be a challenge if LGBMCR and alternate-LGBMCR don't synch properly. The ability to build a relationship with the board is more difficult if one attends only one out of two meetings. - "All committers eligible - no project constraints": Candidate must be an active committer to any of the LFN projects. Any committer is eligible to self nominate/be nominated and any committer is eligible to vote to make for a simpler process administratively.
Note: This alternative says that since this is a committer-at-large election and not a contributor or active committers only election, removing constraints on committers other than being a committer makes most sense and adds simplicity. In the first three alternatives there is a 10 commit requirement to weed out any non deserving candidates. This alternative asserts that elections across a big electorate (all committers from all LFN projects) should weed out any undeserving candidates. This alternative also asserts that only the candidates with broadest cross project appeal will likely garner popular support.
Concern: It is possible that in some cases a project may get represented at the governing board multiple times in a row. This may be perceived by other projects that balancing has not happened. - "All committers eligible - Cycle every year": Same as alternative 4 - but adds the "cycle every year" requirement from alternative 2 to address the concern of balance across projects from alternative 4.
General note on the set of eligible candidates: Given that the LGBMCR should represent committers, it seems logical that the LGBMCR is a committer.
Deltas in the 3 5 alternatives are highlighted in "red".
...