TAC Structure Brainstorming (2022)

In an effort to stimulate discussion, I'll throw out a strawman of possible combinations of the  above criteria, along with reasoning for each selection:

• Project Representatives
  • Choice: Graduated (TAC) and Incubation, selected by the respective TSCs.  Sandbox projects can have a non-voting representative
  • Reasoning: Consensus seems to be to include more project representation into the TAC, and I think this strikes the right balance for that representation.  Sandbox projects are new enough to LFN that they may not be ready for full TAC participation as they are often still working out their internal project governance.  This would allow sandbox projects to participate in the TAC and still provide encouragement for projects to move "up" in the project lifecycle.
• LFN Membership Representatives
  • Choice:  Election of X members among Platinum member appointees; voting done by Platinum GB reps if >X appointees are nominated.  X to be set to the number of voting project representatives (i.e. # of Graduated and Incubation projects)
  • Reason:  While acknowledging that TAC representation is an important "benefit" of platinum membership, we have seen that many platinum members have not chosen to take advantage of that benefit.  A similar model of a fixed number of platinum-nominated seats has been used for the Strategic Planning Committee successfully.  The choice of 'X' tries to set a balance between project and member representation, but I'm open to other ideas.
• At-Large/TAC-appointed/Other
  • Choice: 2 TAC-appointed specialty seats
  • Reason: I'm flexible on this, but see it as a nice option for the TAC to round out the skills in the TAC to accomplish our mission.  Ideally, I'd suggest at-large seats, but believe it could lead to election fatigue among the projects (which already have the committer representative election), so I believe a good approach is the TAC defining the needs for those seats, collecting nominations, and selecting people for those additional seats.

some comments from the March 23rd meeting:

• Project representation
  • concerns about the expansion of voting seats to incubation projects at those projects may not be mature enough (ex: contributor diversity) as well as potential impact on financial recommendations by the TAC
  • suggestion to formalize the "non-voting representative" for incubation and sandbox; incubation projects should show participation in the TAC as criteria for moving to graduation
  • no objection to having project TSC's determine how to assign their TAC representative
  • Louis suggested that TAC meeting agendas be reviewed in TSC meetings to encourage representation.

April 6 comments:

LFN Member Representatives:

• some discussion about other models (CNCF) where governing board reps can nominate up to 2 people (one from a different company than the rep)
• concern raised that if all platinum members do not have seats, does that reduce the ability for companies (without reps) to raise technical issues?  (Answer: Representation choice should not change the role of the TAC in addressing technical issues for the broader community)

At Large/TAC-Appointed

• Should Committer Rep to the Board also be a TAC member?  Does it increase workload on rep?  Or does it help rep get broader view of the community?  This would be in lieu of a separate at-large election
• Comments in favor of TAC-appointed seats as well (clarification: these are TAC voting seats that would be appointed by the TAC).  Suggestion that the TAC may appoint these seats, but not required; limited term.

How to proceed?

• Ultimately need official language to vote on
• How to arrive at consensus?  Poll to gauge interest now and vote on the consensus at next meeting.

FWIIW I went back and pulled the attendance records for the TAC back to the fall of 2018. The average number of TAC member attendees per meeting is 12.5. That number is inclusive of Graduated Project reps.