Re: on expanding the TSC
Hart Montgomery
Hi Everyone,
Chris, thanks for bringing this up. This makes a lot of sense for us as a community. We are a far bigger organization than when we started, and it only makes sense to increase representation so that we cover more diverse groups, areas of expertise, and so forth.
A question for everyone: if we are going to do this, is it too much to ask that we make a change in time for this election? It seems that we wouldn’t have to change the way the election is run, other than reporting the first k names (for some 11 < k <= 21, probably) rather than just the first 11 names, so we would only have to get approval from the governing board by the end of the election rather than the beginning.
It seems to me like we have a pretty strong consensus on this, so it might be possible to move fast from the perspective of the TSC. I worry that waiting will cause us to spend a lot of time handling a second election/appointment process, and also that if we have a second process, it will create “first” and “second” class TSC members, which is something that would be nice to avoid if we can.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Is what I am suggesting logistically impossible (it very well might be).
Thanks for your time if you’ve made it this far.
Thanks, Hart
From: tsc@... [mailto:tsc@...]
On Behalf Of Arnaud Le Hors
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 4:18 PM To: Christopher Ferris <chrisfer@...> Cc: tsc@... Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] on expanding the TSC
I support this idea. My only concern with growing the TSC would be the risk of not reaching quorum but if we mitigate this risk with an appropriate measure I think we can only
gain from the expansion.
|
|