Current state of Community Represenation at TSC (to read before giving your vote)

The following observations are nothing personal for or against any or community representatives. Their work has to be checked upon from time to time. As the member of the ROS community (and last year’s voter), I take myself freedom to do this. If the rest of the community feels that this is wrong – please say is openly or through private message.


I am not satisfied with the performance of current community reps. What do the rest of the community think about that?

@olivier.michel, @brettpac, @musaup who of you is still staying with TSC, and what are your plans to do for the community in the next year?

=== Long Version ===

It’s great that we have community representatives at TSC. On the other hand, I have to say that I am deeply disappointed with the work of current community representatives. The reasons are the following.

  • they were very inactive at TSC meetings and sometimes didn’t even show up. (Data gather from the attendee list in 2022 (10 meetings – missing 1 or 2 is OK))
  • Representatives are there listed by their institution/company name. This shouldn’t be relevant whatsoever, since they are not there to represent their own or companies interests, but those of the community. (I understand that this is not always possible, but come on, there weren’t any hard calls / conflicts between the respect to TSC and the community during this year).
  • Community representatives didn’t start any discussion topic at TSC related actually to the community
  • They didn’t spotlight any topic and tried to engage community involvement into discussions / decisions
    • Maybe there was nothing important for the community to be decided at TSC this year(?)
  • I didn’t see that they involve themselves into any discussion that is community relevant (I have checked their Activity on discourse – if I missed something, please correct me). Only exception is:
    • Brett offered a help to a community member in a discussion (please don’t judge the discussion – people we don’t agree with are also part of the community)
    • **All other interactions are made in self-interest or for the own project/product – this is fine, but, IMHO, cannot be calculated into “community representative” work.

Open questions

  1. Are my observations wrong? Am I overreacting?
  2. Have you been doing some community work that is not “officially” recorded? If so, please, put it into spotlight!
  3. Do we know how is staying at TSC and who should be “exchanged”?
  4. Can we exchange two representatives?
  5. Can community have any influence on it?
  6. Because of the poor and similar performance of all three, can we vote who stays and who goes?
  7. What are the plans for community representatives staying on TSC for the next year?

@olivier.michel, @brettpac, @musaup Looking forward to getting some answers from you :slight_smile:
(and I very much hope I am not the only one)

==== UPDATE =====
Just to be transparent, I am attaching the file based on which I calculated attenance data took from TSC minutes.
TSC community reps.pdf (14.5 KB)


Interesting topic. Sensitive, but well raised and definitely worth discussing. My general feeling is that we need community representatives that have stronger voices in the TSC to favour the community’s interests. I would like to see also more of this from existing members.

Besides showing up in these meetings and conveying requests, I believe that these representatives should also be engaging much (much!) more in tech discussions concerning the project and while advocating for community’s interests (e.g. from the ones I kickstarted, except for some side interactions with @brettpac, there’s been very little reaction from community representatives to REP-2008 RFC, REP-2008 round 2 and REP-2014) .

I can advocate for @brettpac. He’s approached me several times and offered to help and to bring topics to TSC. I believe he’s fairly involved and he’s starting and driving community efforts [1] [2].

  1. Introducing the SMACC State Machine Library ↩︎

  2. Proposal for SMACC WG - #20 by brettpac ↩︎


Just to add a data point: @brettpac contacted me shortly after he got elected and we had a lengthy online call about a lot of things, including pain points of ROS as I see them etc. I really liked that and thank Brett for that.

Apart from that, I must agree I haven’t heard much about the work of community reps since then. I regularly read TSC meeting minutes and I was always wondering if the community reps talked about some topics or not. I took part in the discussions about some REPs (either here or on github), and I don’t remember any of the representatives taking parts there. Maybe it was not their field of expertise, but I think discussions about REPs might be one good area where it could be actually quite easy to show some helpful activity.

I have to stress out that I admire all three reps who went for it the first time. It was something new, it seemed like a lot of work without any financial compensation. I think this time it is somewhat clearer what it takes (or could take), so I’m really curious how it will work :slight_smile:


Hi Denis,
I don’t want to speak for the other reps. So this will just be about me.

With regards to my attendance, the actual number of meetings I attended was 9, not 7.
Although not listed in the TSC minutes, I was in attendance for the meetings that took place on 1/20 and 2/17, as well as those that took place in 2021 where myself and the other newly elected community reps were allowed to observe.

The reason my attendance for those sessions is not listed is my own fault. I didn’t understand that I was supposed to add myself to the Meeting agenda, as I was just learning the ropes of being a commitee member. Stupid on my part in retrospect, but that’s what happened.

With this one, you are correct. In two meetings, 10/13 and 11/15, when we added our names to the attendee list, I listed my affiliation as Brett Aldrich | Robosoft, when it should have been Brett Aldrich | Community Rep. To be honest I don’t remember doing it. If one looks at the attendee list, it’s common for those seats affiliated with corporate positions to list the company they work for, and I think I was just operating on autopilot when I did so.
But, like I said, you are correct, I should not have done that. @Katherine_Scott , is it possible for us to amend the 10/13 and 11/15 meeting minutes to correct this error?

Anyways, now that the housekeeping items have been dealth with, let’s get into the “What have you done for me lately?” question, and hopefully soothe some of your disappointment, at least with me.

It took me a few meetings just to get the hang of things in the TSC. This also included work where I researched the charter that governs the activities of the community reps.

At the same time, and continuing until the present, I’ve reached out privately to respected members of the community for their input. My purpose for doing so, was to solicit ideas and also potentially build coalitions around important issues. These were private conversations, so I will not list who I spoke to, or the topics of those conversations, but they did take place and I feel like I gained a much better understanding of the community along the way.

For those who have come forward in this discussion as data points. Thank you both, I appreciate the corraboration as neither of you had any obligation to mention it.

I’d also like to take a second to thank all those that I reached out to who did get back to me. Not everyone did;) I very much appreciate their time and willingness to contribute to the community by interacting with me.

Other conversations also took place with various industry folks regarding a project that I know you (Denis) are aware of, and that ultimately didn’t come together, privately dubbed Project Hercules.

For those who have never heard of Project Herucles, here are some items that give an idea of what I was trying to accomplish…

It was going to be awesome (I still love this project).
We were, (and still will someday) going to integrate Nav2, MoveIt2, SMACC2, and ros2_control and push the limits of robotic applications in general, and particularly for ROS2.

But, it ultimately didn’t come together for a variety of reasons, some technical, some funding related, my personal shortcomings, blah blah blah.

Over the summer, we put out the Summertime Dance Party series of examples shown here and here, which in my opinion have set the bar for demonstrations, with the available source code, for robot applications using Nav2 specifically and ROS2 generally.

If you read the first post, you can see that I did attempt to get the community involved, which also ultimately didn’t happen to the degree I wanted it to. C’est la vie.

And then of course there have been the efforts dedicated to the SMACC WG…

From your post, I imagine you feel that the activites involving Project Hercules, The Summertime Dance Party, and the SMACC WG, are in my “self-interest or for the own project/product”

And, personally I don’t agree.
In my view SMACC is an open source library and it’s contributing to the broader community with demonstrations, which are sorely needed. Along with the source code that others can build upon for their own demos. If the projects had instead been something involving SMACC alone, such as when we instrumented the library with LTTng, or if we had just linted the library, or done simple performance tests or something, then I agree that the “contribution to the community” would be more questionable.

But the creation of robotic applications is inherently integrative, as can be seen especially with Project Hercules, but also with the Summertime Dance Party, that involve other ROS2 packages, namely Nav2, but others as well.

Yes, there are related commercial products related to SMACC, namely the SMACC Viewer and SMACC2 Run Time Analyzer, but both are (and will) remain free for individual and academic users.

And ultimately, I feel that the creation of demonstrations with SMACC, is inline with the spirit of my campaign promises.

With regards to efforts that were reflected in TSC activities specifically,

I think the item that I am most proud of, was being one of the sponsors of Foxglove to the TSC. I think the contributions by @amacneil and @jhurliman so far have been outstanding and it appears that the MCAP format is really showing itself to be a significant improvement over the previous ROS2 bag default implementation.

I’ve also been involved in the discussions and votes regarding the ROS2 default DDS implementation as well as REP-2008 and REP-2014 mentioned by Victor before.

What’s Next
And this finally brings us to what I believe will be my last meeting as a representative on 12/15.
My intention is to bring the following items up for discussion…

  1. There exists a problem with implementing dual arm applications in ROS2. This is a problem that has been brought up earlier. It brings up interesting technical questions involving SMACC2, MoveIt2, ros2_control and ROS2 action remapping. @AndyZe and @bmagyar have been very helpful so far, and I plan on pinging them shortly. @destogl you are welcome to help out with this if you’d like.

  2. I’d like to also bring up for discussion the proposal that we modify the TSC membership requirements for key robot hardware manufacturers in order to get wider participation in the TSC. Early names I would like to include would be Clearpath, UR, Panda Robotics, Robotiq, Shadow Robotics, Luxonis and a few others I’m leaving out.

    If it could be done, I think it would facilitate future efforts similar to what I wanted to accomplish with Project Hercules. Integrative projects with a lot of different components, and therefore drivers, gazebo models, etc.

  3. I’d also like to bring up for discussion, the idea that community representatives, be given access to the analytics of the website. This would be an expansion of community represenative role as currently defined in the charter, but I think it would be an appropriate one reflecting the fact that (at least in my opinion) the community largely exists through and that most of the TSC discussions that I’ve taken part in have focused on more technical (but still important) issues like default DDS implementation selections, etc.

Anyways, as a voter and member of the community, you’re entitled to your views. Hopefully, at least with respect to me, some of what I’ve written here will change your mind. I recognize that your criticism of the community reps is not personal. Overall, I think your post is a valid one, and I believe that the community has the right to have high expectations for their elected community representatives.


Fair enough.

Sorry to hear that! I had understanding that the TSC notes are kind of official write up and serious document since there are he penning decision about important thing in ROS and all official process about entrance, charter and so on. This is then not your fault, but organizers / protocol-writing person of TSC.

Also regarding affiliation, being myself part of official committee for reference implementations and standardization, those details are usually responsibility of person writing a protocol that is expected to be checked before publishing. Maybe TSC has different standards about that, I wasn’t aware of it.

Yes, there are many projects I know personally about, also in many other companies. But what does community knows about? If you consider this a community project that you as community representative are leading, why not then inform the broader community about it and let more people joint.

Yes, you have to understand that correctly. The point is that you would probably do those projects/discussions anyway, unrelated if you are community representative or not. @olivier.michel is also doing great job with Webbots and all the contributions what they are doing there. But that is not the point.

Those things are your interest that in the first place is not here because of community. For example, I would not consider my involvement with ros2_control being something related to community representative-work, and even I think that is the most important library in ROS 2, many in the community doesn’t care much about it (which is OK). This is my open-source contribution that is not driven to represent the community, but rather because personal and work-related interests.

I understand community representative-work more about involving and support community to have ears and mouth inside TSC. You did this good with making contacts with different people inside community. Unfortunately, many in the community are not aware of those things at all. I can imagine that many people, especially newcomers, would be interesting about insights you gain from different people – especially the insides about state of ROS and ROS 2 where are we moving as community and where we should go.

As community representatives, you guys got certain access the average discourse user doesn’t have. It would be nice to give something back from this. Some fascinating information, drawing attention to something significant.

I see that you did a lot! Thank you for sharing. Until this post, mostly SMACC things are being visible. I am glad that you opened and showed people that you are actually doing many more things and looking how to interconnect community in the backend. In the future, it would be appreciated if all community representatives would do it more openly from time to time, e.g., every 4-6 months.

TBH, i don’t know if we as community can influence this somehow, but we should let other two representatives time to answer to this post, and people with the most contributions should stay. Maybe we should even vote how it should stay and who should go as a community. (This would be of course only this year because it is also a special, one-time situation) – On this would be nice to hear other members of the community.


You are more than welcome to critique the TSC Reps, in fact I would encourage it, but in my opinion this post is a bit off base and unnecessarily aggressive and accusatory. I think a couple of your critiques are valid, but I think many others are ill-informed.

To answer your questions directly (TL;DR):

  1. re my observations wrong? Am I overreacting?

Some observations are valid, but many are poorly informed (see below). As to overreacting, I think you have approached this in a very counter-productive manner.

  1. Have you been doing some community work that is not “officially” recorded? If so, please, put it into spotlight!

I would claim most of the TSC work is not recorded. That work happens in informal discussions and working groups. The TSC meeting is simply final execution; the minutes are imperfect summary of events.

  1. Do we know how is staying at TSC and who should be “exchanged”?

Brett’s term is over this year.

  1. Can we exchange two representatives?

In 2023 two representatives are up for election.

  1. Can community have any influence on it?

Yes. Go talk to myself or the reps. That’s what they’re there for. Did you try that first?

  1. Because of the poor and similar performance of all three, can we vote who stays and who goes?

You have an election going on right now for one of the reps. That’s how these things work.

Poor performance relative to what exactly? Your personal interpretation of what they should be doing? Have you engaged the current reps? Did you try having a discussion with the community reps themselves, myself, the community, or any of the other TSC members about your expectations? This is a new role and the community needs help define what it means. The community reps and the TSC as a whole can’t read your mind, you need to make your desires explicit.

  1. What are the plans for community representatives staying on TSC for the next year?

Feel free to ask them. I would recommend that instead of asking “what are the reps doing for me?” that perhaps you should phrase this conversation as, “how can the the TSC address these X things that are important to me and my colleagues.”

More Details and Discussion

Now, I want to clarify a few things about the TSC:

  • The minutes are an imperfect representation of the meetings themselves, they are not a line-by-line transcription of the meeting. The minutes are basically the agenda plus whatever I can frantically record in between administering the meeting, engaging in discussions, and moving the things along. We do not have stenographer or a secretary, and as such the minutes are a thumbnail sketch of what happened. We can have a discussion about changing that process, but heretofore I have heard very little feedback on the process.

  • TSC members self-report their attendance and contributions. Sometimes that doesn’t happen for a variety of reasons. I’m not saying this is good, but that is the fact of the matter.

  • As to the TSC meetings schedule we are trying to balance the needs of members that span the globe. Sometimes, and I know this is particularly the case with Olivier, the time zones are sub-optimal. If members can not attend they are welcome to send a proxy and still add items to the agenda.

  • Most voting on measures are done by a quick show of hands, primarily to make a decision to move a conversation along. Contentious or import votes are made asynchronously and anonymously on Discourse. This means members can vote on important issues even if they are not at the meeting.

  • Community reps are not required to submit a contribution report, but many of them do so voluntarily.

  • I think your point on the reps listing their affiliation is unfounded and intentionally inflammatory. The other reps list their affiliation; I am sure the community reps were just pattern matching. Moreover, I think it is good for the community and the TSC what the reps are working on and their affiliation.

  • Most of the TSC members engage in a self-interested manner, and that’s the system working mostly as intended. The reps and their organizations have areas of expertise, and that’s where they are contributing to the project (e.g. Picknik is going to contribute to discussions mainly related to MoveIt, that’s what they are familiar with).

The Community Reps are a new feature of the TSC; we only started this whole process a year ago. I think in a lot of ways we’re still trying to figure out what level of contribution and engagement is appropriate for a volunteer position. Moreover, I have seen very little movement from both the community or the community reps to outline just what that looks like. Just like in government, the community at-large needs to engage with the community reps, they’re not omniscient, they need the community to bring issues to them. I can certainly start prodding both the community and the reps to take a more active role. To @brettpac 's credit, we were discussing the TSC community reps at the last meeting, and I asked him what we could do to improve the role, and he suggested that we need an on-boarding guide for the community representatives. That’s one of my action items for the next meeting. Perhaps I can write a similar guide for the community.

My points above are why I take so much issue with your post. You’re saying, “I expect the community reps to do X, Y, and Z things,” where things X, Y, and Z, have not been explicitly discussed by the community and brought to the reps. More specifically, you could have asked for clarification / discussion instead of leading with accusation. Certainly the community reps should be proactive, but they’ve also just joined a complex new organization and need some time to understand how the TSC works, what is possible within the TSC, and how that process moves along. We’re still sorting this stuff out, and I would prefer that the process be a discussion instead a set of accusations.


Posting to confirm I had a positive interaction with Brett in the past year. I’d vote for him again.

I’d like it if future Community TSC Reps put out something like a Google poll to gather data on the issues the community cares about most. I know OR is working on tons of things but maybe it’s not what the community actually needs most.

Some issues that come to mind for me are:

  • Better ROS2 Python launch file examples
    • For complex cases, while also trying to keep the examples simple
  • DDS config tutorials
  • If ^ tutorials already exist, then make them easier to find
    • Try to actively update documentation about ROS2 stuff on or whatever the replacement is
  • Benchmark ROS2 middlewares against the ROS1 middleware. I’m curious if ROS2 actually is better, performance-wise.

Brett’s term is over this year.

Why? He seems to be the only one doing what he was actually elected to do.

According to rule 7 of the TSC charter, @musaup should already be automatically removed in accordance with the participation rule.

TSC community reps.pdf (14.5 KB)

Why should the community be forced to keep a representative who only shows up to half the meetings? Does the TSC follow it’s own rules?

At least let the community vote on which of the original community representatives are allowed to serve the 2nd year of their term.



Thank you for opening this discussion. I believe it makes sense that the ROS community is informed about what their representatives are doing for them at the TSC.

I was elected one year ago as a community representative at the ROS 2 TSC.
Since then, I have been attending all the monthly meetings with a couple of exceptions.

My relationship with the ROS community goes mainly through the customers of my company (Cyberbotics) who are using ROS or planning to use it and through the various interactions we have on a daily basis with users of ROS with Webots, e.g., technical questions, bug reports, feature request, etc. I am also reading posts on ROS discourse on a regular basis. Also, I have been writing/reviewing some documentation page in the official ROS 2 documentation.

During the ROS TSC meetings I reported several issues raised by ROS users, in particular, the difficulties and frustrations about using ROS on Windows and macOS, due to the low quality of the documentation and the fact that many ROS packages are missing or working poorly on these platforms. One of my main concerns is this : shall we officially recommend new users to start using ROS on Linux ? Would it make sense to drop the current Windows support and revert to using ROS in WSL for instead of native Windows? On the macOS platform, should we encourage users to use a Docker image of ROS/Linux and support it officially, instead of letting them try to run ROS natively on macOS, which is current not officially supported and half broken? I believe these are super important questions to address in order to better serve new ROS users.

On another front, since we are also package maintainer, I also reported some feedback regarding the ROS package maintainer workflow, and how we could make life easier to package maintainers.

I also contributed to the discussion on the choice of the DDS by providing the feedback gathered from ROS users, including some developers working in my company.

I voted several times on official decisions of the TSCs.

Finally, I contributed to reviewing some REPs and proposed some minor changes.

Since I am one of the newest members of this committee, my contributions are not huge so far, but I will be trying to increase them progressively in the coming year as I now better understand how things work at the ROS TSC.

I sincerely hope that my humble contributions are useful to the ROS community.

Although I believe that Discord is the best place to raise issues about ROS as it is watched by most TSC members, I am also happy to discuss individually with more ROS community members to better understand their needs and problems and eventually report them during the TSC meetings.

If you believe there are some questions I didn’t answer, just let me know.


Why? He seems to be the only one doing what he was actually elected to do.

Because his term is up. The representative elections tick-tock every year as I explained here. For the first election the lowest ranking of the candidates was given the one year term, so Brett’s term is up this year. He is free to run again if he so chooses.

According to rule 7 of the TSC charter, @musaup should already be automatically removed in accordance with the participation rule.

TSC community reps.pdf (14.5 KB)

Why should the community be forced to keep a representative who only shows up to half the meetings? Does the TSC follow it’s own rules?

I can bring this up with the TSC at the December meeting. However, if there is an election it will be a separate issue from the current election. The TSC will need to amend the charter to provide clarification on how a special election will work as it is presently undefined.

Regarding the previous post, it looks like I did not fully read the TSC charter. In the paragraph mentioned by @mo_agarwal, namely:

  1. A TSC member may be removed from the TSC by voluntary resignation, by a standard TSC motion and vote, or in accordance with the following participation rule:
  • In the case where an individual TSC member – within any three-month period – attends fewer than 1⁄3 of the regularly scheduled meetings, does not participate in TSC discussions, and does not participate in TSC votes, the member shall be automatically removed from the TSC.

This section applies to TSC members, not TSC community representatives. The community is able to remove / change representatives using the election process. I am still going to have a chat with the community representatives and see if we can facilitate better communication between the representatives and the community. In the meantime, I would encourage those with issues to reach out to the representatives.

I also want to point out that the role of the TSC is to chart the direction of ROS and facilitate technical discussions that impact the broader community. The TSC is not necessarily the correct forum to address a discrete issue (e.g. an individual, package pull request, feature, or issue). The issues you bring to the TSC members and community representatives should be big, systemic, project-wide issues. For example, a good topic to bring to the TSC would be, “creation of a ROS 2 wiki”, “ROS 2 needs more security researchers,” “we should enforce project-wide coding standards,” and similar topics. Optimally those sorts of discussions should be bubbling up from the working groups to the TSC.


@olivier.michel Thanks you for answer here and showing us your contributions!
Your activity and interest can be certainly deduced from the TSC participation :slight_smile:

I would have just a small ask for you in the next year. Can you please post an update occasionally (like 2-3 Months) in a discourse post so that broader community gets good overview what you people are doing in TSC.

Thanks for clarifying things @Katherine_Scott :slight_smile:

Oh, I am sorry and struck to hear that. This is the only way for most of the people to gather information from TSC. I thought there is process in TSC that you first publish them internally, members can review it, and then they go out publicly. Otherwise, TSC has so very well-structured processes about votes and memberships, so I had similar expectations on the minutes too. To be honest, I am not certain how to process this information… Since the notes are just someone memories which is mostly subjective. Is there a way to increase reliability and objectivity in the minutes?

Of course, this is very hard, and protocol should not usually be written by a person leading/moderating the meetings. Usually in other organizations I was and am part of, the meeting protocols are always written by a different member, or a volunteer sitting at the meeting. You guys have 12 meetings per year, so if each time other person write the protocol, this should be a fair sharing of that responsibility. What do you think about that?

What would also be nice to have a more structured template for the protocol since you guys have always similar topics / structure. I find especially hard to read the participants list and reports from WGs because they are slightly different each time, so I have to read me thoroughly and carefully to get information. Having a structure that would help writers and readers equally :slight_smile:

You should definitely change this process, especially because of internal rules. If a member forgets to add himself to 3 consequential meetings, it can lead to removing it from the TSC. These are quite hard consequences that relay on something that is taken so easily.

Aren’t there very strict rules about voting rights? Isn’t this against TSC charter? Maybe the process or the charter should be adapted – it would make very much sense to correspond to each other.

At TSC they are not. But since they are elected by the community, it’s fair that the community asks about their contribution report.

I don’t think this is fair to say regarding the companies working hard to their TSC membership. I my company is a TSC member, I wouldn’t be happy about that since the membership costs between 80k and 200k $ per year (depending on the company’s location FTE salary may vary). To not demise a value of TSC and its members, this should be handled with more caution in the future.

This discussion does not have anything to do with (standard) TSC memberships. This is about community representative and their role in the TSC and in the community.

Exactly my point of the whole thread. I exactly why I am opening this discussion just before the new election – so people that are planning to run for the seat make some thoughts why they are doing that and how they want to involve community.
I am uncertain if there were no initiatives from the community, I cannot judge that since I am not reading each and every thread on discourse in detail. But I would expect from people running for certain position to take the power they were given with responsibility for the people they gave them this power in the first place.

The post is quite plain, posting the publicly accessible facts and putting questions about certain things I find not fully correct. I have also stated from where I got all the information. Since I have obviously missed something, can you please point me where I can get/access those, to get better informed?

I actually asked for the clarification just now. And IMHO in the only possible way, publicly on a community forum because we are discussing matter of the community. Or is there a better place to discuss community matters?

Why are community and regular members have different set of rules? I can understand that there might be some historical reasons about that, but now we see that this just cause confusion and makes things unnecessary complex. Probably the above rule make even more sense for community than for the regular members.

What does this exactly mean? How can we add some to a “remove” voting list? We definitely need a mechanism to do that, at least once per year.

Based on information we have today, maybe this is something we have to revise, or at least put to a vote. Especially, as you said, everything is new, and we are all leaving as we go.

Perhaps @musaup found out in he processes that he cannot put some much time and effort into TSC which is fair. Nevertheless, @musaup would be nice to hear your thoughts here too. Especially if you are staying at TSC one more year, I believe that many from the community would like to see you at discourse :slight_smile:

1 Like

Would it be possible to address the two topics below at the next TSC? (@olivier.michel & @brettpac do you agree?)

This would be quite a pity since we can elect only one person this year, and it appears that we would then have only two actual representatives for the next year :frowning:

It would be great to understand how the “remove” part of the process works. @brettpac and @olivier.michel, should we make a proposal for the next TSC meeting, so we prevent situations like this in the future?

I am pretty sure there will be a bullet point for a discussion on this topic in the agenda of the next TSC meeting. If not, I will raise it.


This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.