🗳️ VOTE NOW: 2023 ROS 2 Technical Steering Committee Community Representative Election

2023 ROS 2 TSC Community Representative Election and Candidates and Voting

Hi Everyone,

Your 2023 ROS 2 TSC Community Rep Election is finally here! We’ve got six candidates that would like to fill two slots on the ROS 2 Technical Steering Committee (previous post). For reference there are three ROS 2 TSC community reps, with two reps elected in odd years, and one rep elected in even years. The election will run until 2023-10-20T04:59:00Z, and the winners will be announced on the last day of ROSCon 2023 in New Orleans. We also plan to post the results on Discourse, but this may take some time because, well, we’re all at ROSCon and PX4 Dev Summit.

For voting we’ll be using a type of ranked choice voting called the Condorcet voting method. To vote you simply rate the candidates in your preferred order. For recording the vote, we will use the Condorcet Internet Voting Service, and we request that you use your ROS Discourse handle as your, “recognizable identifier.”

Each of the six candidates were asked to submit a brief biography and candidate statement which are available below. After your have read all of the candidate statements below you can use the link below to vote. If you have questions post them below or send me a DM.

:ballot_box: Cast Your Vote Here

Make sure to use your Discourse handle as your recognizable identifier

Moderators note: I want to remind everyone, including that candidates, that we’re all here to work together to build a better open source project. Please try to keep the campaigning polite and constructive, and assume good intent. Moreover, I would appreciate it if everyone remains reasonable in their discussions about the ROS 2 TSC. The TSC is fundamentally a gathering of our peers where everyone future plans and current efforts are roughly outlined, not some shadowy, all-powerful, organization :roll_eyes:. My suggestion is that you make reasonable expectations about what a group of busy open source developers can and will accomplish while meeting for ninety minutes once a month. If you really want to understand what happens in the meetings in detail, just read the minutes.

2023 ROS 2 TSC Community Representative Candidates

Brett Aldrich (@brettpac)



Hello everyone, I’m Brett Aldrich and I’m the author of SMACC.

In case you’ve never heard of SMACC before here are some public demos we’ve made using it:

I was also speaker at ROSWorld2021

In 2021, I was elected to the TSC.

And here are some interviews if you feel compelled to dive deeper.

Candidate Statement

As I see it, there are 3 problems areas that need to be addressed.

  1. Accountability
    The situation last year regarding the attendance (or lack thereof) of the TSC community reps was quite shameful. There rules regarding this were quite clear and should have been enforced, but werent.This needs to be fixed.

  2. Transparency
    I propose to make the following changes, (I don’t want to take credit for these, many of these ideas have come from others…)

    • I propose that all TSC meetings be recorded and posted publicly.
    • I propose that all votes made by the TSC should be publicly disclosed, along with any comments by TSC members to clarify their position.
    • I propose that TSC Community representatives be given access to ros.discourse analytics.
  3. Outreach
    I propose that we implement an outreach plan and 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, The Construct, NVIDIA, Franka Emika, Robotiq, Shadow Robotics, Husarion, Robotnik, Luxonis and a few others I’m leaving out.

    I think this would do a lot for the relevance of ROS and the TSC. We’re here to build robots, right?

A word regarding experience…
I learned a few hard lessons during my first term on the TSC, including it takes a little more than enthusiasm to actually get things done.

This is probably the best summary of what we accomplished during my term.

But the 1 year term was definitely too short to really be effective. The TSC is kind of a complicated place when you first arrive, with a lot of people and a lot going on. Charters, reports, REPs, technical discussions, default implementations, etc. In my mind, It takes at least 3-4 months just to get the lay of the land. And in my case, the shortness of term was compounded by the fact that I didn’t know it was MY term that was only 1 year until month 10 or 11.

Anyways, this time, with the benefit of some experience…
I think I’m the guy to get this done.

Thank you,

Emerson Knapp (@emersonknapp)


Emerson Knapp is a robotics software engineer with a heavy focus on ROS 2. He started using ROS on Jade, building delivery robots with the startup Dispatch.ai. When Dispatch was acquired by Amazon, he helped bring the Scout delivery robot to first release, then moved to AWS to join thei ROS 2 open source effort, where he started contributing to the ROS 2 core in the Crystal Clemmys era. After Amazon, he worked with Foxglove to move ROS 2 bags to use MCAP, and to push forward types-on-the-wire. He’s got over 500 merged PRs and 900 code reviews in ROS 2, spread across the core and base, with a concentration on Rosbag2. Now Emerson continues to be involved in ROS 2 code review, maintenance, and contribution at his new role as Staff Robotics Engineer at Bonsai Robotics where he is leveraging ROS 2 to automate orchard operations.

When he’s not working on robots, Emerson is probably brewing beer or practicing yo-yo tricks.

You may have seen him talk at ROSCon 2019 Macau or ROS World 2021, and can look forward to his ROSCon 2023 talk “ROS 2 Types on the Wire”.

Candidate Statement

Hey all, first and foremost I just really enjoy being a part of this ROS community. It’s been a great pleasure to get to know so many smart and passionate people, since getting involved I’ve learned and grown so much professionally and technically, really been able to enjoy building a career around ROS. Now that’s enough buttering you up.

Open source software in general is really important to me, I think it’s both a tool for equity in that everyone gets the same access to great tools, and also for technology acceleration because all of us working together and contributing makes much bigger and better things than we could produce behind closed doors. And I know that great open source software doesn’t just happen, it takes a lot of effort even beyond the code contributions. It takes design coordination, code review, infrastructure maintenance, and much more. I see the role of the ROS 2 Technical Steering Committee as being the forum for making decisions about these core aspects of keeping the project on a sustainable track and moving more forward than backward, so that the entire community can effectively make their contributions and take advantage of others’ work.

There always remains room to improve the TSC’s focus on the T-for-Technical portion of steering the project. The Community Representative role is a really positive initiative to put more on-the-ground day-to-day users of ROS 2 into the “room where it happens”, representing the voices of those who have open the ROS 2 docs permatab, scrying for insight to the signatures of rclcpp or ament APIs or best practices for QoS profile usage.

To put a lens on my particular perspective and focus: while I believe that academic and research usage of ROS 2 is extremely important for pushing the envelope of robotic capabilities, and that the use of ROS in academia is the reason ROS itself grew so much, my personal experience comes from one who’s almost exclusively worked to build products and companies with ROS and ROS 2. My contribution to the committee would reflect that perspective. This isn’t an either-or proposition, in my view - I believe that if this project focuses on meeting the technical rigor required to get products to market, it will also serve the needs of researchers.

If chosen for the role, my plan is to represent as constructively and concretely as I can the trials and tribble-ations of a ROS 2 line cook, to advocate and steer for the quality of life of career software developers and expose insights and interfaces to encourage a thriving developer community and darn good software product ecosystem.

David Lu! (@DLu)


My name is David Lu!! I started working with ROS in 2010 during my PhD at Washington University in St. Louis. I am the sole proprietor of Metro Robots, an independent software contracting firm, though previously I’ve worked for PickNik, Locus, Bossa Nova, Imagineering and Willow Garage, and have also worked with the PR2, Stretch, and a handful of robotic arms. The bulk of my work is focused on navigation (I authored the robot_navigation stack and help maintain the standard ROS 1 navigation stack), and have also contributed many other ROS-centric projects, such as roscompile, ROS Metrics, ROS Clock and ROS Map. I’ve presented at ROSCon four times, was the Co-Program Chair twice, and am running a workshop this year (although my singing talk was rejected this year).

Please visit davidlu.dev for links to all my projects and social media accounts.

Candidate Statement

Everything I said last year remains true, but since then, the challenges facing the TSC have massively shifted. My (naive and idealistic) goals for my candidacy are:

  • Reprioritize the needs of the developer over the needs of the maintainers.
  • Help usher in a new era of technical governance of ROS with transparency and consensus building.
  • Keep pressure on Intrinsic (and other companies) to devote time and resources to open source projects over proprietary for-profit applications.

Steve Macenski (@smac)


Hi all, you probably know me as Your Friendly Neighborhood Navigator and long-time Nav2 project lead! I’ve been working on open-source in the ROS ecosystem since 2016 helping improve mobile robotics technology from SLAM to perception; planning to documentation.

From 2019 til earlier this year, I was the Senior Technical Lead at Samsung Research doing a number of things both internal and external around ROS and robotics. While I can’t point to much that I’ve done internally (except this!), I hope many of you are familiar with my work on Nav2 and the ROS 2 paper published in Science Robotics. It was truly an honor over the 4 years I was at Samsung Research America to be able to take such a proactive role in the ROS community and help bring new techologies to the robotics industry like the MPPI Controller, Smac Planner, Simple Commander, Constrained Smoother, and many more.

I started Open Navigation LLC in June of this year as the next phase in the ROS ecosystem, building an organization robust to the whims and wanes of massive conglomerates to ensure a sustainable future for Nav2 and the broader mobile robotics ecosystem’s development. No one wants to go back to the days of stagnate development, lack of maintainer responses, or a free-for-all to develop commonly needed features. We’re still early days into this process and we have some wonderful Sponsors who’ve stepped up to help build a stable future for the critical product dependencies that they rely upon (and you can too!). We still need several more sponsors before we can have full-time staff dedicated towards open-source development, maintenance, and support, but we’re making steady progress and I’m genuinely excited about the future – but only with your support!

Candidate Statement

As part of Samsung Research, I was on the TSC. I’m still technically a TSC observer since I provide updates on the ROS Navigation TSC Working Group (that meets every-other Thursday, please join!), but without voting rights or the ability to address topics to the TSC. I’ll readily admit that puts me in a unique position; there’s a legitimate argument to be made that another Community Representative should be selected that doesn’t already sit in the room.

However, I’ve always been a champion for making sure things are intuitive, well documented, and work great out-of-the-box, all of which we have some work to do still yet on. While I can’t promise I will accomplish some particular objectives as a voting and full member of the TSC, I can state that I will address topics as I see them to move towards that direction - whenever possible taking charge myself.

Two areas I’m passionate about addressing during this term:

  • I would like to see the completion of REP standardization regarding QoS settings for sensor data, maps, and other sensitive topics so that we can build community capabilities without incompatible QoS issues and provide users with best-practices solutions they can follow (https://github.com/ros-infrastructure/rep/pull/212)

  • I would like to see a policy established regarding AI-based software contributions and documentation so that we can embrace generative AI where folks would like to use it, but place important guardrails on disclosure and tracking of that data should legal concerns later arise.

Max Polzin (@maxpol)


In 2016, after finishing my Masters in Robotics, Systems and Control at ETH Zurich, I joined a team of two fresh graduates who founded Seervision AG to develop autonomous camera robots. In the five years ahead, I would learn how to grow a robotic research project into a commercially successful product. Lessons learned were of technical and organisational nature, i.e. how to develop reliable, robust and functional robots and how to scale a company’s operations. Seervision AG was acquired by QSYS, a global leader in the AV industry, in 2023.

Returning to academia in 2021, I joined the new Computational Robotics Design and Fabrication Lab at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL) as a PhD student. My research focuses on designing and developing novel robots for extreme environments, for example exploration in polar regions to study glacial crevasses.

Over the years, I’ve worked with numerous robots and software. I’ve collaborated on ground robots like Rover Robotics Rover Zero, Husarion Panther, and Clearpath Husky, integrating features like winches for steep terrain navigation and UR5 arms for agriculture. In the aerial domain, I’ve worked with TwingTec AG and developed custom robots for environmental studies. My robotics work leveraged and enriched not only the ROS and ROS 2 ecosystem, including many SLAM systems, Nav2, MoveIt 2, micro-ROS, and ros2_control, but also container, web and cloud technology.

Candidate Statement

Working in academia, I experience the challenges faced by novice robotics developers, especially those with a different background, such as mechanical engineers. The continued success of ROS depends on its ability to add value for robotics developers and grow its community. As community representative in the ROS 2 TSC, I hope to serve and grow the ROS user base by

  • Voicing and representing the needs and challenges of early career developers.
  • Initiating and pushing initiatives to ease the learning process for novice developers with diverse backgrounds.
  • Establishing links between the ROS and other open source communities, particularly the Arduino and maker community and the drone community around the PX4 Autopilot.
  • Advocating for continued adoption of ROS 2 in the academic environment and evangelising scaling implementations.
  • Ensuring continuous evolution of the ROS 2 project towards an industrial-grade robotics middleware.

Having 10+ years experience in industrial and academic research and development with ROS and ROS 2 allows me to understand and reason professionally about the community’s needs and make an impact.


Struggling novice developers inspired me to initiate and maintain the ROSbloX project. ROSbloX are building blocks to rapidly create a robot’s software stack. They feature plug-and-play connectivity and integrated data visualisation.

I am mentoring EPFL’s Robocup@Home team to build their robot and participate at Robocup@Home in 2024. With my publications on field robotics in extreme environments and the resulting academic collaborations, for example with polar scientists, I showcase and advocate ROS to a wider audience.

Building bridges between the ROS, PX4 Autopilot, and Arduino/Maker communities, I am frequently publishing examples how to combine the best of all worlds to build advanced robots with novel capabilities on social media, https://www.linkedin.com/in/max-polzin-robotics/, https://www.youtube.com/@rosblox5056, @xploros, @maxpolzin12019. Examples include long-range data transmission over telemetry, a containerized, web-based version of PlotJuggler, or a template for efficient shared memory transport across containerized ROS 2 applications.

Some of my contributions to ROS 2 packages include the integration of the popular PCA9685 I2C PWM generator into ros2_control, pca9685_ros2_control, expanding mocap4ros2_optitrack with measurement delay compensation, an example for using Nav2 with GNSS/IMU only localization in Gazebo Fortress/Garden, and over 50 containerized ROS packages integrated with Github’s CI, e.g. ros-livox-ros2-driver, ros-dynamixel, ros-mocap4ros2-optitrack, ros-zed-ros2-wrapper.

Victor Mayoral (@vmayoral)


Roboticist and long term contributor to ROS and ROS 2. Strong technical background. Various affiliations with industry, academia and government organizations. Spent the last 10 years building robots with ROS. Founded, funded and led some robotic startups, getting to know early the good and the bad exits, while sharing a ROS-journey with quite some good folks. Continue trying to inspire people to build robot brains with ROS. Very interested in ROS-native hardware. One of the top experts globally on some ROS 2 topics including cybersecurity, embedded and hardware acceleration (systems/robots architecture). Strong ROS advocate (before that became a paid job :stuck_out_tongue: ) and supporter, despite often proposing a different view. Been funding ROS initiatives and gatherings over multiple organizations, for multiple years (e.g. ROSCon).

Links of interest:

Involvement in ROS and most relevant contributions

I’ve been involved in ROS since 2011, when I started contributing to meta-ros (Yocto/OE layers to enable ROS in production-grade embedded systems). Later, in 2014, I had the fantastic opportunity to work closely with the Open Robotics folks, while doing my PhD, in the early days of ROS 2. Been involved with ROS 2 ever since then.

Over the years I’ve contributed to various parts of the ROS stack while reading the market (not always great) and acquiring funding to build ROS-teams. I keep track of some of the companies using ROS commercially (despite some here making it difficult for some reason :wink: ) My most relevant contributions are focused on three areas:

  • ROS 2 in embedded systems: Maintainer and Multi-year contributor to meta-ros. E.g. brought Yocto (Honister) support for Humble Release. More recently, ported Humble to Yocto Langdale. Involved in the early days of ROS 2 for microcontrollers. Involved in Hardware-ROS (H-ROS) endeavours. Involved in the early days of the micro-ROS project, and one of original EU consortia leads. Various contributions over various implementations for MCUs.
  • ROS 2 cybersecurity: Obtained a few dozen CVE IDs in robotics, a few ROS-related. Helped bring up the ROS 2 Security Working Group, very involved in the early days. Helped build some of the original ROS 2 threat models. Built the Robot Vulnerability Database (RVD), proposed methodologies (RSF, Robotics CTF, DevSecOps in Robotics) and contributed to a bunch of tools to increase the security of ROS robotic systems (scapy ROS 2 dissector, aztarna, ros2_fuzzer, ros1_fuzzer, ros_volatity, etc.). Looked into DDS security issues with top security experts. Reported multiple vulnerabilities affecting ROS 2 systems and worked with authorities to make responsive disclosures, despite many of them remaining and still being ignored.
  • (most recently) Hardware Acceleration in ROS 2: Developed and maintain multiple ROS packages to enable hardware acceleration in ROS 2 (ament_acceleration, acceleration_firmware, ament_vitis, colcon-hardware-acceleration, etc). Worked with industry and with the ROS community to establish a vendor-neutral hardware acceleration architecture which got introduced in Humble release. Produced various community-driven REPs. Created and led the ROS 2 Hardware Acceleration Working Group (HAWG), attracting relevant (semiconductor) industry players to contribute in the ROS community. Despite the hurdles (HAWG still not showing up as a community WG for some reason), led the ROS 2 HAWG to become the most attended and an attracting source during 2021 and 2022.

Candidate Statement

As I expressed recently, I feel there’s a need for some changes at the TSC of the ROS community. If I get elected, I plan to pursue the following summarized objectives over my period (which will be open to improvements from community feedback at any point in time). For the long version, see discussion here. Shortly:

ROS 2 TSC Issue Suggeted improvements
Lack of Transparency All decisions by the TSC should be disclosed, including voters and votes
Non-Technical Rejection TSC comments and feedback should remain technical. If they don’t have the expertise, they should either defer to the corresponding WGs or invite external independent experts
Lack of Strong Contributors TSC should be diverse in both gender and representation. Companies (Big companies, smaller and startups) as well as community (non-affiliated membership) representatives should get similar representation counts. The overall ROS community should have avenues/methods to raise concerns against TSC members, and methods to replace them if appropriate
Anonymous Lobbying Confidentiality should not be part of the TSC on a general basis and never used for TSC decisions, or to justify the TSC. Members can establish confidentiality outside of the TSC if needed. Nobody should be put in the position of “hey, resign because you’re breaking confidentiality”. Transparency should be an inherent part of what the TSC does.
Need for Community-Centric Governance TSC community representatives should increase to match the count of company representatives and (regardless of their affiliation) should act as non-affiliated for what the TSC matters concern. All TSC members should be elected periodically, not only “community reps”.
Inconsistency in Standardization Accept the community standards as community standards. Don’t reject what’s obvious (e.g. adoption of ros2_tracing for tracing and metrics collection, when the whole ROS 2 stack is already instrumented accordingly).
Lack of Accountability Better accountability by recording meetings. Also, all votes should be publicly disclosed, with the corresponding voters. Voters should be allowed to provide comments to clarify their position. All TSC members should be elected by the community, accountable for their acts and/or replaced given the right circumstances
Inequitable Working Group Establishment Establish more homogeneous WGs that do not exclude or classify members based on their affiliation with the TSC or any other organization. All members of the ROS community should have equal opportunities to participate and contribute to the WGs.

Cheers :tada: to the other candidates this year. Specially, to those speaking clearly about their commitments.

Edit: I find just wrong that the TSC members don’t disclose their votes yet the whole community needs to do so, disclosing their e-mails and Discourse handles now when selecting a community representative. A bit “leading by example” would be good here. Not that I disagree with it (demanding people to be transparent about it), but such asymmetry is relevant.

Again, things need to change for the better.


All heavy hitters! Very excited to see this strong lineup. :hammer_and_wrench:
Thanks to the organizers, in particular @Katherine_Scott and good luck to all!

@vmayoral we currently can’t run a Condorcet vote on Discourse, otherwise we would. We’re asking for Discourse handles because we need some sort of identifier to make sure we have legitimate votes (i.e. no ballot stuffing is occurring). We’re not going to publish that information. We’re not even going to look at the voting information other than matching a sample of names against Discourse accounts.

With respect to the TSC, we don’t collect voting data when we run a vote on Discourse. And just to make things crystal clear, I don’t vote on the TSC, I just facilitate the meetings, just like I moderate the forums.

I would appreciate it is you assumed good intent, and asked for clarification before leveling accusations.


Hi @Katherine_Scott It’s mentioned that we need to use our discourse handle while voting as an identifier for vote to be valid.
But on the voting page it just says :
Please give your email address or other recognizable identifier:

It’s a bit counter intuitive. I myself in a hurry entered my company email while voting . Can you just change this to “Please enter your discourse handle” to avoid confusion?

1 Like

@Katherine_Scott Sorry, but I believe that’s an exageration. I’m not accusing. I’m just pointing out that there’s a transparency asymmetry in here, and that needs fixing. And that’s part of what the community reps should be looking at next in my opinion (these assymetries).

Also, (and now I am) please, stop censoring me, overreacting to my comments publicly. You guys have blocked my account for a period of time, deleted posts, removed my account privileges down to a new user, and asked me repeatedly to slow down without providing arguments for why I’m being treated like this.

1 Like

@PratNag I can’t modify that section of CIVS. That’s why there are exactly three call outs to use your Discourse handle as your “recognizable identifier” on CIVS, one in bold in the second paragraph, one in italics immediately under the link to vote, and one in bold on the CIVS page itself.

I would be a very concerned if people aren’t reading Discourse post and instructions thoroughly prior to voting.

@Katherine_Scott Thanks for the quick revert. But I think you should agree that this is definitely confusing. I agree its mentioned multiple times and in bold but at the moment you fill in the form it says

This is going to lead to people think twice and be confused. As the only identifier that is allowed/accepted is the discourse handle then this ask here does not make sense. This would have been ok for a generic form but in this case that is the only field that needs to be filled.

I am not wanting to argue here, I understand that you cannot modify it now. Just wanted to make sure what the correct requirements were and will amplify accordingly to use discourse handles.

Fortunately, it’s not actually a problem. The purpose of collecting an identifier is to avoid ballot stuffing and similar activities. We prefer Discourse usernames because if we have to check, they’re easy to do so, but obviously-not-bot email addresses work just as well.


Victor, your account was never blocked. We put a moderation on your posts for a few days over a US holiday weekend in response to you making ad hominim attacks on members of the TSC, as we knew that we may not have the availability to rapidly respond to further attacks. Remember, people like Kat are volunteers, and they deserve to have time off from the thankless task of community management. The moderation queue is a common moderation tool on Discourse for use in keeping discussion civil.

We never deleted any of your posts. A weird quirk in the Discourse settings caused the auto-moderation system to suddenly flag a bunch of your posts over the past year. We fixed that and restored the posts as quickly as we could.

I have already explained to you via e-mail several weeks ago why your Discourse user trust level was lowered. However I would like to note that it doesn’t actually have much impact on your Discourse activity because we only limit brand-new users (so that we can catch spambots), not normal users.

We have not asked you to “slow down”. We put a reply delay on the recent TSC discussion thread to ensure that everyone took the time to think about what they were saying rather than replying in the heat of the moment. This affected everyone, not just you. It is a common moderation tool for discussions that risk turning into a flame war or suffering from last-wordism.

We are not censoring you, we are asking you to behave in a civil manner. This includes making cloaked statements like “Strong ROS advocate (before that became a paid job)”. Putting a smiley after a statement like that does not make it funny, nor reduce its impact on the people who spend their time working for the good of the community as a whole.

So please, as Kat said, assume good intent rather than assume that we all have hidden agendas, and behave in a manner that shows respect for others.


Geoff, my account was blocked for several days coincidentally within the time wherein the discussion was still fresh and ongoing. I’m sorry but the US vacation argument should not be valid in this international community. There’re many of us willing volunteer.

Also, again, I reject your claims of me sending ad hominem attacks, specially in the response you linked. I tried addressing the various arguments (and attacks to myself) presented within that discussion but did not attack the person or some aspect of the person who made the arguments. If you still believe so, please point me exactly to where you feel I did it (do so privately if you prefer) and I’d happy to rectify that forward looking. Let me remark though, opposite to what you’re saying, I directly received ad hominem attacks, without any repercusion (from what I know) and yet I answered every single time I could, showing responsibility (in the most civil manner I could).

Having been penalized, I asked you for clarifications in relation to the Code of Conduct and kindly requested to know the instances where I went off track and where have I been warned multiple times (which was the reason I received for my account downgrade) yet what I got from you was that “you considered this matter to be closed”.

So Geoff, I’m sorry but I still stand by my point. I think you have censored me because my statements don’t benefit the interests of a few companies. I think the current TSC needs to change into a more community-centric one and think broadly about its general interests. I think discussions like this should be encouraged, and not attacked or penalized. I agree that things need to remain civil.

This was part of my program above and as you hint, intended as a joke. Looking at it from your perspective, I think you’re right. I apologize if any volunteers felt ofended. Please don’t get discouraged, contribute.

1 Like

I’m sorry to say this, but as a current community representative, I must ask: Please stop this tension drift. It is NOT what a community needs in which good vibes, brotherhood, and collaboration have always reigned.

The community must go through this democratic process in peace, without anyone monopolizing the channels, and not sowing tension or hatred.

Please do not respond to this message. Just act civilly and democratically and reduce the tension.


I see an ethical problem in the forum moderation and this voting process when executed by a single influential company’s employees. And more, when there is a community representative candidate promising to put pressure on the aforementioned company. Even though I often find the current moderation not moderating here, I trust good intentions. But it is better for the Foundation to kindly and gracefully ask them to step down to remove the slightest doubt. This might be desired by the company as well because they already cut their manhours from ROS infrastructure tasks.

The Foundation employees or independent members paid by the Foundation are ideal candidates to run these processes. Hope that this transition has already been discussed and decided, as many months passed since the acquisition. Sorry if I missed any announcement by the Foundation.


Hi @doganulus et al, I don’t know if you’re aware but the voting process at hand and forum moderation in general is indeed overseen by the Foundation, both by the management of the Foundation (ie. ‘paid for by the foundation’) as well as the five board members of the Foundation (incl. myself), four of whom are completely independent of ‘the aforementioned company’.

Speaking personally, I am quite satisfied with the voting and moderation efforts so far, and though I think some of the tone could use improvements particularly given the cultural differences + non-face-to-face environment we’re all operating within, I am very happy to see so many people who are passionate about making the community better.

In conclusion, please vote!


Could you please explain the role of @Katherine_Scott and @tfoote in the process? They are employees of Intrinsic, as far as I know. They can see the votes cast, for example. Isn’t it too much power for a company? I find it unethical.

I think the moderation team in forums should be formed by members not affiliated with TSC members, similar to community representatives. This would ensure that the discussion in the forums is not affected by business concerns and stay technical. I would be very happy if you could bring the issue to the Foundation BoD, too.

1 Like

Can anyone explain why there is not an official ROS puppet?
Not even seeing any candidates officially listing support for having an official ROS puppet.

Talk about lack of puppet representation in the TSC candidates. Priorities…


@Cogni Tom Servo has quite the fan base around these parts.

Context on for the uninitiated.


I’ve been attending these TSC meetings for a while now on behalf of PickNik and I have to say I’m disappointed. I’ve always wanted to be part of the a shadowy kabal where we get uniforms and have ceremonies with chants. The meeting I’ve been going to is just boringly focused on improvements to this software we all use.