Re: CNCF SIGs Proposal
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of <Li>
Date: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 09:28
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIGs Proposal
Quinton> Yes, that’s the intention, primarily so that there is clear responsibility (for example for project health checks) and communication channels.
Quinton> In theory a project could independently prepare and submit a proposal to the TOC, but a specified SIG would perform the bulk of the due diligence on the project, so it would be in the project’s interest to have the SIG help them to prepare the proposal. If a project objects to some aspect of the SIG involvement (for example claiming SIG bias against their project), then they should escalate to the TOC as required.
Quinton> I think we need to be careful about foisting unwanted guidance or control over projects by SIG’s. I would prefer to frame that as something like “projects should request assistance from their assigned SIG ….”. We already have wording around how projects request help from the CNCF, and will amend that to make it clear that this includes help from SIGs.
As the proposal mentions SIG retirement, shall we also mention the split/merge of SIGs? For example, the core and applied architecture SIG is kind of a umbrella SIG, especially the applied architecture part. I can image that the ML/big data area might need its own SIG as it grows.
Quinton> Yes, agreed. I will add wording to this effect.