Thanks for putting this together! I have a few questions and comments on the proposal.
1. Does every existing CNCF project need to be assigned to a SIG?
Quinton> Yes, that’s the intention, primarily so that there is clear responsibility (for example for project health checks) and communication channels.
2. Does every candidate project proposal need to be prepared with a SIG?
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.
I would like to see the SIG responsibilities explicitly include helping young projects to grow and thrive (sandbox and early incubation projects). For example, each sandbox project get assigned one
or two mentors from the SIG. The SIG tech lead helps on the roadmap and governance structure for sandbox projects.
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.