Re: new SIG

Frederick Kautz

I was a bit confused over all these different types of groups. We have special interest groups, work groups, user groups, technical steering committees, technical oversight committees, not to mention all of the projects within the CNCF and sister organization’s structure brought in through the LFN, LF, Edge, Automotive. While I am not new to the Open Source community, I am new to the CNCF’s organizational structure and find navigating the plethora of group types a bit confusing. 

In short, it would be good to have some description of the groups online that lays all this out declaratively and with minimal toil. :)

My initial thought when I heard this is being formed was that this is a ’telecom industry’ user group, similar to the linux user groups (LUG).

I am a bit surprised that it is defined as an 'end user group', especially when you consider that the TUG is probably 90% vendors at this time. I think this is ok now, as long as the Telecoms are not outshouted by vendors when they describe their needs.

My preference is to maximize collaboration. Let everyone in, let people collaborate, experiment with real code. Together we win because of the diversity of people and talent. The whole community can execute better than any individual company working in isolation.

On Jun 21, 2019, at 2:47 PM, Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

Hi Erin, hi Frederick, 

I hope it goes without saying that I’m all for people coming together to collaborate! And there is precedent - for example the group of folks who got together as SAFE has now evolved into SIG-Security. So I don’t think anyone is against a group of people coming together around a common interest, and that group could certainly put together a proposal for a SIG that meets the general objectives of SIGs. (The initial list of proposed SIGs isn’t supposed to be exhaustive). 

But if this set of people are from the TUG already, I’m unclear what it is that they want to do that they can’t do in the TUG? The TUG is pretty new, so maybe there are some creases that need ironing out if the folks in it don’t feel that it’s currently effective and collaborative. Or is the problem that they want to include vendors in the group as well? Or some other line of communication that isn’t currently open?  

To reiterate, I am completely comfortable with anyone coming forward with a proposal to the TOC - I’d just encourage it to be clear about what problems it’s trying to address. 

On 21 Jun 2019, 21:39 +0100, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>, wrote:
Hi Liz & Cheryl,
I think what we hope to accomplish from a SIG is a more open dialogue for users/developers to really come together and get work done.
I know there is some concerns over past performance but we believe in part that is due to the siloed nature of the industry. Being an advocate and champion of open source and seeing in its very nature to break down these barriers provides a perfect platform where we can make progress. It also gives a chance for more collaboration across groups that might not commonly interact if they are just members of the TUG.
I feel like at the minimum the members of the TUG whom wish to create a SIG at least are able to come forward to the TOC with a proposal. That would allow everyone to respond in the open their concerns & desires.
Fredrick, please respond if I have misinterpreted your wishes here.

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 5:10 AM Cheryl Hung <chung@...> wrote:
Hi Frederick,

As Liz said, user groups don't fall under the TOC, and the Telecom and Financial Services groups have grown more or less organically.

Philosophically, end users find it easier to collaborate when discussions aren't open to vendors. This means that the User Groups are not entirely public; the mailing list and meetings are closed, and signing up requires a company email address.

In terms of expectations, the SIGs own specific areas and projects. User groups may produce code, but can also specify requirements which may be implemented in collaboration with different SIGs, projects and domain experts over time. For example, the Financial Services User Group is reaching out to financial regulators and auditors to provide training materials.

Hope this clarifies.


On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 9:44 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Actually copying Cheryl this time
On 18 Jun 2019, 22:41 +0200, Liz Rice <liz@...>, wrote:
Hi Erin! My first question would be what the group wants to achieve, and what it is about being a SIG that would help them achieve those goals? 

Hello Frederick! I think the main difference is that CNCF SIGs fall under the stewardship of the TOC whereas end user groups are outside of that. There is information about TOC SIGs here: and I’m copying in Cheryl to answer about user groups (on the assumption that end user groups ~= user groups) 

On 18 Jun 2019, 19:44 +0200, Amye Scavarda <ascavarda@...>, wrote:
Frederick! Nice to see you!
To answer your question, see:
This outlines the overall goals. While it doesn't directly address
user groups, it does outline what the responsibility of a special
interest group is.
-- amye

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:32 AM Frederick Kautz <frederick@...> wrote:

I'm relatively new to the organizational structure of the CNCF in regards to user groups vs Sig's. Is someone able to point me to some documentation about the difference between a user group and special interest group?

I wasn't able to find documentation on the definition of a user group.

Closest I could find in the definition was this:

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019, 08:42 Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote:

I have a few users from the TUG who were inquiring about the formation of a SIG for this group instead.
What are everyone's thoughts around this?


Erin A. Boyd

Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat


Amye Scavarda | Program Manager, CNCF | amye@...

Director of Ecosystem, Cloud Native Computing Foundation

Erin A. Boyd
Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat

Join to automatically receive all group messages.