SIG scopes

Liz Rice

I've been mulling over Quinton's comments on the last TOC call about SIGs reducing their scope.
  • SIGs are there to help the TOC scale, with expertise and/or time that the TOC members don't necessarily have. It would be nice if the whole Cloud Native landscape were neatly divided up amongst SIGs, but I am sure that the landscape is evolving, and we're bound to end up with things that we didn't anticipate. The TOC remains the decision-making body, and it's also the place where we decide what to do with topics or projects that don't naturally fit in a SIG. So it's OK, and natural, if there are gaps between them. 
  • SIGs (and the TOC for that matter) consist of volunteers, who have some finite amount of time to devote to SIG/TOC work. They'll probably achieve more if they stay focussed. 
  • The TOC needs to help SIGs prioritize what they're doing. This week Joe and I have been working with SIG Security on exactly this, hopefully it will serve as a template for other TOC-SIG liaisons. I do think that as volunteers, SIG teams (through their chairs) should be able to influence these priorities. 
  • We need to get away from submission-driven prioritization - it would be better to evaluate gaps in the landscape and consider possible alternative projects. So SIGs ideally *should* be focusing on particular areas within their scope
  • SIGs can evolve!
So with all that in mind I've come to the conclusion that actually a SIG reducing their scope could be a healthy sign of focus and enthusiasm. wdyt? Quinton, I hope you don't mind my debate/disagreement :-) 

There's not a lot of participation yet in some of the SIGs. I'm hoping there are folks out there who would like to be on the TOC one day, and want to get relevant experience - being meaningfully involved in a SIG should be a great way to do that (it's one of the goals of the SIGs). So how can we get more folks actively involved?


Join to automatically receive all group messages.