Chris Aniszczyk
"How would the maintainers of the non-sandbox projects organize to handle this? This is something we have a chance of figuring out in a short period of time. If we wanted to be the change we wanted to see... how would we go about it?"
We will be posting maintainer election policy that was discussed at the GB meeting and I'll make sure to have it have language in there to address your concerns and have nothing to preclude having a comment period and other things mentioned on this thread, it should be posted by Monday.
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 12:17 PM Erin Boyd < eboyd@...> wrote: +100000 for transparency
Matt, I will suggest it to each group, but each group can do what they want.
Clearly (though I think we should change the charter). If they do what they want and favor privacy vs. transparency that should be known to the community.
There already is a comment period amongst the GB/TOC to vet nominations to "Qualified Nominees" that's baked in the charter.
This is completely opaque to the community and decidedly "back room." As I mentioned in the TOC session at the conference. My own process was: get nominated by a company on the GB, find out a got elected several months later. I didn't do, see, or hear anything. This is ridiculous.
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:34 AM Chris Aniszczyk < caniszczyk@...> wrote: Matt, I will suggest it to each group, but each group can do what they want.
There already is a comment period amongst the GB/TOC to vet nominations to "Qualified Nominees" that's baked in the charter.
In terms of publishing more than that or asking for public comment, we can ask each Selecting Group to make the call as we are really empowering each Selecting Group to make the decision.
I would like to publicly call that each "Selecting Group" adhere to process changes that I mentioned (publicly publishing all nominees and who nominated them, and allowing for public comment on the nominees). If the "Selecting Group" does not agree to this, they should publicly explain why to the community. @Chris Aniszczyk @Amye Scavarda Perrin could you help with this?
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:11 AM Chris Aniszczyk < caniszczyk@...> wrote: The process is baked into the charter here (6)(e):
I don't have a problem in publicizing the "Qualified Nominees" before they are voted upon (this is after the GB/TOC vets+qualifies the nominations anyway), there is nothing that prevents that directly in the charter and I believe the spirit of the document is to leave it up to each respective "Selecting Group"
In terms of publishing more than that or asking for public comment, we can ask each Selecting Group to make the call as we are really empowering each Selecting Group to make the decision.
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:05 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+1 I think this is an excellent suggestion
During this nomination cycle, is there any reason that we can't: - Make all nominations public, with who / what org nominated the nominee.
- Some ability for a public comment period on the nominees. If there is concern around public comments, the comments could only go to those who will vote on the nominee (though I would greatly prefer everything be fully public).
This would apply to all types of seats (GB/TOC/End user/etc.).
I think this would vastly increase transparency and community trust in the process.
Thanks, Matt
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:45 AM Davanum Srinivas < davanum@...> wrote: Thanks Chris! On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:29 AM Chris Aniszczyk < caniszczyk@...> wrote: There will be 11 seats total:
- 6 nominees from the Governing Board (GB) - 2 nominees from the End User Community (up from 1) - 1 nominee from the non-sandbox project maintainers (up from 0) - 2 nominees from the other 9 members of the TOC
For the End User TOC seats, it will be the end user members: For the non sandbox maintainer seat, it will be the non-sandbox maintainers here ( maintainers.cncf.io)
For the GB selected seats, it's the GB:
Amye will have a post out Monday describing all of this in more detail with the timeline.
Hope this helps, there's a lot of constituents that make up the TOC now.
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:23 AM Davanum Srinivas < davanum@...> wrote: Chris,
Thanks for the blog post. Do we have numbers for how many people are eligible to cast votes in each "Selecting Group"? As i read it, just 3 of the seats (2 from EUC and 1 from non-sandbox) are where the "general community" have a say in. Is that correct?
Thanks, Dims On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:16 AM Chris Aniszczyk < caniszczyk@...> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:12 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Chris, Amye, et al
With the TOC adding 2 seats, what do people do if they want to stand?
More generally as we discussed at Kubecon, how are we making the TOC
process more open & inclusive?
alexis
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
--
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
--
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
--
-- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
