On 9/2/20 2:49 PM, Matt Wilson wrote:

I think this is an interesting conversation, but it doesn't
necessarily get closer to resolving https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/459.

Yeah, I would love to see more of the other discussion on the gov-wg ML.
Pick it up there?

I would like to make a suggestion: none of what I have seen proposed
can _guarantee_ that "the project is open to contributions regardless
of employer" as was summarized as the objective in
https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/459#issuecomment-641550257.

It seems that what is being asking for is evidence, or perhaps
"proof", as embodied a project's documentation (as proposed with the
SC concept) or commit history (as it currently stands in the
graduation criteria), that they are open to contributions from
all. What matters far more to _me_ is what happens in cases where a
project is faced with disagreements, and how they are resolved
constructively and collaboratively. And it may be that a community has
never faced any material disagreement.

The "proof" is where it is. If there are people who are allowed to
merge code/docs for the project and work for multiple organizations,
that's probably the strongest proof we can obtain that contributions are
not limited by employer.

It is definitely true that there are other possible demonstrations of
openness to contributions. That's why I asked the TOC to rule on a
rationale; by making the *reason* paramout, SIGS/TOC are a position to
judge borderline cases. And if open source is good for anything, it's
creating borderline cases.

Rather than focusing on various tests and studying past events, I
would rather see the TOC and (only in the very rarest of
circumstances) GB be able to act as an ombudsman for those rare
significant disagreements that reach an impasse, because each
circumstance of disagreement is going to be unique and can require a
collection of facts before judgment.

...not quite sure what you're saying here, in practical terms.

--
--
Josh Berkus
Kubernetes Community
Red Hat OSPO