Re: [cncf-gb] Formation of CNCF CoC Update Working Group


Davanum Srinivas
 

Hi Josh,

good question! we had competing interests (size of WG to ensure it's not too big to do its work vs broad criteria to accommodate folks from various bodies)

most of the bodies, you can see that we are asking to send 1 or 2 people who essentially will help the WG interface with the body. We ended up this way because of the unbounded group of maintainers (we don't know how many of them will actually show up! and we wanted to keep the WG of a manageable size). Of course as we get it started the WG chairs (one from TOC and one from WG, which may not be Arun/me) and the WG can figure out how best to do their work once they are constituted (depending on who shows up and how many of them!). 

I totally agree that we need to engage all the subject matter experts. A few things we talked about that are in our notes and probably not in this email are around things like a public github repo etc (and use community processes like issues/prs that anyone can propose items) as well in addition to the work folks put in directly as part of the WG. Also looking at options for anonymous feedback as well.

I'll let Arun write more if I missed stuff.

thanks,
Dims


On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 6:47 PM Josh Berkus <jberkus@...> wrote:
On 6/8/22 14:54, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
> Here are some updates to the eligibility of the CoCC WG.

I'm confused by the updated criteria.

For example, within TAG Contributor Strategy, we have several people who
have direct expertise in CoCC formation.  They are not our chairs.

Shouldn't the COC-WG be composed of people with subject matter expertise?

--
-- Josh Berkus
    Kubernetes Community Architect
    OSPO, OCTO



--
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims

Join cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io to automatically receive all group messages.