On 6/9/22 03:28, Davanum Srinivas wrote:

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!).

That was what I assumed when each group was asked to appoint someone. In TAG-CS, we were already discussing who we would nominate.

However, TAG chairs and core maintainers are the most overcommitted people we have in the ecosystem. If this WG is going to be successful in designing a new CoCC system for a very complicated situation, it can't be primarily made up of people who are already oversubscribed.

Beyond that, we had an excellent discussion and intro session at KubeCon with Joanna Lee. That session led attendees to expect that they would be invited to participate further in CoC process discussions in the CNCF. Most of the attendees in that session would be excluded from participation under this criteria.

I guess what I'm getting at is: why is this a closed group with membership restrictions? That's not how we run any of our TAGs. What's the reason to not make the group open to any committed community member who's willing to do the hard work required?

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