Re: [cncf-wg-env-sustainability] recap of WG meeting
Mongkolsmai, Tony <tony.mongkolsmai@...>
I'm sitting on the side mostly just following along. I agree this has been sort of contentious. All I will say is it would be good to stick to facts and proposals. Comments like these are not professional and are passive aggressive and we shouldn't have them in our communications.
Also, it would be good to avoid communications like I know person X is thinking Y because they work here etc. Everyone here has a day job, and everyone here cares about sustainability.
All that being said, I still am excited that this group can have a real impact. Let's focus on the goal.
Technical Evangelist @ Intel
From: cncf-wg-env-sustainability@... <cncf-wg-env-sustainability@...> on behalf of Koerbaecher Max <m.koerbaecher@...>
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2022 5:34:48 AM
To: cncf-wg-env-sustainability@... <cncf-wg-env-sustainability@...>
Cc: Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>; CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [cncf-wg-env-sustainability] recap of WG meeting
Would like to shortly intercept here. It is not about my access, but the access for anyone interested. Afaik the direct link to the Hackmd was never shared. People need to request access before they can see something. That
is for me totally opposite of openness. And I’m sorry to say but these discussions getting on an elementary school level, maybe even kindergarten.
But, thank you Liz for the proposal, that’s exactly what I also would go for.:
I would like to see this things getting done soon. Tbh we stuck in process stuff since months and causing unnecessary work. However, I would propose in regards to this:
To answer on a few other points:
Thank you Alexis, that is speaking out of my soul! And we have/do!
But the meetings were often turned into this kind of discussions which we have right now too. And this causes that a couple of people for now took out their stake.
Huamin, thinking the way of „the TAG goals vs Max’s WG goals“ is already saying everything. Just to remind at this point - the whole group was propose as TAG:
https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/6792 And we got so much so positive and supporting feedback from all different corners of the community, it was overwhelming. It was also awesome to meet this fantastic people live at KubeCon.
On the other hand, these fruitless discussions turned down a lot of people (again, but thats a things, we want to be open and welcoming, instead boring people till they run away).
Regards Kepler, I like the idea, we have asked ourself some month ago, before we discovered your initiative, at the best eBPF devs we know, if it is possible to leverage it, and yes it is. It is awesome to think about and
work on relevant definitions, but this is one tiny aspect. However, the purpose of the Kepler group is also clear and stated multiple times in the meetings, even once written down - OT: „We know quite well what to do. Push Kepler, white papers, clear items.“
- said this way at the 6th of July, can be found in the meeting notes, was given in the context of nominating people for Chair/TL. And exactly this statements gives a very strange feeling in the aspect of fast forward suddenly everything (proposal, nominations,
setting up deadlines) after getting told we will restart the TAG process.
Maybe we should all calm down a little bit, reflect us and the discussion, and on next Wednesday the 3rd of August we can have a constructive meeting. I would be very grateful if some members of the TOC can join us too, so
that we ensure a moderated discussion and being able to come to some decisions.
On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 10:07:05, Marlow Weston <catblade@...> wrote:
Liquid Reply GmbH