Date   

Re: FYI: TOC Election (Jan 2019)

Chris Aniszczyk
 

It's updated on the website now but lives in a word doc.

We are moving the charter to GitHub to make our lives easier and that will be the canonical source moving forward.

On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:51 PM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
Thanks Chris

Where is the canonical version of the charter, and it’s change history?  Is it in GitHub somewhere? I can’t seem to find it.

Thanks

Q

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>
Date: Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 08:53
To: Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Cc: Brian Grant <briangrant@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>, Michael Dolan <mdolan@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] FYI: TOC Election (Jan 2019)


Chris,

Thanks for the quick resolution, and for communicating it to promptly to CNCF members!

         - Bryan


On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 6:17 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

Bryan, you’re correct that three years ago all CNCF members participated in the nomination process. Reviewing the meeting minutes, I found the resolution that changed the nomination language. It was never updated in the public version of the charter on the website. I apologize for the error and have fixed this now on the website adding the resolution change to Section 6(e)(ii):

“Nominations: Each CNCF member may nominate up to two (2) technical representatives, (from vendors, end users or any other fields), at most one of which may be from their respective company. The nominee(s) must agree to participate prior to being added to the nomination list.”

We have opened up the nomination process to all CNCF members now and have modified the schedule accordingly to still allow one month of nominations for all members:

Oct 26th: Nominations Open
Nov 30th: Nominations Close
Dec 1st: Qualification Period Opens
Dec 14th: Qualification Period Closes (end of KubeCon Seattle)
Dec 17th: Election Opens
Jan 22nd: Election Closes
Jan 29th: Election Results Posted


Thanks, I've updated things here also: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/election-schedule.md


On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 8:10 PM Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
There are some more details here, such as which TOC members were elected by which group:


On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 4:42 PM Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...> wrote:

I don't think that that's correct -- or rather, I don't see any grammatical way that "each individual (entity or member) eligible to nominate a TOC member may nominate..." can possibly refer to 6(e)(i), which describes the composition of the TOC.  If that's the intent, 6(e)(ii) would read: "each individual (entity or member) eligible to elect a TOC member may nominate..." (emphasis mine).  Again, I believe that our intent when developing the charter was that any member of the CNCF regardless of level would be able to at least nominate members for the TOC.  Moreover, when I look back at the nominations from three years ago, I see nominations from CNCF members from all levels (that is, regardless of membership level) -- and I can't find any document that indicates that the nomination process for that first election would have different nomination entity eligibility than our process now. 

So it is my belief that all CNCF members can participate in nominations -- not merely those who are on the governing board.  Mike, could you weigh in here?  This is highly relevant as it affects our current nomination process.

         - Bryan


On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 4:17 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Totally agree that it's a bit confusing at first, but on the nomination point:

"Each individual (entity or member) eligible to nominate a TOC member may nominate" refers to the previous clause which says "The TOC shall be composed of nine (9) TOC members: six (6) elected by the Governing Board, one (1) selected by the End User TAB and two (2) elected by the initial seven TOC members."

So, for the election of the 6 GB-appointed TOC members, each person on the GB may nominate up to two people, with at most one from their company, and then vote.

For the election for the end user-appointed TOC member, each company in the end user community can nominate and vote.

And then when the TOC has an election to reappoint or replace Quinton in March, the 7 non-TOC-appointed members of the TOC (meaning everyone but Quinton and Brian) will do the nominating and voting. We updated https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/election-schedule.md to state whether they were GB-appointed, TOC-appointed, or end user-appointed: https://github.com/cncf/toc/commit/c46b1afb333f80fbf1b8e153cb207d069162511c

Hope this helps.


On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:37 PM Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...> wrote:

Chris,

I'm a little confused about the nomination process. In particular, I can't see where in the charter it describes who many nominate candidates for the TOC. In section 6(e)(ii) it says:

Each individual (entity or member) eligible to nominate a TOC member may nominate up to two (2) technical representatives, (from vendors, end users or any other fields), at most one of which may be from their respective company. The nominee(s) must agree to participate prior to being added to the nomination list.

But I cannot see where in the doc it is actually defines who is eligible to nominate a TOC member.  (Our implementation is that it is voting members of the governing board who are permitted to nominate, but why wouldn't the charter say that if that's the intent?)  I am trying to recall our chartering discussions, and I seem to recall that one of the advantages of any level of membership was that a member could nominate for the TOC; is that incorrect?  If so, would you mind pointing me to the document that defines the nomination process?

Somewhat similarly: I think it will also be helpful to get clarity about the origins of each member, to clearly delineate the 6 GB-determined members from the 2 TOC-determined members from the 1 end user-determined member.  Which is really a polite way of me saying that between the initial TOC conditions, the resignations, etc., I have lost track of who's who. ;)

          - Bryan


On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:32 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
TOC nominations are starting TODAY for the 6 TOC slots that open up in Jan 2019 that are selected by GB members (they can propose UP TO TWO NOMINEES as part of the GB, where you can only nominate up to one candidate from your organization, the other candidate has to be outside your organization): https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/election-schedule.md

The seats that open up are:

Jonathan Boulle (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Bryan Cantrill (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Camille Fournier (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Benjamin Hindman (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Ken Owens (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Alexis Richardson (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)

Here's the timeline for the election, we are giving ample time due to the holidays:

Oct 26th: Nominations Open (TODAY)
Nov 26th: Nominations Close
Nov 27th: Qualification Period Opens
Dec 14th: Qualification Period Closes (end of KubeCon Seattle)
Dec 17th: Election Opens
Jan 22nd: Election Closes
Jan 29th: Election Results Posted!

In summary, these nominations are for the 6 slots nominated by the CNCF Governing Board (GB) members. You have to be a CNCF GB member in order to nominate someone. Each CNCF GB member CAN NOMINATION ONLY TWO PEOPLE MAXIMUM, where only one of them can come from your company (the other candidate can come from anywhere). See CNCF Charter Section 6(e) for full election process details: https://www.cncf.io/about/charter

We will also discuss this at the next TOC meeting on Nov 6th regarding the process if the community has any questions.

Thanks!

--
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


Re: FYI: TOC Election (Jan 2019)

Quinton Hoole
 

Thanks Chris

Where is the canonical version of the charter, and it’s change history?  Is it in GitHub somewhere? I can’t seem to find it.

Thanks

Q

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>
Date: Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 08:53
To: Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Cc: Brian Grant <briangrant@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>, Michael Dolan <mdolan@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] FYI: TOC Election (Jan 2019)


Chris,

Thanks for the quick resolution, and for communicating it to promptly to CNCF members!

         - Bryan


On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 6:17 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

Bryan, you’re correct that three years ago all CNCF members participated in the nomination process. Reviewing the meeting minutes, I found the resolution that changed the nomination language. It was never updated in the public version of the charter on the website. I apologize for the error and have fixed this now on the website adding the resolution change to Section 6(e)(ii):

“Nominations: Each CNCF member may nominate up to two (2) technical representatives, (from vendors, end users or any other fields), at most one of which may be from their respective company. The nominee(s) must agree to participate prior to being added to the nomination list.”

We have opened up the nomination process to all CNCF members now and have modified the schedule accordingly to still allow one month of nominations for all members:

Oct 26th: Nominations Open
Nov 30th: Nominations Close
Dec 1st: Qualification Period Opens
Dec 14th: Qualification Period Closes (end of KubeCon Seattle)
Dec 17th: Election Opens
Jan 22nd: Election Closes
Jan 29th: Election Results Posted


Thanks, I've updated things here also: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/election-schedule.md


On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 8:10 PM Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
There are some more details here, such as which TOC members were elected by which group:


On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 4:42 PM Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...> wrote:

I don't think that that's correct -- or rather, I don't see any grammatical way that "each individual (entity or member) eligible to nominate a TOC member may nominate..." can possibly refer to 6(e)(i), which describes the composition of the TOC.  If that's the intent, 6(e)(ii) would read: "each individual (entity or member) eligible to elect a TOC member may nominate..." (emphasis mine).  Again, I believe that our intent when developing the charter was that any member of the CNCF regardless of level would be able to at least nominate members for the TOC.  Moreover, when I look back at the nominations from three years ago, I see nominations from CNCF members from all levels (that is, regardless of membership level) -- and I can't find any document that indicates that the nomination process for that first election would have different nomination entity eligibility than our process now. 

So it is my belief that all CNCF members can participate in nominations -- not merely those who are on the governing board.  Mike, could you weigh in here?  This is highly relevant as it affects our current nomination process.

         - Bryan


On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 4:17 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Totally agree that it's a bit confusing at first, but on the nomination point:

"Each individual (entity or member) eligible to nominate a TOC member may nominate" refers to the previous clause which says "The TOC shall be composed of nine (9) TOC members: six (6) elected by the Governing Board, one (1) selected by the End User TAB and two (2) elected by the initial seven TOC members."

So, for the election of the 6 GB-appointed TOC members, each person on the GB may nominate up to two people, with at most one from their company, and then vote.

For the election for the end user-appointed TOC member, each company in the end user community can nominate and vote.

And then when the TOC has an election to reappoint or replace Quinton in March, the 7 non-TOC-appointed members of the TOC (meaning everyone but Quinton and Brian) will do the nominating and voting. We updated https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/election-schedule.md to state whether they were GB-appointed, TOC-appointed, or end user-appointed: https://github.com/cncf/toc/commit/c46b1afb333f80fbf1b8e153cb207d069162511c

Hope this helps.


On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:37 PM Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...> wrote:

Chris,

I'm a little confused about the nomination process. In particular, I can't see where in the charter it describes who many nominate candidates for the TOC. In section 6(e)(ii) it says:

Each individual (entity or member) eligible to nominate a TOC member may nominate up to two (2) technical representatives, (from vendors, end users or any other fields), at most one of which may be from their respective company. The nominee(s) must agree to participate prior to being added to the nomination list.

But I cannot see where in the doc it is actually defines who is eligible to nominate a TOC member.  (Our implementation is that it is voting members of the governing board who are permitted to nominate, but why wouldn't the charter say that if that's the intent?)  I am trying to recall our chartering discussions, and I seem to recall that one of the advantages of any level of membership was that a member could nominate for the TOC; is that incorrect?  If so, would you mind pointing me to the document that defines the nomination process?

Somewhat similarly: I think it will also be helpful to get clarity about the origins of each member, to clearly delineate the 6 GB-determined members from the 2 TOC-determined members from the 1 end user-determined member.  Which is really a polite way of me saying that between the initial TOC conditions, the resignations, etc., I have lost track of who's who. ;)

          - Bryan


On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:32 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
TOC nominations are starting TODAY for the 6 TOC slots that open up in Jan 2019 that are selected by GB members (they can propose UP TO TWO NOMINEES as part of the GB, where you can only nominate up to one candidate from your organization, the other candidate has to be outside your organization): https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/election-schedule.md

The seats that open up are:

Jonathan Boulle (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Bryan Cantrill (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Camille Fournier (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Benjamin Hindman (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Ken Owens (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Alexis Richardson (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)

Here's the timeline for the election, we are giving ample time due to the holidays:

Oct 26th: Nominations Open (TODAY)
Nov 26th: Nominations Close
Nov 27th: Qualification Period Opens
Dec 14th: Qualification Period Closes (end of KubeCon Seattle)
Dec 17th: Election Opens
Jan 22nd: Election Closes
Jan 29th: Election Results Posted!

In summary, these nominations are for the 6 slots nominated by the CNCF Governing Board (GB) members. You have to be a CNCF GB member in order to nominate someone. Each CNCF GB member CAN NOMINATION ONLY TWO PEOPLE MAXIMUM, where only one of them can come from your company (the other candidate can come from anywhere). See CNCF Charter Section 6(e) for full election process details: https://www.cncf.io/about/charter

We will also discuss this at the next TOC meeting on Nov 6th regarding the process if the community has any questions.

Thanks!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: FYI: TOC Election (Jan 2019)

Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>
 


Chris,

Thanks for the quick resolution, and for communicating it to promptly to CNCF members!

         - Bryan


On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 6:17 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

Bryan, you’re correct that three years ago all CNCF members participated in the nomination process. Reviewing the meeting minutes, I found the resolution that changed the nomination language. It was never updated in the public version of the charter on the website. I apologize for the error and have fixed this now on the website adding the resolution change to Section 6(e)(ii):

“Nominations: Each CNCF member may nominate up to two (2) technical representatives, (from vendors, end users or any other fields), at most one of which may be from their respective company. The nominee(s) must agree to participate prior to being added to the nomination list.”

We have opened up the nomination process to all CNCF members now and have modified the schedule accordingly to still allow one month of nominations for all members:

Oct 26th: Nominations Open
Nov 30th: Nominations Close
Dec 1st: Qualification Period Opens
Dec 14th: Qualification Period Closes (end of KubeCon Seattle)
Dec 17th: Election Opens
Jan 22nd: Election Closes
Jan 29th: Election Results Posted


Thanks, I've updated things here also: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/election-schedule.md


On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 8:10 PM Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
There are some more details here, such as which TOC members were elected by which group:


On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 4:42 PM Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...> wrote:

I don't think that that's correct -- or rather, I don't see any grammatical way that "each individual (entity or member) eligible to nominate a TOC member may nominate..." can possibly refer to 6(e)(i), which describes the composition of the TOC.  If that's the intent, 6(e)(ii) would read: "each individual (entity or member) eligible to elect a TOC member may nominate..." (emphasis mine).  Again, I believe that our intent when developing the charter was that any member of the CNCF regardless of level would be able to at least nominate members for the TOC.  Moreover, when I look back at the nominations from three years ago, I see nominations from CNCF members from all levels (that is, regardless of membership level) -- and I can't find any document that indicates that the nomination process for that first election would have different nomination entity eligibility than our process now. 

So it is my belief that all CNCF members can participate in nominations -- not merely those who are on the governing board.  Mike, could you weigh in here?  This is highly relevant as it affects our current nomination process.

         - Bryan


On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 4:17 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Totally agree that it's a bit confusing at first, but on the nomination point:

"Each individual (entity or member) eligible to nominate a TOC member may nominate" refers to the previous clause which says "The TOC shall be composed of nine (9) TOC members: six (6) elected by the Governing Board, one (1) selected by the End User TAB and two (2) elected by the initial seven TOC members."

So, for the election of the 6 GB-appointed TOC members, each person on the GB may nominate up to two people, with at most one from their company, and then vote.

For the election for the end user-appointed TOC member, each company in the end user community can nominate and vote.

And then when the TOC has an election to reappoint or replace Quinton in March, the 7 non-TOC-appointed members of the TOC (meaning everyone but Quinton and Brian) will do the nominating and voting. We updated https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/election-schedule.md to state whether they were GB-appointed, TOC-appointed, or end user-appointed: https://github.com/cncf/toc/commit/c46b1afb333f80fbf1b8e153cb207d069162511c

Hope this helps.


On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:37 PM Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...> wrote:

Chris,

I'm a little confused about the nomination process. In particular, I can't see where in the charter it describes who many nominate candidates for the TOC. In section 6(e)(ii) it says:

Each individual (entity or member) eligible to nominate a TOC member may nominate up to two (2) technical representatives, (from vendors, end users or any other fields), at most one of which may be from their respective company. The nominee(s) must agree to participate prior to being added to the nomination list.

But I cannot see where in the doc it is actually defines who is eligible to nominate a TOC member.  (Our implementation is that it is voting members of the governing board who are permitted to nominate, but why wouldn't the charter say that if that's the intent?)  I am trying to recall our chartering discussions, and I seem to recall that one of the advantages of any level of membership was that a member could nominate for the TOC; is that incorrect?  If so, would you mind pointing me to the document that defines the nomination process?

Somewhat similarly: I think it will also be helpful to get clarity about the origins of each member, to clearly delineate the 6 GB-determined members from the 2 TOC-determined members from the 1 end user-determined member.  Which is really a polite way of me saying that between the initial TOC conditions, the resignations, etc., I have lost track of who's who. ;)

          - Bryan


On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:32 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
TOC nominations are starting TODAY for the 6 TOC slots that open up in Jan 2019 that are selected by GB members (they can propose UP TO TWO NOMINEES as part of the GB, where you can only nominate up to one candidate from your organization, the other candidate has to be outside your organization): https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/election-schedule.md

The seats that open up are:

Jonathan Boulle (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Bryan Cantrill (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Camille Fournier (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Benjamin Hindman (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Ken Owens (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Alexis Richardson (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)

Here's the timeline for the election, we are giving ample time due to the holidays:

Oct 26th: Nominations Open (TODAY)
Nov 26th: Nominations Close
Nov 27th: Qualification Period Opens
Dec 14th: Qualification Period Closes (end of KubeCon Seattle)
Dec 17th: Election Opens
Jan 22nd: Election Closes
Jan 29th: Election Results Posted!

In summary, these nominations are for the 6 slots nominated by the CNCF Governing Board (GB) members. You have to be a CNCF GB member in order to nominate someone. Each CNCF GB member CAN NOMINATION ONLY TWO PEOPLE MAXIMUM, where only one of them can come from your company (the other candidate can come from anywhere). See CNCF Charter Section 6(e) for full election process details: https://www.cncf.io/about/charter

We will also discuss this at the next TOC meeting on Nov 6th regarding the process if the community has any questions.

Thanks!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: FYI: TOC Election (Jan 2019)

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Bryan, you’re correct that three years ago all CNCF members participated in the nomination process. Reviewing the meeting minutes, I found the resolution that changed the nomination language. It was never updated in the public version of the charter on the website. I apologize for the error and have fixed this now on the website adding the resolution change to Section 6(e)(ii):

“Nominations: Each CNCF member may nominate up to two (2) technical representatives, (from vendors, end users or any other fields), at most one of which may be from their respective company. The nominee(s) must agree to participate prior to being added to the nomination list.”

We have opened up the nomination process to all CNCF members now and have modified the schedule accordingly to still allow one month of nominations for all members:

Oct 26th: Nominations Open
Nov 30th: Nominations Close
Dec 1st: Qualification Period Opens
Dec 14th: Qualification Period Closes (end of KubeCon Seattle)
Dec 17th: Election Opens
Jan 22nd: Election Closes
Jan 29th: Election Results Posted


Thanks, I've updated things here also: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/election-schedule.md


On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 8:10 PM Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
There are some more details here, such as which TOC members were elected by which group:


On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 4:42 PM Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...> wrote:

I don't think that that's correct -- or rather, I don't see any grammatical way that "each individual (entity or member) eligible to nominate a TOC member may nominate..." can possibly refer to 6(e)(i), which describes the composition of the TOC.  If that's the intent, 6(e)(ii) would read: "each individual (entity or member) eligible to elect a TOC member may nominate..." (emphasis mine).  Again, I believe that our intent when developing the charter was that any member of the CNCF regardless of level would be able to at least nominate members for the TOC.  Moreover, when I look back at the nominations from three years ago, I see nominations from CNCF members from all levels (that is, regardless of membership level) -- and I can't find any document that indicates that the nomination process for that first election would have different nomination entity eligibility than our process now. 

So it is my belief that all CNCF members can participate in nominations -- not merely those who are on the governing board.  Mike, could you weigh in here?  This is highly relevant as it affects our current nomination process.

         - Bryan


On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 4:17 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Totally agree that it's a bit confusing at first, but on the nomination point:

"Each individual (entity or member) eligible to nominate a TOC member may nominate" refers to the previous clause which says "The TOC shall be composed of nine (9) TOC members: six (6) elected by the Governing Board, one (1) selected by the End User TAB and two (2) elected by the initial seven TOC members."

So, for the election of the 6 GB-appointed TOC members, each person on the GB may nominate up to two people, with at most one from their company, and then vote.

For the election for the end user-appointed TOC member, each company in the end user community can nominate and vote.

And then when the TOC has an election to reappoint or replace Quinton in March, the 7 non-TOC-appointed members of the TOC (meaning everyone but Quinton and Brian) will do the nominating and voting. We updated https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/election-schedule.md to state whether they were GB-appointed, TOC-appointed, or end user-appointed: https://github.com/cncf/toc/commit/c46b1afb333f80fbf1b8e153cb207d069162511c

Hope this helps.


On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:37 PM Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...> wrote:

Chris,

I'm a little confused about the nomination process. In particular, I can't see where in the charter it describes who many nominate candidates for the TOC. In section 6(e)(ii) it says:

Each individual (entity or member) eligible to nominate a TOC member may nominate up to two (2) technical representatives, (from vendors, end users or any other fields), at most one of which may be from their respective company. The nominee(s) must agree to participate prior to being added to the nomination list.

But I cannot see where in the doc it is actually defines who is eligible to nominate a TOC member.  (Our implementation is that it is voting members of the governing board who are permitted to nominate, but why wouldn't the charter say that if that's the intent?)  I am trying to recall our chartering discussions, and I seem to recall that one of the advantages of any level of membership was that a member could nominate for the TOC; is that incorrect?  If so, would you mind pointing me to the document that defines the nomination process?

Somewhat similarly: I think it will also be helpful to get clarity about the origins of each member, to clearly delineate the 6 GB-determined members from the 2 TOC-determined members from the 1 end user-determined member.  Which is really a polite way of me saying that between the initial TOC conditions, the resignations, etc., I have lost track of who's who. ;)

          - Bryan


On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:32 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
TOC nominations are starting TODAY for the 6 TOC slots that open up in Jan 2019 that are selected by GB members (they can propose UP TO TWO NOMINEES as part of the GB, where you can only nominate up to one candidate from your organization, the other candidate has to be outside your organization): https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/election-schedule.md

The seats that open up are:

Jonathan Boulle (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Bryan Cantrill (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Camille Fournier (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Benjamin Hindman (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Ken Owens (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Alexis Richardson (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)

Here's the timeline for the election, we are giving ample time due to the holidays:

Oct 26th: Nominations Open (TODAY)
Nov 26th: Nominations Close
Nov 27th: Qualification Period Opens
Dec 14th: Qualification Period Closes (end of KubeCon Seattle)
Dec 17th: Election Opens
Jan 22nd: Election Closes
Jan 29th: Election Results Posted!

In summary, these nominations are for the 6 slots nominated by the CNCF Governing Board (GB) members. You have to be a CNCF GB member in order to nominate someone. Each CNCF GB member CAN NOMINATION ONLY TWO PEOPLE MAXIMUM, where only one of them can come from your company (the other candidate can come from anywhere). See CNCF Charter Section 6(e) for full election process details: https://www.cncf.io/about/charter

We will also discuss this at the next TOC meeting on Nov 6th regarding the process if the community has any questions.

Thanks!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: FYI: TOC Election (Jan 2019)

Brian Grant
 

There are some more details here, such as which TOC members were elected by which group:


On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 4:42 PM Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...> wrote:

I don't think that that's correct -- or rather, I don't see any grammatical way that "each individual (entity or member) eligible to nominate a TOC member may nominate..." can possibly refer to 6(e)(i), which describes the composition of the TOC.  If that's the intent, 6(e)(ii) would read: "each individual (entity or member) eligible to elect a TOC member may nominate..." (emphasis mine).  Again, I believe that our intent when developing the charter was that any member of the CNCF regardless of level would be able to at least nominate members for the TOC.  Moreover, when I look back at the nominations from three years ago, I see nominations from CNCF members from all levels (that is, regardless of membership level) -- and I can't find any document that indicates that the nomination process for that first election would have different nomination entity eligibility than our process now. 

So it is my belief that all CNCF members can participate in nominations -- not merely those who are on the governing board.  Mike, could you weigh in here?  This is highly relevant as it affects our current nomination process.

         - Bryan


On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 4:17 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Totally agree that it's a bit confusing at first, but on the nomination point:

"Each individual (entity or member) eligible to nominate a TOC member may nominate" refers to the previous clause which says "The TOC shall be composed of nine (9) TOC members: six (6) elected by the Governing Board, one (1) selected by the End User TAB and two (2) elected by the initial seven TOC members."

So, for the election of the 6 GB-appointed TOC members, each person on the GB may nominate up to two people, with at most one from their company, and then vote.

For the election for the end user-appointed TOC member, each company in the end user community can nominate and vote.

And then when the TOC has an election to reappoint or replace Quinton in March, the 7 non-TOC-appointed members of the TOC (meaning everyone but Quinton and Brian) will do the nominating and voting. We updated https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/election-schedule.md to state whether they were GB-appointed, TOC-appointed, or end user-appointed: https://github.com/cncf/toc/commit/c46b1afb333f80fbf1b8e153cb207d069162511c

Hope this helps.


On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:37 PM Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...> wrote:

Chris,

I'm a little confused about the nomination process. In particular, I can't see where in the charter it describes who many nominate candidates for the TOC. In section 6(e)(ii) it says:

Each individual (entity or member) eligible to nominate a TOC member may nominate up to two (2) technical representatives, (from vendors, end users or any other fields), at most one of which may be from their respective company. The nominee(s) must agree to participate prior to being added to the nomination list.

But I cannot see where in the doc it is actually defines who is eligible to nominate a TOC member.  (Our implementation is that it is voting members of the governing board who are permitted to nominate, but why wouldn't the charter say that if that's the intent?)  I am trying to recall our chartering discussions, and I seem to recall that one of the advantages of any level of membership was that a member could nominate for the TOC; is that incorrect?  If so, would you mind pointing me to the document that defines the nomination process?

Somewhat similarly: I think it will also be helpful to get clarity about the origins of each member, to clearly delineate the 6 GB-determined members from the 2 TOC-determined members from the 1 end user-determined member.  Which is really a polite way of me saying that between the initial TOC conditions, the resignations, etc., I have lost track of who's who. ;)

          - Bryan


On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:32 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
TOC nominations are starting TODAY for the 6 TOC slots that open up in Jan 2019 that are selected by GB members (they can propose UP TO TWO NOMINEES as part of the GB, where you can only nominate up to one candidate from your organization, the other candidate has to be outside your organization): https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/election-schedule.md

The seats that open up are:

Jonathan Boulle (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Bryan Cantrill (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Camille Fournier (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Benjamin Hindman (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Ken Owens (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Alexis Richardson (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)

Here's the timeline for the election, we are giving ample time due to the holidays:

Oct 26th: Nominations Open (TODAY)
Nov 26th: Nominations Close
Nov 27th: Qualification Period Opens
Dec 14th: Qualification Period Closes (end of KubeCon Seattle)
Dec 17th: Election Opens
Jan 22nd: Election Closes
Jan 29th: Election Results Posted!

In summary, these nominations are for the 6 slots nominated by the CNCF Governing Board (GB) members. You have to be a CNCF GB member in order to nominate someone. Each CNCF GB member CAN NOMINATION ONLY TWO PEOPLE MAXIMUM, where only one of them can come from your company (the other candidate can come from anywhere). See CNCF Charter Section 6(e) for full election process details: https://www.cncf.io/about/charter

We will also discuss this at the next TOC meeting on Nov 6th regarding the process if the community has any questions.

Thanks!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: FYI: TOC Election (Jan 2019)

Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>
 


I don't think that that's correct -- or rather, I don't see any grammatical way that "each individual (entity or member) eligible to nominate a TOC member may nominate..." can possibly refer to 6(e)(i), which describes the composition of the TOC.  If that's the intent, 6(e)(ii) would read: "each individual (entity or member) eligible to elect a TOC member may nominate..." (emphasis mine).  Again, I believe that our intent when developing the charter was that any member of the CNCF regardless of level would be able to at least nominate members for the TOC.  Moreover, when I look back at the nominations from three years ago, I see nominations from CNCF members from all levels (that is, regardless of membership level) -- and I can't find any document that indicates that the nomination process for that first election would have different nomination entity eligibility than our process now. 

So it is my belief that all CNCF members can participate in nominations -- not merely those who are on the governing board.  Mike, could you weigh in here?  This is highly relevant as it affects our current nomination process.

         - Bryan


On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 4:17 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Totally agree that it's a bit confusing at first, but on the nomination point:

"Each individual (entity or member) eligible to nominate a TOC member may nominate" refers to the previous clause which says "The TOC shall be composed of nine (9) TOC members: six (6) elected by the Governing Board, one (1) selected by the End User TAB and two (2) elected by the initial seven TOC members."

So, for the election of the 6 GB-appointed TOC members, each person on the GB may nominate up to two people, with at most one from their company, and then vote.

For the election for the end user-appointed TOC member, each company in the end user community can nominate and vote.

And then when the TOC has an election to reappoint or replace Quinton in March, the 7 non-TOC-appointed members of the TOC (meaning everyone but Quinton and Brian) will do the nominating and voting. We updated https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/election-schedule.md to state whether they were GB-appointed, TOC-appointed, or end user-appointed: https://github.com/cncf/toc/commit/c46b1afb333f80fbf1b8e153cb207d069162511c

Hope this helps.


On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:37 PM Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...> wrote:

Chris,

I'm a little confused about the nomination process. In particular, I can't see where in the charter it describes who many nominate candidates for the TOC. In section 6(e)(ii) it says:

Each individual (entity or member) eligible to nominate a TOC member may nominate up to two (2) technical representatives, (from vendors, end users or any other fields), at most one of which may be from their respective company. The nominee(s) must agree to participate prior to being added to the nomination list.

But I cannot see where in the doc it is actually defines who is eligible to nominate a TOC member.  (Our implementation is that it is voting members of the governing board who are permitted to nominate, but why wouldn't the charter say that if that's the intent?)  I am trying to recall our chartering discussions, and I seem to recall that one of the advantages of any level of membership was that a member could nominate for the TOC; is that incorrect?  If so, would you mind pointing me to the document that defines the nomination process?

Somewhat similarly: I think it will also be helpful to get clarity about the origins of each member, to clearly delineate the 6 GB-determined members from the 2 TOC-determined members from the 1 end user-determined member.  Which is really a polite way of me saying that between the initial TOC conditions, the resignations, etc., I have lost track of who's who. ;)

          - Bryan


On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:32 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
TOC nominations are starting TODAY for the 6 TOC slots that open up in Jan 2019 that are selected by GB members (they can propose UP TO TWO NOMINEES as part of the GB, where you can only nominate up to one candidate from your organization, the other candidate has to be outside your organization): https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/election-schedule.md

The seats that open up are:

Jonathan Boulle (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Bryan Cantrill (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Camille Fournier (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Benjamin Hindman (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Ken Owens (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Alexis Richardson (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)

Here's the timeline for the election, we are giving ample time due to the holidays:

Oct 26th: Nominations Open (TODAY)
Nov 26th: Nominations Close
Nov 27th: Qualification Period Opens
Dec 14th: Qualification Period Closes (end of KubeCon Seattle)
Dec 17th: Election Opens
Jan 22nd: Election Closes
Jan 29th: Election Results Posted!

In summary, these nominations are for the 6 slots nominated by the CNCF Governing Board (GB) members. You have to be a CNCF GB member in order to nominate someone. Each CNCF GB member CAN NOMINATION ONLY TWO PEOPLE MAXIMUM, where only one of them can come from your company (the other candidate can come from anywhere). See CNCF Charter Section 6(e) for full election process details: https://www.cncf.io/about/charter

We will also discuss this at the next TOC meeting on Nov 6th regarding the process if the community has any questions.

Thanks!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: FYI: TOC Election (Jan 2019)

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Totally agree that it's a bit confusing at first, but on the nomination point:

"Each individual (entity or member) eligible to nominate a TOC member may nominate" refers to the previous clause which says "The TOC shall be composed of nine (9) TOC members: six (6) elected by the Governing Board, one (1) selected by the End User TAB and two (2) elected by the initial seven TOC members."

So, for the election of the 6 GB-appointed TOC members, each person on the GB may nominate up to two people, with at most one from their company, and then vote.

For the election for the end user-appointed TOC member, each company in the end user community can nominate and vote.

And then when the TOC has an election to reappoint or replace Quinton in March, the 7 non-TOC-appointed members of the TOC (meaning everyone but Quinton and Brian) will do the nominating and voting. We updated https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/election-schedule.md to state whether they were GB-appointed, TOC-appointed, or end user-appointed: https://github.com/cncf/toc/commit/c46b1afb333f80fbf1b8e153cb207d069162511c

Hope this helps.


On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:37 PM Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...> wrote:

Chris,

I'm a little confused about the nomination process. In particular, I can't see where in the charter it describes who many nominate candidates for the TOC. In section 6(e)(ii) it says:

Each individual (entity or member) eligible to nominate a TOC member may nominate up to two (2) technical representatives, (from vendors, end users or any other fields), at most one of which may be from their respective company. The nominee(s) must agree to participate prior to being added to the nomination list.

But I cannot see where in the doc it is actually defines who is eligible to nominate a TOC member.  (Our implementation is that it is voting members of the governing board who are permitted to nominate, but why wouldn't the charter say that if that's the intent?)  I am trying to recall our chartering discussions, and I seem to recall that one of the advantages of any level of membership was that a member could nominate for the TOC; is that incorrect?  If so, would you mind pointing me to the document that defines the nomination process?

Somewhat similarly: I think it will also be helpful to get clarity about the origins of each member, to clearly delineate the 6 GB-determined members from the 2 TOC-determined members from the 1 end user-determined member.  Which is really a polite way of me saying that between the initial TOC conditions, the resignations, etc., I have lost track of who's who. ;)

          - Bryan


On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:32 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
TOC nominations are starting TODAY for the 6 TOC slots that open up in Jan 2019 that are selected by GB members (they can propose UP TO TWO NOMINEES as part of the GB, where you can only nominate up to one candidate from your organization, the other candidate has to be outside your organization): https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/election-schedule.md

The seats that open up are:

Jonathan Boulle (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Bryan Cantrill (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Camille Fournier (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Benjamin Hindman (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Ken Owens (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Alexis Richardson (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)

Here's the timeline for the election, we are giving ample time due to the holidays:

Oct 26th: Nominations Open (TODAY)
Nov 26th: Nominations Close
Nov 27th: Qualification Period Opens
Dec 14th: Qualification Period Closes (end of KubeCon Seattle)
Dec 17th: Election Opens
Jan 22nd: Election Closes
Jan 29th: Election Results Posted!

In summary, these nominations are for the 6 slots nominated by the CNCF Governing Board (GB) members. You have to be a CNCF GB member in order to nominate someone. Each CNCF GB member CAN NOMINATION ONLY TWO PEOPLE MAXIMUM, where only one of them can come from your company (the other candidate can come from anywhere). See CNCF Charter Section 6(e) for full election process details: https://www.cncf.io/about/charter

We will also discuss this at the next TOC meeting on Nov 6th regarding the process if the community has any questions.

Thanks!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: FYI: TOC Election (Jan 2019)

Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>
 


Chris,

I'm a little confused about the nomination process. In particular, I can't see where in the charter it describes who many nominate candidates for the TOC. In section 6(e)(ii) it says:

Each individual (entity or member) eligible to nominate a TOC member may nominate up to two (2) technical representatives, (from vendors, end users or any other fields), at most one of which may be from their respective company. The nominee(s) must agree to participate prior to being added to the nomination list.

But I cannot see where in the doc it is actually defines who is eligible to nominate a TOC member.  (Our implementation is that it is voting members of the governing board who are permitted to nominate, but why wouldn't the charter say that if that's the intent?)  I am trying to recall our chartering discussions, and I seem to recall that one of the advantages of any level of membership was that a member could nominate for the TOC; is that incorrect?  If so, would you mind pointing me to the document that defines the nomination process?

Somewhat similarly: I think it will also be helpful to get clarity about the origins of each member, to clearly delineate the 6 GB-determined members from the 2 TOC-determined members from the 1 end user-determined member.  Which is really a polite way of me saying that between the initial TOC conditions, the resignations, etc., I have lost track of who's who. ;)

          - Bryan


On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:32 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
TOC nominations are starting TODAY for the 6 TOC slots that open up in Jan 2019 that are selected by GB members (they can propose UP TO TWO NOMINEES as part of the GB, where you can only nominate up to one candidate from your organization, the other candidate has to be outside your organization): https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/election-schedule.md

The seats that open up are:

Jonathan Boulle (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Bryan Cantrill (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Camille Fournier (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Benjamin Hindman (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Ken Owens (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Alexis Richardson (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)

Here's the timeline for the election, we are giving ample time due to the holidays:

Oct 26th: Nominations Open (TODAY)
Nov 26th: Nominations Close
Nov 27th: Qualification Period Opens
Dec 14th: Qualification Period Closes (end of KubeCon Seattle)
Dec 17th: Election Opens
Jan 22nd: Election Closes
Jan 29th: Election Results Posted!

In summary, these nominations are for the 6 slots nominated by the CNCF Governing Board (GB) members. You have to be a CNCF GB member in order to nominate someone. Each CNCF GB member CAN NOMINATION ONLY TWO PEOPLE MAXIMUM, where only one of them can come from your company (the other candidate can come from anywhere). See CNCF Charter Section 6(e) for full election process details: https://www.cncf.io/about/charter

We will also discuss this at the next TOC meeting on Nov 6th regarding the process if the community has any questions.

Thanks!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


RFC: Archiving Project Process for CNCF

Chris Aniszczyk
 

TOC and wider community, there's been some discussion with the TOC about formalizing an archiving process for CNCF projects and what that would mean for projects.

Please take a look at this issue and associated PR and make some comments:

We would love to get feedback from the community on this topic. Thanks!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


RFC: Upcoming CNCF Project Graduation/Incubation Reviews

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Hey TOC and wider community, we have a set of project graduation/incubation reviews coming up that we want to share with the wider community:

containerd (graduation): https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/165

Feel free to comment on the PRs, we will discuss many of these at the next TOC meeting.

Thanks!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


FYI: TOC Election (Jan 2019)

Chris Aniszczyk
 

TOC nominations are starting TODAY for the 6 TOC slots that open up in Jan 2019 that are selected by GB members (they can propose UP TO TWO NOMINEES as part of the GB, where you can only nominate up to one candidate from your organization, the other candidate has to be outside your organization): https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/election-schedule.md

The seats that open up are:

Jonathan Boulle (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Bryan Cantrill (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Camille Fournier (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Benjamin Hindman (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Ken Owens (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)
Alexis Richardson (term: 3 years - start date: 1/29/2016)

Here's the timeline for the election, we are giving ample time due to the holidays:

Oct 26th: Nominations Open (TODAY)
Nov 26th: Nominations Close
Nov 27th: Qualification Period Opens
Dec 14th: Qualification Period Closes (end of KubeCon Seattle)
Dec 17th: Election Opens
Jan 22nd: Election Closes
Jan 29th: Election Results Posted!

In summary, these nominations are for the 6 slots nominated by the CNCF Governing Board (GB) members. You have to be a CNCF GB member in order to nominate someone. Each CNCF GB member CAN NOMINATION ONLY TWO PEOPLE MAXIMUM, where only one of them can come from your company (the other candidate can come from anywhere). See CNCF Charter Section 6(e) for full election process details: https://www.cncf.io/about/charter

We will also discuss this at the next TOC meeting on Nov 6th regarding the process if the community has any questions.

Thanks!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: BoF scheduled on how to improve events at KubeCon Seattle

Richard Hartmann
 

Thank you for this. I kept making more and more notes, but could not
figure out a sane place to put a concise reply in this 100+ mail
thread.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 8:12 PM Chris Aniszczyk
<caniszczyk@...> wrote:

After some community feedback we scheduled this session at KubeCon Seattle:

"BoF: KubeCon + CloudNativeCon - How Can We Improve the Conference"
https://kccna18.sched.com/event/I7Iv

If you have more feedback, please comment on this doc:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sDXfk5MHAmHZVdIx1t4PREo_SSXKcloCOUYjZIo4jBs/edit

Look forward to seeing folks in Seattle!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: BoF scheduled on how to improve events at KubeCon Seattle

Chris Aniszczyk
 

It will run off the feedback doc + whatever suggestions people will bring up at the event.


On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 1:23 PM Ruben Orduz <ruben@...> wrote:
Really appreciate this. Unfortunately I need to leave Seattle before then. Will there be a separate agenda or doc or will it run off the feedback doc? 

Best,
Ruben

On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 2:12 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
After some community feedback we scheduled this session at KubeCon Seattle:

"BoF: KubeCon + CloudNativeCon - How Can We Improve the Conference"

If you have more feedback, please comment on this doc:

Look forward to seeing folks in Seattle!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: BoF scheduled on how to improve events at KubeCon Seattle

Ruben Orduz <ruben@...>
 

Really appreciate this. Unfortunately I need to leave Seattle before then. Will there be a separate agenda or doc or will it run off the feedback doc? 

Best,
Ruben

On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 2:12 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
After some community feedback we scheduled this session at KubeCon Seattle:

"BoF: KubeCon + CloudNativeCon - How Can We Improve the Conference"

If you have more feedback, please comment on this doc:

Look forward to seeing folks in Seattle!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


BoF scheduled on how to improve events at KubeCon Seattle

Chris Aniszczyk
 

After some community feedback we scheduled this session at KubeCon Seattle:

"BoF: KubeCon + CloudNativeCon - How Can We Improve the Conference"

If you have more feedback, please comment on this doc:

Look forward to seeing folks in Seattle!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: Discuss CloudNaticeCon/KubeCon technical content at the TOC

Doug Davis <dug@...>
 

Not sure I can make the next meeting, but my thoughts on some of these:

> Should only CNCF projects (direct CNCF projects and Kubernetes SIGs/
> sub-projects) have intros and deep dives on the maintainers track? A
> non-CNCF project has an intro and deep dive this time around.


Yes. If a non-CNCF project can get intro and deep-dive sessions then it
lessens the need to be a CNCF project - and I think waters down our branding.
How will we decide which non-CNCF projects to allow to use of "valuable"
rooms and time-slots that could go to more breakout sessions of CNCF
projects?

> Do we limit number of general sessions per vendor? This came up on
> the list because a vendor can currently have an outsized presence.
> This can lead to competing vendors, including those at the same
> sponsorship levels, feeling they are subsidizing their competition.


I think if we adopt some of the "blind" CFP reviews that's been discussed
then we shouldn't need to enforce these kinds of limits. If one company
dominates then its due to the content of their CFPs - and therefore they
deserve it (hopefully). I think that trying to limit on a per company basis
(while it might feel good to some) will just encourage game playing in the CFP
process - e.g. put some other company as lead presenter (if we even have that
concept) due to who submitted the CFP.  Or put another way - let's do the
"blind" CFP reviews first to see how that plays out, and if we're still not
happy with results then we can explore the next "baby step" which might be
to limit sessions per vendor. I'd just prefer to take it slow and not swing
the pendulum too far too quickly on this one.

-Doug


Re: Discuss CloudNaticeCon/KubeCon technical content at the TOC

Matt Farina
 

Sarah, thanks for calling out the negative language. I didn’t mean to go that route. Sorry about that.

I think like most things in this broader community we do better by focusing on improving outcomes for our target audience(s)  or segmenting them if they are incompatible (which I don't think they are) than by restricting things we don't like.  

I agree with Sarah on this.

Do we have our target audiences documented?

Not communicating target audiences and outcomes can cause problems. For example, on the KubeCon thoughts thread there was discussing comparing a serverless conference to the upcoming seattle serverless track where knative has 4 of the 6 slots. I’m not sure what the other serverless conference was but when I went digging the ones I found were focused on developers and app people. knative is not really targeted at app devs, or so I’ve been told, and instead the developers might use something like riff instead. Riff builds on knative. Was our serverless track targeted at a different audience going for a different outcome?

Maybe there wasn’t that much intention put into it. I just wanted to highlight how different audiences and different outcomes in the same space can happen.

It may be worth being explicit on target audiences and outcomes rather than leaving it up to our differing assumptions.

It might also help us highlight gaps we have as well as areas that are currently strong and worth praising.

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



On Oct 22, 2018, at 12:38 PM, Sarah Novotny <sarahnovotny@...> wrote:

There are a few things in this discussion that are a serious concern for me.... 

vendor is being used as a pejorative here.  when we talk about vendors having outsized presences, there are also several who have very outsized *contributions* in the community (through code, docs, organizing and even full project donation).  

another concern for me is that the metrics quoted from the attendee survey was reframed from 35% of attendees listed attending sessions as their "top reason for attending" to "only a 1/3 attended for the general session technical content?"  That's not what was surveyed.  Top reason is very different from the reframe.  A conference which has ~30% expert (and speaker) attendees 30% intermediate (deeping their experience) attendees and 30% newbie attendees might well have only 30% of the attendees report session content as their *top* reason to attend the event and still be very healthy.

I do not disagree that having more user content is extraordinarily important.  However, if we want to also make the event relevant and engaging to a broad audience we have to accept that there are many reasons to attend an event such as this including collaboration with a peer group.

I think like most things in this broader community we do better by focusing on improving outcomes for our target audience(s)  or segmenting them if they are incompatible (which I don't think they are) than by restricting things we don't like.  

sarah

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 9:08 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
It may be better to serve the community needs through smaller events.

On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, 16:44 Ruben Orduz, <ruben@...> wrote:
It is low. And the fact that "Networking" ranks higher, in my possibly wrong opinion, would lead me to think it's because the vendor-centric character of KubeCon. In community-driven confs which are much more geared toward individual end-users, the hallway/expo halls are ghost towns while the sessions are going. At KubeCon much like OpenStack summits the "hallway track" and expo hall were always bustling -- both share a vendor-centric focus.

Best,
Ruben

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:22 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)

Only about 1/3 of people attended for the general session technical content? Do we know if that has changed over time? Is this typical compared to other conferences?

I can’t help but wonder, am I wrong in thinking that number is low?

What does it say about the Con if more people are coming to network than lean from the content? What does that mean for vendors?

The information leads me to many questions. Anyone looking into this kind of stuff?

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



On Oct 22, 2018, at 11:13 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

Thanks Matt, I will defer to Alexis as TOC Chair if he wants to make this an agenda item or not at an upcoming meeting. We are happy to offer space at KubeCon Seattle to discuss this topic with staff + TOC if you like in an F2F fashion if that's a better way to do this.

Just a reminder: we have collected feedback from the last discussion on the mailing list and have collated it here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sDXfk5MHAmHZVdIx1t4PREo_SSXKcloCOUYjZIo4jBs/edit (encourage comments from the community to build on this doc)

re: Yuri's point, yes we survey after every event, I've attached the report from last KubeCon in Copenhagen. "Feedback from attendees was overwhelmingly positive, with an overall average rating of 4.5 / 5. The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)"

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:02 PM Yuri Shkuro <shkuro@...> wrote:
Has there been a survey of attendees from previous conferences? Is there data that shows attendees dissatisfaction with the content and specific areas?

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:53 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
I would like to request that we have a discussion in a TOC meeting on the Con technical content. I’m happy to help curate items to discuss on it.

Three ideas I would initially seed the list with are:

  • Should only CNCF projects (direct CNCF projects and Kubernetes SIGs/sub-projects) have intros and deep dives on the maintainers track? A non-CNCF project has an intro and deep dive this time around.
  • Should we look to target tracks around types of user roles (e.g., app dev, app ops, cluster ops, project maintainers, management decision makers, etc)? If these kinds of users want to be there it gives vendors a good reason to have booths there, along with being useful to end users. I believe some of these roles are underserved today.
  • Do we limit number of general sessions per vendor? This came up on the list because a vendor can currently have an outsized presence. This can lead to competing vendors, including those at the same sponsorship levels, feeling they are subsidizing their competition.

These are just questions to talk about. Maybe ideas. Anyone have others?

I would ask that we keep these to constructive ideas to improve future Cons so we have help what comes next.


-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com







-- 
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
<KC_CNC_EU18_Report_Final-compressed.pdf>





Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Jaice Singer DuMars
 

When I think about what the CNCF is trying to accomplish, both as an organization and curator of conferences, I see a much broader and inclusive mission. In my estimation, the CNCF is the keeper of what the Cloud Native landscape can and will be. It's not only providing the guiding architectural vision, but also the community, interoperability, and implementation stories. If CNCF is myopically focused on only those projects it stewards, then it is not fully supporting this critical moment in the evolution of technology. 

KubeCon provides a crucial touchpoint for all interested parties in the Cloud Native ecosystem (and movement) to connect and assess. And, it is the nature of vendors to anticipate customer needs, so of course there will be projects and presentations that allude to possibilities more than present abilities. By its own nature, the Cloud Native space is forward looking. If there's a key takeaway for me from this thread, and other conversations I have had, it's that a pure user conference focused on deeper, richer technical content would be well-received. I think user journies will always be a part of KubeCon, but we'd be doing a disservice to the world to only be that.  Having a compelling, comprehensive vision, as Dan and the CNCF team have done, moves everything forward. And it's that momentum that will serve everyone equally. We just need to channel the right conversations, in the right places, at the right times. Yes, we can improve, but I also think everyone is doing a good job as-is.

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 9:01 AM Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...> wrote:

100% in agreement, seems like we turned KubeCon to a cool infra tech conference vs a place for people to explore working/proven solutions to build apps on top.

 

We should probably first determine which audience are we after:

  1. mega-users/vendors who build their own infra and want to know which future tech to bet on
  2. user who want build apps on top of already debugged/proven frameworks/infra

 

both options are valid, but if we put more emphasis on #1 we cannot complain why we don’t get enough “end-user” involvement, or why we get too many vendor (infra builders) submissions.

 

I stumbled into my last year’s KubeCon & AWS re:invent summary, still relevant  

https://thenewstack.io/kubecon-aws-reinvent-race-invisible-infrastructure/

 

“I couldn’t help thinking the difference between both shows was that of consumption vs. creation. AWS re:Invent was about “this is what we built and how you use it to run faster” (i.e. consumption) vs. the theme at KubeCon which was “this is how we are building it and here’s where you can download the sources” (as a community of creators).”

 

Yaron

 

From: Camille Fournier <skamille@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2018 21:29
To: liz@...
Cc: ruben@...; Matt Farina <matt@...>; Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...>; Dan Kohn <dan@...>; CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

 

I realize I'm chiming in late here but something has been bothering me about this for a while: it is very strange that most of the submissions for this track were for a technology that was announced in late July. That is really strange! The cfp closed in mid August, so we're supposed to believe that in the span of two weeks all the sudden the whole industry decided that knative was the one true serverless model? What? I realize the project did not begin in July (looks like most dev started in Feb), but this seems like a calculated vendor/project participant push given the extreme newness of the project, and incredibly suspicious.

 

C

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018, 3:07 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

Only four of the submissions on Knative were from Google! Perhaps it goes to show that a lot of other people are also interested in this technology? Again I go back to my point that a lot of people (and not just from one company) submitting on a topic suggests that at this moment in time it's of broad interest to the community. 

 

I'm not going to dig out all the numbers on Istio but it was the same kind of thing. We can't pick talks that aren't submitted!

 

 

 

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 7:43 PM Ruben Orduz <ruben@...> wrote:

I'm aware this is a bit a political minefield here, but I'm concerned the committee(s) are unintentionally choosing winners here (same for KubeCon EU Købnhavn). What I mean is this: "popularity" of a topic or tech can be driven/influenced by movers and shakers in the field. Google pushes for a tool they are working on will get much more traction than a competing tool from a small third party. A dramatic example of this phenomenon is having a whole track dedicated to Istio even though it was as yet a somewhat unproven technology on the field and far from production-ready for enterprise customers who tend to wait until a tech is more stable before deploying it. Several other service meshy-techs felt shunned by this. 

 

I'm getting the same feeling about knative here. Seeing the over abundance of talk proposals about it, it was perceived as a good gauge of community interest, which again, a behemoth is behind pushing it so that's no surprise.

 

I would posit we need to be more careful to unintentionally pick favorites based on popularity, specially when there's a huge asymmetry in terms of marketing power and community outreach among competitors in any given tech.

 

Best,

Ruben 

 

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:46 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Liz, thanks for sharing those details. I know this is a tough job. Thanks for putting up with this extra work of the questioning and people poking at the ideas here. Anything I’m suggesting is more about clarifying for future conferences and trying to be explicit where we may not have been before.

 

I completely understand the desire to identify hot technologies. With 2/3 of the proposed talks on one technology it speaks to a level of hotness.

 

But, there are a couple other ways to look at this situation…

 

First, there is as a track attendee. 4 of 6 presentations on the same technology is not exciting and does not give me a diverse view. For someone not in the know it gives the impression that the space is not very diverse and that the main piece of technology is “work-in-progress” (the label on knative). Is this the impression we want conference attendees to have?

 

Second, there is from the perspective of people proposing sessions.

 

For Kubernetes there are currently numerous serverless technologies including, but not limited to:

 

  • knative
  • OpenFaaS
  • Kubeless
  • Fission
  • Brigade
  • Virtual Kubelet (works with serverless containers like ACI, Fargate, etc but is not FaaS)

 

Jupyter bills itself as a web application and notebook. It’s getting a lot of buzz but I’ve not heard of it being billed as Serverless.

 

There are also tools like serverless that can work with numerous technologies including kubeless (on this list) that are workflow solutions.

 

In addition there are things the CNCF serverless working group has been working on like cloudevents (which has an intro and deep dive out of band from the serverless track).

 

The serverless track then has 4 of 6 session on knative, 1 of 6 on something else (Jupyter), and sessions on other serverless technologies being rejected.

 

Can we all see how decisions here could be interpreted with malicious intent and how it could put a negative view on the conference and decision making process? Whether it happened that way or not, people could come to malicious conclusions.

 

This all leads me to other questions...

 

Do we want end-user presentations in this space? Since knative is hot but not ready for production some other technology would be used by them. But, it’s useful today and not “hot”. How do we encourage end-users to present here? Is “hot” or useful today more important?

 

Is a goal diversity? If so, mirroring presentations with only those that are hot doesn’t provide for diversity.

 

If some of the intent and goal components could be ironed out it would help future decision makers.

 

 

 

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com

 

 



On Oct 9, 2018, at 1:26 PM, Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

 

Matt, thank you for your thoughtful response. I like your list and your focus on identifying solutions for things that need to be improved. 

 

Yaron, by my very quick reckoning in a rather complicated spreadsheet: of ~60 submissions under Serverless, ~40 of them mentioned Knative. If number of submissions has some rough correlation to "what the community is currently interested in" (and I believe it does) then Knative is currently very hot, and we have tried to reflect this in the agenda. There's actually a seventh talk from the Serverless list that we accepted into the Observability track because we felt it straddled both topics. 

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 5:15 PM Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...> wrote:

Dan,

 

looking at the schedule, the fact that out of total 6 sessions in the Serverless track there are 4 talks about Knative raises a serious question about the bias of this process

how come the only other two sessions are on OpenFaaS and Jupyter (serverless? really)  and other efforts in the space are left in the cold ?

 

Yaron

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Dan Kohn
Sent: Monday, October 8, 2018 23:35
To: cncf-toc@...


Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

 

 

Here is a summary of the discussion so far:

 

 

-- 

Liz Rice

@lizrice  | lizrice.com +44 (0) 780 126 1145

 

--

Liz Rice

@lizrice  | lizrice.com+44 (0) 780 126 1145



--

Jaice Singer DuMars

Open Source Governance

+1 (206) 371-2293

601 N. 34th St., Seattle WA 98103


Re: Discuss CloudNaticeCon/KubeCon technical content at the TOC

Sarah Novotny <sarahnovotny@...>
 

There are a few things in this discussion that are a serious concern for me.... 

vendor is being used as a pejorative here.  when we talk about vendors having outsized presences, there are also several who have very outsized *contributions* in the community (through code, docs, organizing and even full project donation).  

another concern for me is that the metrics quoted from the attendee survey was reframed from 35% of attendees listed attending sessions as their "top reason for attending" to "only a 1/3 attended for the general session technical content?"  That's not what was surveyed.  Top reason is very different from the reframe.  A conference which has ~30% expert (and speaker) attendees 30% intermediate (deeping their experience) attendees and 30% newbie attendees might well have only 30% of the attendees report session content as their *top* reason to attend the event and still be very healthy.

I do not disagree that having more user content is extraordinarily important.  However, if we want to also make the event relevant and engaging to a broad audience we have to accept that there are many reasons to attend an event such as this including collaboration with a peer group.

I think like most things in this broader community we do better by focusing on improving outcomes for our target audience(s)  or segmenting them if they are incompatible (which I don't think they are) than by restricting things we don't like.  

sarah

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 9:08 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
It may be better to serve the community needs through smaller events.

On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, 16:44 Ruben Orduz, <ruben@...> wrote:
It is low. And the fact that "Networking" ranks higher, in my possibly wrong opinion, would lead me to think it's because the vendor-centric character of KubeCon. In community-driven confs which are much more geared toward individual end-users, the hallway/expo halls are ghost towns while the sessions are going. At KubeCon much like OpenStack summits the "hallway track" and expo hall were always bustling -- both share a vendor-centric focus.

Best,
Ruben

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:22 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)

Only about 1/3 of people attended for the general session technical content? Do we know if that has changed over time? Is this typical compared to other conferences?

I can’t help but wonder, am I wrong in thinking that number is low?

What does it say about the Con if more people are coming to network than lean from the content? What does that mean for vendors?

The information leads me to many questions. Anyone looking into this kind of stuff?

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



On Oct 22, 2018, at 11:13 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

Thanks Matt, I will defer to Alexis as TOC Chair if he wants to make this an agenda item or not at an upcoming meeting. We are happy to offer space at KubeCon Seattle to discuss this topic with staff + TOC if you like in an F2F fashion if that's a better way to do this.

Just a reminder: we have collected feedback from the last discussion on the mailing list and have collated it here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sDXfk5MHAmHZVdIx1t4PREo_SSXKcloCOUYjZIo4jBs/edit (encourage comments from the community to build on this doc)

re: Yuri's point, yes we survey after every event, I've attached the report from last KubeCon in Copenhagen. "Feedback from attendees was overwhelmingly positive, with an overall average rating of 4.5 / 5. The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)"

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:02 PM Yuri Shkuro <shkuro@...> wrote:
Has there been a survey of attendees from previous conferences? Is there data that shows attendees dissatisfaction with the content and specific areas?

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:53 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
I would like to request that we have a discussion in a TOC meeting on the Con technical content. I’m happy to help curate items to discuss on it.

Three ideas I would initially seed the list with are:

  • Should only CNCF projects (direct CNCF projects and Kubernetes SIGs/sub-projects) have intros and deep dives on the maintainers track? A non-CNCF project has an intro and deep dive this time around.
  • Should we look to target tracks around types of user roles (e.g., app dev, app ops, cluster ops, project maintainers, management decision makers, etc)? If these kinds of users want to be there it gives vendors a good reason to have booths there, along with being useful to end users. I believe some of these roles are underserved today.
  • Do we limit number of general sessions per vendor? This came up on the list because a vendor can currently have an outsized presence. This can lead to competing vendors, including those at the same sponsorship levels, feeling they are subsidizing their competition.

These are just questions to talk about. Maybe ideas. Anyone have others?

I would ask that we keep these to constructive ideas to improve future Cons so we have help what comes next.


-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com







-- 
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
<KC_CNC_EU18_Report_Final-compressed.pdf>


Re: Discuss CloudNaticeCon/KubeCon technical content at the TOC

alexis richardson
 

It may be better to serve the community needs through smaller events.


On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, 16:44 Ruben Orduz, <ruben@...> wrote:
It is low. And the fact that "Networking" ranks higher, in my possibly wrong opinion, would lead me to think it's because the vendor-centric character of KubeCon. In community-driven confs which are much more geared toward individual end-users, the hallway/expo halls are ghost towns while the sessions are going. At KubeCon much like OpenStack summits the "hallway track" and expo hall were always bustling -- both share a vendor-centric focus.

Best,
Ruben

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:22 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)

Only about 1/3 of people attended for the general session technical content? Do we know if that has changed over time? Is this typical compared to other conferences?

I can’t help but wonder, am I wrong in thinking that number is low?

What does it say about the Con if more people are coming to network than lean from the content? What does that mean for vendors?

The information leads me to many questions. Anyone looking into this kind of stuff?

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



On Oct 22, 2018, at 11:13 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

Thanks Matt, I will defer to Alexis as TOC Chair if he wants to make this an agenda item or not at an upcoming meeting. We are happy to offer space at KubeCon Seattle to discuss this topic with staff + TOC if you like in an F2F fashion if that's a better way to do this.

Just a reminder: we have collected feedback from the last discussion on the mailing list and have collated it here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sDXfk5MHAmHZVdIx1t4PREo_SSXKcloCOUYjZIo4jBs/edit (encourage comments from the community to build on this doc)

re: Yuri's point, yes we survey after every event, I've attached the report from last KubeCon in Copenhagen. "Feedback from attendees was overwhelmingly positive, with an overall average rating of 4.5 / 5. The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)"

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:02 PM Yuri Shkuro <shkuro@...> wrote:
Has there been a survey of attendees from previous conferences? Is there data that shows attendees dissatisfaction with the content and specific areas?

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:53 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
I would like to request that we have a discussion in a TOC meeting on the Con technical content. I’m happy to help curate items to discuss on it.

Three ideas I would initially seed the list with are:

  • Should only CNCF projects (direct CNCF projects and Kubernetes SIGs/sub-projects) have intros and deep dives on the maintainers track? A non-CNCF project has an intro and deep dive this time around.
  • Should we look to target tracks around types of user roles (e.g., app dev, app ops, cluster ops, project maintainers, management decision makers, etc)? If these kinds of users want to be there it gives vendors a good reason to have booths there, along with being useful to end users. I believe some of these roles are underserved today.
  • Do we limit number of general sessions per vendor? This came up on the list because a vendor can currently have an outsized presence. This can lead to competing vendors, including those at the same sponsorship levels, feeling they are subsidizing their competition.

These are just questions to talk about. Maybe ideas. Anyone have others?

I would ask that we keep these to constructive ideas to improve future Cons so we have help what comes next.


-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com







-- 
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
<KC_CNC_EU18_Report_Final-compressed.pdf>

4981 - 5000 of 7563