Date   

Re: TOC moving to 11 seats, and how to stand

Erin Boyd
 

+100000 for transparency

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 12:44 PM Matt Klein <mattklein123@...> wrote:
Matt, I will suggest it to each group, but each group can do what they want.

Clearly (though I think we should change the charter). If they do what they want and favor privacy vs. transparency that should be known to the community.

There already is a comment period amongst the GB/TOC to vet nominations to "Qualified Nominees" that's baked in the charter.

This is completely opaque to the community and decidedly "back room." As I mentioned in the TOC session at the conference. My own process was: get nominated by a company on the GB, find out a got elected several months later. I didn't do, see, or hear anything. This is ridiculous. 
 

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:34 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Matt, I will suggest it to each group, but each group can do what they want.

There already is a comment period amongst the GB/TOC to vet nominations to "Qualified Nominees" that's baked in the charter.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:29 AM Matt Klein <mattklein123@...> wrote:
In terms of publishing more than that or asking for public comment, we can ask each Selecting Group to make the call as we are really empowering each Selecting Group to make the decision.

I would like to publicly call that each "Selecting Group" adhere to process changes that I mentioned (publicly publishing all nominees and who nominated them, and allowing for public comment on the nominees). If the "Selecting Group" does not agree to this, they should publicly explain why to the community. @Chris Aniszczyk @Amye Scavarda Perrin could you help with this?

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:11 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
The process is baked into the charter here (6)(e):

I don't have a problem in publicizing the "Qualified Nominees" before they are voted upon (this is after the GB/TOC vets+qualifies the nominations anyway), there is nothing that prevents that directly in the charter and I believe the spirit of the document is to leave it up to each respective "Selecting Group"

In terms of publishing more than that or asking for public comment, we can ask each Selecting Group to make the call as we are really empowering each Selecting Group to make the decision.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:05 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+1 I think this is an excellent suggestion 

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, 10:02 Matt Klein, <mattklein123@...> wrote:
During this nomination cycle, is there any reason that we can't:
  • Make all nominations public, with who / what org nominated the nominee.
  • Some ability for a public comment period on the nominees. If there is concern around public comments, the comments could only go to those who will vote on the nominee (though I would greatly prefer everything be fully public).
This would apply to all types of seats (GB/TOC/End user/etc.).

I think this would vastly increase transparency and community trust in the process.

Thanks,
Matt

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:45 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Thanks Chris!

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:29 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
There will be 11 seats total:

- 6 nominees from the Governing Board (GB)
- 2 nominees from the End User Community (up from 1)
- 1 nominee from the non-sandbox project maintainers (up from 0)
- 2 nominees from the other 9 members of the TOC

For the End User TOC seats, it will be the end user members:

For the non sandbox maintainer seat, it will be the non-sandbox maintainers here (maintainers.cncf.io)

For the GB selected seats, it's the GB:

Amye will have a post out Monday describing all of this in more detail with the timeline.

Hope this helps, there's a lot of constituents that make up the TOC now.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:23 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Chris,

Thanks for the blog post. Do we have numbers for how many people are eligible to cast votes in each "Selecting Group"? As i read it, just 3 of the seats (2 from EUC and 1 from non-sandbox) are where the "general community" have a say in. Is that correct?

Thanks,
Dims

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:16 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
We are working on a blog post, PR that should go out next week describing the election process, we will open nominations this month with results coming here: https://www.cncf.io/blog/2019/09/19/title-turning-the-toc-up-to-11/

The TOC election schedule has always been described here openly on GitHub:

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:12 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Chris, Amye, et al

With the TOC adding 2 seats, what do people do if they want to stand?
More generally as we discussed at Kubecon, how are we making the TOC
process more open & inclusive?

alexis


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



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


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


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



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


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



--

Erin A. Boyd

Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat

eboyd@...   


Re: TOC moving to 11 seats, and how to stand

Matt Farina
 

I have a logistical question... first the context...

Matt, I will suggest it to each group, but each group can do what they want.

Clearly (though I think we should change the charter). If they do what they want and favor privacy vs. transparency that should be known to the community.

We aren't going to have a charter change for this election. I don't expect the GB can approve a change much less have one made in time.

So...

I would like to publicly call that each "Selecting Group" adhere to process changes that I mentioned (publicly publishing all nominees and who nominated them, and allowing for public comment on the nominees). If the "Selecting Group" does not agree to this, they should publicly explain why to the community.

How would the maintainers of the non-sandbox projects organize to handle this? This is something we have a chance of figuring out in a short period of time. If we wanted to be the change we wanted to see... how would we go about it?

- Matt Farina

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019, at 1:39 PM, Matt Klein wrote:
Matt, I will suggest it to each group, but each group can do what they want.

Clearly (though I think we should change the charter). If they do what they want and favor privacy vs. transparency that should be known to the community.

There already is a comment period amongst the GB/TOC to vet nominations to "Qualified Nominees" that's baked in the charter.

This is completely opaque to the community and decidedly "back room." As I mentioned in the TOC session at the conference. My own process was: get nominated by a company on the GB, find out a got elected several months later. I didn't do, see, or hear anything. This is ridiculous. 
 

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:34 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Matt, I will suggest it to each group, but each group can do what they want.

There already is a comment period amongst the GB/TOC to vet nominations to "Qualified Nominees" that's baked in the charter.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:29 AM Matt Klein <mattklein123@...> wrote:
In terms of publishing more than that or asking for public comment, we can ask each Selecting Group to make the call as we are really empowering each Selecting Group to make the decision.

I would like to publicly call that each "Selecting Group" adhere to process changes that I mentioned (publicly publishing all nominees and who nominated them, and allowing for public comment on the nominees). If the "Selecting Group" does not agree to this, they should publicly explain why to the community. @Chris Aniszczyk @Amye Scavarda Perrin could you help with this?

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:11 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
The process is baked into the charter here (6)(e):

I don't have a problem in publicizing the "Qualified Nominees" before they are voted upon (this is after the GB/TOC vets+qualifies the nominations anyway), there is nothing that prevents that directly in the charter and I believe the spirit of the document is to leave it up to each respective "Selecting Group"

In terms of publishing more than that or asking for public comment, we can ask each Selecting Group to make the call as we are really empowering each Selecting Group to make the decision.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:05 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+1 I think this is an excellent suggestion 

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, 10:02 Matt Klein, <mattklein123@...> wrote:
During this nomination cycle, is there any reason that we can't:
  • Make all nominations public, with who / what org nominated the nominee.
  • Some ability for a public comment period on the nominees. If there is concern around public comments, the comments could only go to those who will vote on the nominee (though I would greatly prefer everything be fully public).
This would apply to all types of seats (GB/TOC/End user/etc.).

I think this would vastly increase transparency and community trust in the process.

Thanks,
Matt

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:45 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Thanks Chris!

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:29 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
There will be 11 seats total:

- 6 nominees from the Governing Board (GB)
- 2 nominees from the End User Community (up from 1)
- 1 nominee from the non-sandbox project maintainers (up from 0)
- 2 nominees from the other 9 members of the TOC

For the End User TOC seats, it will be the end user members:

For the non sandbox maintainer seat, it will be the non-sandbox maintainers here (maintainers.cncf.io)

For the GB selected seats, it's the GB:

Amye will have a post out Monday describing all of this in more detail with the timeline.

Hope this helps, there's a lot of constituents that make up the TOC now.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:23 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Chris,

Thanks for the blog post. Do we have numbers for how many people are eligible to cast votes in each "Selecting Group"? As i read it, just 3 of the seats (2 from EUC and 1 from non-sandbox) are where the "general community" have a say in. Is that correct?

Thanks,
Dims

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:16 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
We are working on a blog post, PR that should go out next week describing the election process, we will open nominations this month with results coming here: https://www.cncf.io/blog/2019/09/19/title-turning-the-toc-up-to-11/

The TOC election schedule has always been described here openly on GitHub:

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:12 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Chris, Amye, et al

With the TOC adding 2 seats, what do people do if they want to stand?
More generally as we discussed at Kubecon, how are we making the TOC
process more open & inclusive?

alexis


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





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


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


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







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


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


Re: TOC moving to 11 seats, and how to stand

Davanum Srinivas
 

Big +1 to what Matt said!


On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:39 AM Matt Klein <mattklein123@...> wrote:
Matt, I will suggest it to each group, but each group can do what they want.

Clearly (though I think we should change the charter). If they do what they want and favor privacy vs. transparency that should be known to the community.

There already is a comment period amongst the GB/TOC to vet nominations to "Qualified Nominees" that's baked in the charter.

This is completely opaque to the community and decidedly "back room." As I mentioned in the TOC session at the conference. My own process was: get nominated by a company on the GB, find out a got elected several months later. I didn't do, see, or hear anything. This is ridiculous. 
 

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:34 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Matt, I will suggest it to each group, but each group can do what they want.

There already is a comment period amongst the GB/TOC to vet nominations to "Qualified Nominees" that's baked in the charter.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:29 AM Matt Klein <mattklein123@...> wrote:
In terms of publishing more than that or asking for public comment, we can ask each Selecting Group to make the call as we are really empowering each Selecting Group to make the decision.

I would like to publicly call that each "Selecting Group" adhere to process changes that I mentioned (publicly publishing all nominees and who nominated them, and allowing for public comment on the nominees). If the "Selecting Group" does not agree to this, they should publicly explain why to the community. @Chris Aniszczyk @Amye Scavarda Perrin could you help with this?

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:11 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
The process is baked into the charter here (6)(e):

I don't have a problem in publicizing the "Qualified Nominees" before they are voted upon (this is after the GB/TOC vets+qualifies the nominations anyway), there is nothing that prevents that directly in the charter and I believe the spirit of the document is to leave it up to each respective "Selecting Group"

In terms of publishing more than that or asking for public comment, we can ask each Selecting Group to make the call as we are really empowering each Selecting Group to make the decision.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:05 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+1 I think this is an excellent suggestion 

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, 10:02 Matt Klein, <mattklein123@...> wrote:
During this nomination cycle, is there any reason that we can't:
  • Make all nominations public, with who / what org nominated the nominee.
  • Some ability for a public comment period on the nominees. If there is concern around public comments, the comments could only go to those who will vote on the nominee (though I would greatly prefer everything be fully public).
This would apply to all types of seats (GB/TOC/End user/etc.).

I think this would vastly increase transparency and community trust in the process.

Thanks,
Matt

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:45 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Thanks Chris!

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:29 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
There will be 11 seats total:

- 6 nominees from the Governing Board (GB)
- 2 nominees from the End User Community (up from 1)
- 1 nominee from the non-sandbox project maintainers (up from 0)
- 2 nominees from the other 9 members of the TOC

For the End User TOC seats, it will be the end user members:

For the non sandbox maintainer seat, it will be the non-sandbox maintainers here (maintainers.cncf.io)

For the GB selected seats, it's the GB:

Amye will have a post out Monday describing all of this in more detail with the timeline.

Hope this helps, there's a lot of constituents that make up the TOC now.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:23 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Chris,

Thanks for the blog post. Do we have numbers for how many people are eligible to cast votes in each "Selecting Group"? As i read it, just 3 of the seats (2 from EUC and 1 from non-sandbox) are where the "general community" have a say in. Is that correct?

Thanks,
Dims

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:16 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
We are working on a blog post, PR that should go out next week describing the election process, we will open nominations this month with results coming here: https://www.cncf.io/blog/2019/09/19/title-turning-the-toc-up-to-11/

The TOC election schedule has always been described here openly on GitHub:

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:12 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Chris, Amye, et al

With the TOC adding 2 seats, what do people do if they want to stand?
More generally as we discussed at Kubecon, how are we making the TOC
process more open & inclusive?

alexis


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



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


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


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



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


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


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


Re: [VOTE] Falco moving to incubation

Chris Short
 

+1 non-binding

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 13:38 Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Hey all (also including Falco mailing list) 

Just wanted to bump this thread to see if we had made any movement on this? We just had our weekly open source call and we had folks from the community asking for an update. I know life has been crazy with Kubecon and RE:invent so wanted to bring this back to life.

Thanks for your time all!

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 11:57 PM Johan Tordsson <johan.tordsson@...> wrote:


--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


--

Chris Short
He/Him/His


Re: TOC moving to 11 seats, and how to stand

Matt Klein
 

Matt, I will suggest it to each group, but each group can do what they want.

Clearly (though I think we should change the charter). If they do what they want and favor privacy vs. transparency that should be known to the community.

There already is a comment period amongst the GB/TOC to vet nominations to "Qualified Nominees" that's baked in the charter.

This is completely opaque to the community and decidedly "back room." As I mentioned in the TOC session at the conference. My own process was: get nominated by a company on the GB, find out a got elected several months later. I didn't do, see, or hear anything. This is ridiculous. 
 

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:34 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Matt, I will suggest it to each group, but each group can do what they want.

There already is a comment period amongst the GB/TOC to vet nominations to "Qualified Nominees" that's baked in the charter.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:29 AM Matt Klein <mattklein123@...> wrote:
In terms of publishing more than that or asking for public comment, we can ask each Selecting Group to make the call as we are really empowering each Selecting Group to make the decision.

I would like to publicly call that each "Selecting Group" adhere to process changes that I mentioned (publicly publishing all nominees and who nominated them, and allowing for public comment on the nominees). If the "Selecting Group" does not agree to this, they should publicly explain why to the community. @Chris Aniszczyk @Amye Scavarda Perrin could you help with this?

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:11 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
The process is baked into the charter here (6)(e):

I don't have a problem in publicizing the "Qualified Nominees" before they are voted upon (this is after the GB/TOC vets+qualifies the nominations anyway), there is nothing that prevents that directly in the charter and I believe the spirit of the document is to leave it up to each respective "Selecting Group"

In terms of publishing more than that or asking for public comment, we can ask each Selecting Group to make the call as we are really empowering each Selecting Group to make the decision.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:05 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+1 I think this is an excellent suggestion 

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, 10:02 Matt Klein, <mattklein123@...> wrote:
During this nomination cycle, is there any reason that we can't:
  • Make all nominations public, with who / what org nominated the nominee.
  • Some ability for a public comment period on the nominees. If there is concern around public comments, the comments could only go to those who will vote on the nominee (though I would greatly prefer everything be fully public).
This would apply to all types of seats (GB/TOC/End user/etc.).

I think this would vastly increase transparency and community trust in the process.

Thanks,
Matt

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:45 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Thanks Chris!

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:29 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
There will be 11 seats total:

- 6 nominees from the Governing Board (GB)
- 2 nominees from the End User Community (up from 1)
- 1 nominee from the non-sandbox project maintainers (up from 0)
- 2 nominees from the other 9 members of the TOC

For the End User TOC seats, it will be the end user members:

For the non sandbox maintainer seat, it will be the non-sandbox maintainers here (maintainers.cncf.io)

For the GB selected seats, it's the GB:

Amye will have a post out Monday describing all of this in more detail with the timeline.

Hope this helps, there's a lot of constituents that make up the TOC now.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:23 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Chris,

Thanks for the blog post. Do we have numbers for how many people are eligible to cast votes in each "Selecting Group"? As i read it, just 3 of the seats (2 from EUC and 1 from non-sandbox) are where the "general community" have a say in. Is that correct?

Thanks,
Dims

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:16 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
We are working on a blog post, PR that should go out next week describing the election process, we will open nominations this month with results coming here: https://www.cncf.io/blog/2019/09/19/title-turning-the-toc-up-to-11/

The TOC election schedule has always been described here openly on GitHub:

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:12 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Chris, Amye, et al

With the TOC adding 2 seats, what do people do if they want to stand?
More generally as we discussed at Kubecon, how are we making the TOC
process more open & inclusive?

alexis


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



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


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


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



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


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


Re: [VOTE] Falco moving to incubation

Kris Nova <kris.nova@...>
 

Hey all (also including Falco mailing list) 

Just wanted to bump this thread to see if we had made any movement on this? We just had our weekly open source call and we had folks from the community asking for an update. I know life has been crazy with Kubecon and RE:invent so wanted to bring this back to life.

Thanks for your time all!

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 11:57 PM Johan Tordsson <johan.tordsson@...> wrote:


--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105


Re: TOC moving to 11 seats, and how to stand

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Matt, I will suggest it to each group, but each group can do what they want.

There already is a comment period amongst the GB/TOC to vet nominations to "Qualified Nominees" that's baked in the charter.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:29 AM Matt Klein <mattklein123@...> wrote:
In terms of publishing more than that or asking for public comment, we can ask each Selecting Group to make the call as we are really empowering each Selecting Group to make the decision.

I would like to publicly call that each "Selecting Group" adhere to process changes that I mentioned (publicly publishing all nominees and who nominated them, and allowing for public comment on the nominees). If the "Selecting Group" does not agree to this, they should publicly explain why to the community. @Chris Aniszczyk @Amye Scavarda Perrin could you help with this?

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:11 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
The process is baked into the charter here (6)(e):

I don't have a problem in publicizing the "Qualified Nominees" before they are voted upon (this is after the GB/TOC vets+qualifies the nominations anyway), there is nothing that prevents that directly in the charter and I believe the spirit of the document is to leave it up to each respective "Selecting Group"

In terms of publishing more than that or asking for public comment, we can ask each Selecting Group to make the call as we are really empowering each Selecting Group to make the decision.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:05 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+1 I think this is an excellent suggestion 

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, 10:02 Matt Klein, <mattklein123@...> wrote:
During this nomination cycle, is there any reason that we can't:
  • Make all nominations public, with who / what org nominated the nominee.
  • Some ability for a public comment period on the nominees. If there is concern around public comments, the comments could only go to those who will vote on the nominee (though I would greatly prefer everything be fully public).
This would apply to all types of seats (GB/TOC/End user/etc.).

I think this would vastly increase transparency and community trust in the process.

Thanks,
Matt

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:45 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Thanks Chris!

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:29 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
There will be 11 seats total:

- 6 nominees from the Governing Board (GB)
- 2 nominees from the End User Community (up from 1)
- 1 nominee from the non-sandbox project maintainers (up from 0)
- 2 nominees from the other 9 members of the TOC

For the End User TOC seats, it will be the end user members:

For the non sandbox maintainer seat, it will be the non-sandbox maintainers here (maintainers.cncf.io)

For the GB selected seats, it's the GB:

Amye will have a post out Monday describing all of this in more detail with the timeline.

Hope this helps, there's a lot of constituents that make up the TOC now.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:23 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Chris,

Thanks for the blog post. Do we have numbers for how many people are eligible to cast votes in each "Selecting Group"? As i read it, just 3 of the seats (2 from EUC and 1 from non-sandbox) are where the "general community" have a say in. Is that correct?

Thanks,
Dims

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:16 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
We are working on a blog post, PR that should go out next week describing the election process, we will open nominations this month with results coming here: https://www.cncf.io/blog/2019/09/19/title-turning-the-toc-up-to-11/

The TOC election schedule has always been described here openly on GitHub:

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:12 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Chris, Amye, et al

With the TOC adding 2 seats, what do people do if they want to stand?
More generally as we discussed at Kubecon, how are we making the TOC
process more open & inclusive?

alexis


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



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


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


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



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


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


Re: TOC moving to 11 seats, and how to stand

Matt Klein
 

In terms of publishing more than that or asking for public comment, we can ask each Selecting Group to make the call as we are really empowering each Selecting Group to make the decision.

I would like to publicly call that each "Selecting Group" adhere to process changes that I mentioned (publicly publishing all nominees and who nominated them, and allowing for public comment on the nominees). If the "Selecting Group" does not agree to this, they should publicly explain why to the community. @Chris Aniszczyk @Amye Scavarda Perrin could you help with this?

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:11 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
The process is baked into the charter here (6)(e):

I don't have a problem in publicizing the "Qualified Nominees" before they are voted upon (this is after the GB/TOC vets+qualifies the nominations anyway), there is nothing that prevents that directly in the charter and I believe the spirit of the document is to leave it up to each respective "Selecting Group"

In terms of publishing more than that or asking for public comment, we can ask each Selecting Group to make the call as we are really empowering each Selecting Group to make the decision.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:05 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+1 I think this is an excellent suggestion 

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, 10:02 Matt Klein, <mattklein123@...> wrote:
During this nomination cycle, is there any reason that we can't:
  • Make all nominations public, with who / what org nominated the nominee.
  • Some ability for a public comment period on the nominees. If there is concern around public comments, the comments could only go to those who will vote on the nominee (though I would greatly prefer everything be fully public).
This would apply to all types of seats (GB/TOC/End user/etc.).

I think this would vastly increase transparency and community trust in the process.

Thanks,
Matt

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:45 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Thanks Chris!

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:29 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
There will be 11 seats total:

- 6 nominees from the Governing Board (GB)
- 2 nominees from the End User Community (up from 1)
- 1 nominee from the non-sandbox project maintainers (up from 0)
- 2 nominees from the other 9 members of the TOC

For the End User TOC seats, it will be the end user members:

For the non sandbox maintainer seat, it will be the non-sandbox maintainers here (maintainers.cncf.io)

For the GB selected seats, it's the GB:

Amye will have a post out Monday describing all of this in more detail with the timeline.

Hope this helps, there's a lot of constituents that make up the TOC now.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:23 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Chris,

Thanks for the blog post. Do we have numbers for how many people are eligible to cast votes in each "Selecting Group"? As i read it, just 3 of the seats (2 from EUC and 1 from non-sandbox) are where the "general community" have a say in. Is that correct?

Thanks,
Dims

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:16 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
We are working on a blog post, PR that should go out next week describing the election process, we will open nominations this month with results coming here: https://www.cncf.io/blog/2019/09/19/title-turning-the-toc-up-to-11/

The TOC election schedule has always been described here openly on GitHub:

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:12 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Chris, Amye, et al

With the TOC adding 2 seats, what do people do if they want to stand?
More generally as we discussed at Kubecon, how are we making the TOC
process more open & inclusive?

alexis


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



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


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


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



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


Re: TOC moving to 11 seats, and how to stand

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Please wait until Monday for us to publish the post as stated before, there will be a maintainer election policy put forth that was discussed at the last GB meeting and will be published to https://github.com/cncf/foundation


On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:23 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
While the GB and End User TAB have processes in place to create a list of nominees for which to vote on, the non-sandbox project maintainers do not. This is new for them.

Can you please outline how that will work? For example, does each maintainer on each project have the opportunity to nominate someone to be voted on or will it be from each project? These are the sorts of details I'm curious about.

- Matt Farina

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019, at 1:11 PM, Chris Aniszczyk wrote:
The process is baked into the charter here (6)(e):

I don't have a problem in publicizing the "Qualified Nominees" before they are voted upon (this is after the GB/TOC vets+qualifies the nominations anyway), there is nothing that prevents that directly in the charter and I believe the spirit of the document is to leave it up to each respective "Selecting Group"

In terms of publishing more than that or asking for public comment, we can ask each Selecting Group to make the call as we are really empowering each Selecting Group to make the decision.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:05 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+1 I think this is an excellent suggestion 

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, 10:02 Matt Klein, <mattklein123@...> wrote:
During this nomination cycle, is there any reason that we can't:
  • Make all nominations public, with who / what org nominated the nominee.
  • Some ability for a public comment period on the nominees. If there is concern around public comments, the comments could only go to those who will vote on the nominee (though I would greatly prefer everything be fully public).
This would apply to all types of seats (GB/TOC/End user/etc.).

I think this would vastly increase transparency and community trust in the process.

Thanks,
Matt

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:45 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Thanks Chris!

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:29 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
There will be 11 seats total:

- 6 nominees from the Governing Board (GB)
- 2 nominees from the End User Community (up from 1)
- 1 nominee from the non-sandbox project maintainers (up from 0)
- 2 nominees from the other 9 members of the TOC

For the End User TOC seats, it will be the end user members:

For the non sandbox maintainer seat, it will be the non-sandbox maintainers here (maintainers.cncf.io)

For the GB selected seats, it's the GB:

Amye will have a post out Monday describing all of this in more detail with the timeline.

Hope this helps, there's a lot of constituents that make up the TOC now.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:23 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Chris,

Thanks for the blog post. Do we have numbers for how many people are eligible to cast votes in each "Selecting Group"? As i read it, just 3 of the seats (2 from EUC and 1 from non-sandbox) are where the "general community" have a say in. Is that correct?

Thanks,
Dims

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:16 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
We are working on a blog post, PR that should go out next week describing the election process, we will open nominations this month with results coming here: https://www.cncf.io/blog/2019/09/19/title-turning-the-toc-up-to-11/

The TOC election schedule has always been described here openly on GitHub:

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:12 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Chris, Amye, et al

With the TOC adding 2 seats, what do people do if they want to stand?
More generally as we discussed at Kubecon, how are we making the TOC
process more open & inclusive?

alexis


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





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


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


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







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



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


Re: TOC moving to 11 seats, and how to stand

Jaice Singer DuMars
 

As a maintainer, I would also appreciate this information. :) 


On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:23 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
While the GB and End User TAB have processes in place to create a list of nominees for which to vote on, the non-sandbox project maintainers do not. This is new for them.

Can you please outline how that will work? For example, does each maintainer on each project have the opportunity to nominate someone to be voted on or will it be from each project? These are the sorts of details I'm curious about.

- Matt Farina

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019, at 1:11 PM, Chris Aniszczyk wrote:
The process is baked into the charter here (6)(e):

I don't have a problem in publicizing the "Qualified Nominees" before they are voted upon (this is after the GB/TOC vets+qualifies the nominations anyway), there is nothing that prevents that directly in the charter and I believe the spirit of the document is to leave it up to each respective "Selecting Group"

In terms of publishing more than that or asking for public comment, we can ask each Selecting Group to make the call as we are really empowering each Selecting Group to make the decision.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:05 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+1 I think this is an excellent suggestion 

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, 10:02 Matt Klein, <mattklein123@...> wrote:
During this nomination cycle, is there any reason that we can't:
  • Make all nominations public, with who / what org nominated the nominee.
  • Some ability for a public comment period on the nominees. If there is concern around public comments, the comments could only go to those who will vote on the nominee (though I would greatly prefer everything be fully public).
This would apply to all types of seats (GB/TOC/End user/etc.).

I think this would vastly increase transparency and community trust in the process.

Thanks,
Matt

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:45 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Thanks Chris!

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:29 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
There will be 11 seats total:

- 6 nominees from the Governing Board (GB)
- 2 nominees from the End User Community (up from 1)
- 1 nominee from the non-sandbox project maintainers (up from 0)
- 2 nominees from the other 9 members of the TOC

For the End User TOC seats, it will be the end user members:

For the non sandbox maintainer seat, it will be the non-sandbox maintainers here (maintainers.cncf.io)

For the GB selected seats, it's the GB:

Amye will have a post out Monday describing all of this in more detail with the timeline.

Hope this helps, there's a lot of constituents that make up the TOC now.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:23 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Chris,

Thanks for the blog post. Do we have numbers for how many people are eligible to cast votes in each "Selecting Group"? As i read it, just 3 of the seats (2 from EUC and 1 from non-sandbox) are where the "general community" have a say in. Is that correct?

Thanks,
Dims

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:16 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
We are working on a blog post, PR that should go out next week describing the election process, we will open nominations this month with results coming here: https://www.cncf.io/blog/2019/09/19/title-turning-the-toc-up-to-11/

The TOC election schedule has always been described here openly on GitHub:

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:12 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Chris, Amye, et al

With the TOC adding 2 seats, what do people do if they want to stand?
More generally as we discussed at Kubecon, how are we making the TOC
process more open & inclusive?

alexis


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





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


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


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







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



--

Jaice Singer DuMars

Open Source Strategy, Open Source Programs Office

+1 (206) 371-2293

345 Spear St., San Francisco CA 94105



Re: TOC moving to 11 seats, and how to stand

Matt Farina
 

While the GB and End User TAB have processes in place to create a list of nominees for which to vote on, the non-sandbox project maintainers do not. This is new for them.

Can you please outline how that will work? For example, does each maintainer on each project have the opportunity to nominate someone to be voted on or will it be from each project? These are the sorts of details I'm curious about.

- Matt Farina

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019, at 1:11 PM, Chris Aniszczyk wrote:
The process is baked into the charter here (6)(e):

I don't have a problem in publicizing the "Qualified Nominees" before they are voted upon (this is after the GB/TOC vets+qualifies the nominations anyway), there is nothing that prevents that directly in the charter and I believe the spirit of the document is to leave it up to each respective "Selecting Group"

In terms of publishing more than that or asking for public comment, we can ask each Selecting Group to make the call as we are really empowering each Selecting Group to make the decision.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:05 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+1 I think this is an excellent suggestion 

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, 10:02 Matt Klein, <mattklein123@...> wrote:
During this nomination cycle, is there any reason that we can't:
  • Make all nominations public, with who / what org nominated the nominee.
  • Some ability for a public comment period on the nominees. If there is concern around public comments, the comments could only go to those who will vote on the nominee (though I would greatly prefer everything be fully public).
This would apply to all types of seats (GB/TOC/End user/etc.).

I think this would vastly increase transparency and community trust in the process.

Thanks,
Matt

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:45 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Thanks Chris!

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:29 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
There will be 11 seats total:

- 6 nominees from the Governing Board (GB)
- 2 nominees from the End User Community (up from 1)
- 1 nominee from the non-sandbox project maintainers (up from 0)
- 2 nominees from the other 9 members of the TOC

For the End User TOC seats, it will be the end user members:

For the non sandbox maintainer seat, it will be the non-sandbox maintainers here (maintainers.cncf.io)

For the GB selected seats, it's the GB:

Amye will have a post out Monday describing all of this in more detail with the timeline.

Hope this helps, there's a lot of constituents that make up the TOC now.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:23 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Chris,

Thanks for the blog post. Do we have numbers for how many people are eligible to cast votes in each "Selecting Group"? As i read it, just 3 of the seats (2 from EUC and 1 from non-sandbox) are where the "general community" have a say in. Is that correct?

Thanks,
Dims

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:16 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
We are working on a blog post, PR that should go out next week describing the election process, we will open nominations this month with results coming here: https://www.cncf.io/blog/2019/09/19/title-turning-the-toc-up-to-11/

The TOC election schedule has always been described here openly on GitHub:

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:12 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Chris, Amye, et al

With the TOC adding 2 seats, what do people do if they want to stand?
More generally as we discussed at Kubecon, how are we making the TOC
process more open & inclusive?

alexis


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





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


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


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







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


Re: TOC moving to 11 seats, and how to stand

Richard Hartmann
 

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 5:29 PM Chris Aniszczyk
<caniszczyk@...> wrote:

- 1 nominee from the non-sandbox project maintainers (up from 0)
This is phrased as if all projects suggest one common nominee.
Prometheus team understood the process to be that every project
suggests a person and then all of the project mantainters vote between
those. Is this incorrect?

To make it explicit, Prometheus team intends to suggest me (Not
planned by me, but I was flattered and would obviously accept both
nomination and potential vote)


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pr8cyp8RLrNGx9WBAgQvBzUUmqyOv69R7QAFKhacJEM/edit#gid=262035321
That lists all of us, +Amye Scavarda Perrin asked us to trim it down
to 15 voting team members which we did last Friday.


Richard


Re: TOC moving to 11 seats, and how to stand

Shannon Williams
 

+1 Great suggestion Matt.

 

Best Regards,

 

Shannon Williams

Rancher Labs

shannon@...

+1 650-521-6902

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Matt Klein via Lists.Cncf.Io
Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 10:02 AM
To: Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] TOC moving to 11 seats, and how to stand

 

During this nomination cycle, is there any reason that we can't:

  • Make all nominations public, with who / what org nominated the nominee.
  • Some ability for a public comment period on the nominees. If there is concern around public comments, the comments could only go to those who will vote on the nominee (though I would greatly prefer everything be fully public).

This would apply to all types of seats (GB/TOC/End user/etc.).

 

I think this would vastly increase transparency and community trust in the process.

 

Thanks,

Matt

 

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:45 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:

Thanks Chris!

 

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:29 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

There will be 11 seats total:

 

- 6 nominees from the Governing Board (GB)
- 2 nominees from the End User Community (up from 1)
- 1 nominee from the non-sandbox project maintainers (up from 0)
- 2 nominees from the other 9 members of the TOC

 

For the End User TOC seats, it will be the end user members:


For the non sandbox maintainer seat, it will be the non-sandbox maintainers here (maintainers.cncf.io)

 

For the GB selected seats, it's the GB:


Amye will have a post out Monday describing all of this in more detail with the timeline.

 

Hope this helps, there's a lot of constituents that make up the TOC now.

 

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:23 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:

Chris,

 

Thanks for the blog post. Do we have numbers for how many people are eligible to cast votes in each "Selecting Group"? As i read it, just 3 of the seats (2 from EUC and 1 from non-sandbox) are where the "general community" have a say in. Is that correct?

 

Thanks,

Dims

 

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:16 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

We are working on a blog post, PR that should go out next week describing the election process, we will open nominations this month with results coming here: https://www.cncf.io/blog/2019/09/19/title-turning-the-toc-up-to-11/

 

The TOC election schedule has always been described here openly on GitHub:

 

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:12 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

Chris, Amye, et al

With the TOC adding 2 seats, what do people do if they want to stand?
More generally as we discussed at Kubecon, how are we making the TOC
process more open & inclusive?

alexis


 

--

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


 

--

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


 

--

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


 

--

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


Re: TOC moving to 11 seats, and how to stand

Chris Aniszczyk
 

The process is baked into the charter here (6)(e):

I don't have a problem in publicizing the "Qualified Nominees" before they are voted upon (this is after the GB/TOC vets+qualifies the nominations anyway), there is nothing that prevents that directly in the charter and I believe the spirit of the document is to leave it up to each respective "Selecting Group"

In terms of publishing more than that or asking for public comment, we can ask each Selecting Group to make the call as we are really empowering each Selecting Group to make the decision.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:05 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+1 I think this is an excellent suggestion 

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, 10:02 Matt Klein, <mattklein123@...> wrote:
During this nomination cycle, is there any reason that we can't:
  • Make all nominations public, with who / what org nominated the nominee.
  • Some ability for a public comment period on the nominees. If there is concern around public comments, the comments could only go to those who will vote on the nominee (though I would greatly prefer everything be fully public).
This would apply to all types of seats (GB/TOC/End user/etc.).

I think this would vastly increase transparency and community trust in the process.

Thanks,
Matt

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:45 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Thanks Chris!

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:29 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
There will be 11 seats total:

- 6 nominees from the Governing Board (GB)
- 2 nominees from the End User Community (up from 1)
- 1 nominee from the non-sandbox project maintainers (up from 0)
- 2 nominees from the other 9 members of the TOC

For the End User TOC seats, it will be the end user members:

For the non sandbox maintainer seat, it will be the non-sandbox maintainers here (maintainers.cncf.io)

For the GB selected seats, it's the GB:

Amye will have a post out Monday describing all of this in more detail with the timeline.

Hope this helps, there's a lot of constituents that make up the TOC now.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:23 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Chris,

Thanks for the blog post. Do we have numbers for how many people are eligible to cast votes in each "Selecting Group"? As i read it, just 3 of the seats (2 from EUC and 1 from non-sandbox) are where the "general community" have a say in. Is that correct?

Thanks,
Dims

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:16 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
We are working on a blog post, PR that should go out next week describing the election process, we will open nominations this month with results coming here: https://www.cncf.io/blog/2019/09/19/title-turning-the-toc-up-to-11/

The TOC election schedule has always been described here openly on GitHub:

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:12 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Chris, Amye, et al

With the TOC adding 2 seats, what do people do if they want to stand?
More generally as we discussed at Kubecon, how are we making the TOC
process more open & inclusive?

alexis


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



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


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


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



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


Re: TOC moving to 11 seats, and how to stand

alexis richardson
 

+1 I think this is an excellent suggestion 


On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, 10:02 Matt Klein, <mattklein123@...> wrote:
During this nomination cycle, is there any reason that we can't:
  • Make all nominations public, with who / what org nominated the nominee.
  • Some ability for a public comment period on the nominees. If there is concern around public comments, the comments could only go to those who will vote on the nominee (though I would greatly prefer everything be fully public).
This would apply to all types of seats (GB/TOC/End user/etc.).

I think this would vastly increase transparency and community trust in the process.

Thanks,
Matt

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:45 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Thanks Chris!

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:29 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
There will be 11 seats total:

- 6 nominees from the Governing Board (GB)
- 2 nominees from the End User Community (up from 1)
- 1 nominee from the non-sandbox project maintainers (up from 0)
- 2 nominees from the other 9 members of the TOC

For the End User TOC seats, it will be the end user members:

For the non sandbox maintainer seat, it will be the non-sandbox maintainers here (maintainers.cncf.io)

For the GB selected seats, it's the GB:

Amye will have a post out Monday describing all of this in more detail with the timeline.

Hope this helps, there's a lot of constituents that make up the TOC now.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:23 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Chris,

Thanks for the blog post. Do we have numbers for how many people are eligible to cast votes in each "Selecting Group"? As i read it, just 3 of the seats (2 from EUC and 1 from non-sandbox) are where the "general community" have a say in. Is that correct?

Thanks,
Dims

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:16 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
We are working on a blog post, PR that should go out next week describing the election process, we will open nominations this month with results coming here: https://www.cncf.io/blog/2019/09/19/title-turning-the-toc-up-to-11/

The TOC election schedule has always been described here openly on GitHub:

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:12 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Chris, Amye, et al

With the TOC adding 2 seats, what do people do if they want to stand?
More generally as we discussed at Kubecon, how are we making the TOC
process more open & inclusive?

alexis


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



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


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


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


Re: TOC moving to 11 seats, and how to stand

Matt Klein
 

During this nomination cycle, is there any reason that we can't:
  • Make all nominations public, with who / what org nominated the nominee.
  • Some ability for a public comment period on the nominees. If there is concern around public comments, the comments could only go to those who will vote on the nominee (though I would greatly prefer everything be fully public).
This would apply to all types of seats (GB/TOC/End user/etc.).

I think this would vastly increase transparency and community trust in the process.

Thanks,
Matt

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:45 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Thanks Chris!

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:29 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
There will be 11 seats total:

- 6 nominees from the Governing Board (GB)
- 2 nominees from the End User Community (up from 1)
- 1 nominee from the non-sandbox project maintainers (up from 0)
- 2 nominees from the other 9 members of the TOC

For the End User TOC seats, it will be the end user members:

For the non sandbox maintainer seat, it will be the non-sandbox maintainers here (maintainers.cncf.io)

For the GB selected seats, it's the GB:

Amye will have a post out Monday describing all of this in more detail with the timeline.

Hope this helps, there's a lot of constituents that make up the TOC now.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:23 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Chris,

Thanks for the blog post. Do we have numbers for how many people are eligible to cast votes in each "Selecting Group"? As i read it, just 3 of the seats (2 from EUC and 1 from non-sandbox) are where the "general community" have a say in. Is that correct?

Thanks,
Dims

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:16 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
We are working on a blog post, PR that should go out next week describing the election process, we will open nominations this month with results coming here: https://www.cncf.io/blog/2019/09/19/title-turning-the-toc-up-to-11/

The TOC election schedule has always been described here openly on GitHub:

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:12 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Chris, Amye, et al

With the TOC adding 2 seats, what do people do if they want to stand?
More generally as we discussed at Kubecon, how are we making the TOC
process more open & inclusive?

alexis


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



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


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


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


Re: TOC moving to 11 seats, and how to stand

Davanum Srinivas
 

Thanks Chris!


On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:29 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
There will be 11 seats total:

- 6 nominees from the Governing Board (GB)
- 2 nominees from the End User Community (up from 1)
- 1 nominee from the non-sandbox project maintainers (up from 0)
- 2 nominees from the other 9 members of the TOC

For the End User TOC seats, it will be the end user members:

For the non sandbox maintainer seat, it will be the non-sandbox maintainers here (maintainers.cncf.io)

For the GB selected seats, it's the GB:

Amye will have a post out Monday describing all of this in more detail with the timeline.

Hope this helps, there's a lot of constituents that make up the TOC now.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:23 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Chris,

Thanks for the blog post. Do we have numbers for how many people are eligible to cast votes in each "Selecting Group"? As i read it, just 3 of the seats (2 from EUC and 1 from non-sandbox) are where the "general community" have a say in. Is that correct?

Thanks,
Dims

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:16 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
We are working on a blog post, PR that should go out next week describing the election process, we will open nominations this month with results coming here: https://www.cncf.io/blog/2019/09/19/title-turning-the-toc-up-to-11/

The TOC election schedule has always been described here openly on GitHub:

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:12 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Chris, Amye, et al

With the TOC adding 2 seats, what do people do if they want to stand?
More generally as we discussed at Kubecon, how are we making the TOC
process more open & inclusive?

alexis


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



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


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


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


Re: TOC moving to 11 seats, and how to stand

Chris Aniszczyk
 

There will be 11 seats total:

- 6 nominees from the Governing Board (GB)
- 2 nominees from the End User Community (up from 1)
- 1 nominee from the non-sandbox project maintainers (up from 0)
- 2 nominees from the other 9 members of the TOC

For the End User TOC seats, it will be the end user members:

For the non sandbox maintainer seat, it will be the non-sandbox maintainers here (maintainers.cncf.io)

For the GB selected seats, it's the GB:

Amye will have a post out Monday describing all of this in more detail with the timeline.

Hope this helps, there's a lot of constituents that make up the TOC now.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:23 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Chris,

Thanks for the blog post. Do we have numbers for how many people are eligible to cast votes in each "Selecting Group"? As i read it, just 3 of the seats (2 from EUC and 1 from non-sandbox) are where the "general community" have a say in. Is that correct?

Thanks,
Dims

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:16 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
We are working on a blog post, PR that should go out next week describing the election process, we will open nominations this month with results coming here: https://www.cncf.io/blog/2019/09/19/title-turning-the-toc-up-to-11/

The TOC election schedule has always been described here openly on GitHub:

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:12 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Chris, Amye, et al

With the TOC adding 2 seats, what do people do if they want to stand?
More generally as we discussed at Kubecon, how are we making the TOC
process more open & inclusive?

alexis


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



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


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


Re: TOC moving to 11 seats, and how to stand

Davanum Srinivas
 

Chris,

Thanks for the blog post. Do we have numbers for how many people are eligible to cast votes in each "Selecting Group"? As i read it, just 3 of the seats (2 from EUC and 1 from non-sandbox) are where the "general community" have a say in. Is that correct?

Thanks,
Dims


On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:16 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
We are working on a blog post, PR that should go out next week describing the election process, we will open nominations this month with results coming here: https://www.cncf.io/blog/2019/09/19/title-turning-the-toc-up-to-11/

The TOC election schedule has always been described here openly on GitHub:

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:12 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Chris, Amye, et al

With the TOC adding 2 seats, what do people do if they want to stand?
More generally as we discussed at Kubecon, how are we making the TOC
process more open & inclusive?

alexis


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



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


Re: Request information

Jessie Adams-Shore <jessie@...>
 

Hi Nicola - 

Thanks for your email. I do not believe there are however you are welcome to email the below email in case they have additional information. 


Best,
Jessie 

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 3:26 AM Nicola Marco Decandia <n.decandia@...> wrote:
Hello everyone, 
there are some discount for KCSP or KTP for join to Kubecon of Amsterdam?
Thank you for the answer.
Have a good day.



--
Jessie Adams Shore
Public Relations | Cloud Native Computing Foundation
707-337-1958

3261 - 3280 of 7167