Date   

Re: [VOTE] Falco moving to incubation

Michelle Noorali
 

+1 binding


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Owens, Ken via Lists.Cncf.Io <ken.owens=mastercard.com@...>
Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 10:22 AM
To: Philippe Robin <Philippe.Robin@...>; ascavarda@... <ascavarda@...>; CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Falco moving to incubation
 
+1 non-binding 



Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S9, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone



-------- Original message --------
From: Philippe Robin <Philippe.Robin@...>
Date: 12/5/19 9:24 AM (GMT-06:00)
To: ascavarda@..., CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Falco moving to incubation

CAUTION: The message originated from an EXTERNAL SOURCE. Please use caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to this email.

 

+1 non-binding

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Amye Scavarda Perrin via Lists.Cncf.Io
Sent: 13 November 2019 18:26
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Falco moving to incubation

 

Falco has requested to move to the incubation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/307

The Falco community believes it has fulfilled all the incubation criteria:


Joe Beda from the TOC has performed due diligence:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TJCzW8dQ6858lw2UNY-H5LMnvEd4GzwjuOcDInimeyA/edit?ts=5dacfd96#heading=h.378jkvcve1nq

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/307

 

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!


--

Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager, CNCF | amye@...

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail message and any attachments are only for the use of the intended recipient and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, distribution or other use of this e-mail message or attachments is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please delete and notify the sender immediately. Thank you.


[Due Diligence] Dragonfly Incubation Due Diligence Request

AllenSun
 

Hi, TOC members and the community,

Dragonfly has requested to move to the incubation level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/276

Dragonfly team also made it to do presentation to CNCF meeting and SIG storage. We got kind and positive feedback from them and did relative improvement. According to the charter, the next stage is Due Diligence. Now Dragonfly team has already drafted the Due Diligence: 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FauIs9BXRCioUCYPdO9gfy1uiPw9ESKRu0s4bgd5Dgw/edit?usp=sharing  

We wish that there could be one TOC member who volunteers to do Due Diligence review for Dragonfly.

In addition, we do appreciate any review for the above draft from the community as a sign of support.

Thanks.


Blog post on Governance + Election Structures

Amye Scavarda Perrin
 

A quick note that we've published a post on the TOC Governance Structure + Elections today, nominations will open on December 12 at 12pm Pacific. 

Thanks! 

--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager, CNCF | amye@...


Re: [VOTE] Falco moving to incubation

Owens, Ken
 

+1 non-binding 



Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S9, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone



-------- Original message --------
From: Philippe Robin <Philippe.Robin@...>
Date: 12/5/19 9:24 AM (GMT-06:00)
To: ascavarda@..., CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Falco moving to incubation

CAUTION: The message originated from an EXTERNAL SOURCE. Please use caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to this email.

 

+1 non-binding

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Amye Scavarda Perrin via Lists.Cncf.Io
Sent: 13 November 2019 18:26
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Falco moving to incubation

 

Falco has requested to move to the incubation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/307

The Falco community believes it has fulfilled all the incubation criteria:


Joe Beda from the TOC has performed due diligence:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TJCzW8dQ6858lw2UNY-H5LMnvEd4GzwjuOcDInimeyA/edit?ts=5dacfd96#heading=h.378jkvcve1nq

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/307

 

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!


--

Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager, CNCF | amye@...

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail message and any attachments are only for the use of the intended recipient and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, distribution or other use of this e-mail message or attachments is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please delete and notify the sender immediately. Thank you.


Re: [VOTE] Falco moving to incubation

Philippe Robin
 

+1 non-binding

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Amye Scavarda Perrin via Lists.Cncf.Io
Sent: 13 November 2019 18:26
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Falco moving to incubation

 

Falco has requested to move to the incubation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/307

The Falco community believes it has fulfilled all the incubation criteria:


Joe Beda from the TOC has performed due diligence:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TJCzW8dQ6858lw2UNY-H5LMnvEd4GzwjuOcDInimeyA/edit?ts=5dacfd96#heading=h.378jkvcve1nq

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/307

 

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!


--

Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager, CNCF | amye@...

_._,_._,_

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.


Re: [VOTE] Falco moving to incubation

Brandon Lum
 

+1 non-binding


On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:55 PM Stephen Augustus <Stephen@...> wrote:
+1 nb!

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 13:26 Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
Falco has requested to move to the incubation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/307

The Falco community believes it has fulfilled all the incubation criteria:

Joe Beda from the TOC has performed due diligence:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TJCzW8dQ6858lw2UNY-H5LMnvEd4GzwjuOcDInimeyA/edit?ts=5dacfd96#heading=h.378jkvcve1nq

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/307

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager, CNCF | amye@...


Re: [VOTE] Falco moving to incubation

Stephen Augustus
 

+1 nb!


On Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 13:26 Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
Falco has requested to move to the incubation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/307

The Falco community believes it has fulfilled all the incubation criteria:

Joe Beda from the TOC has performed due diligence:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TJCzW8dQ6858lw2UNY-H5LMnvEd4GzwjuOcDInimeyA/edit?ts=5dacfd96#heading=h.378jkvcve1nq

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/307

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager, CNCF | amye@...


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

Anil Vishnoi
 



Thanks / Anil

On Dec 4, 2019, at 1:52 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:


Anil, it is a completely open model, the charter is a living document that evolves over time based on input from different constituents.


There are questions on evolving the process to be more transparent for something in, but the whole organization is an open non-profit. I asked you to read the charter and other documents on the foundation's github.
Yes, going through the charter. Thanks chris.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 1:05 PM Anil Vishnoi <vishnoianil@...> wrote:


On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 12:44 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
It's enshrined in the charter and most of the GB helps pay the bills and keep the lights on for the foundation:

Thanks Chris for the pointers. IMHO that's not a very strong reason when we talk in the context of open and transparent technical community, but it's just me here :). I have been part of the board/TOC where they started with this model and eventually moved toward total open model, so that's where i was bit curious to understand the rationals (not saying that this model is essentially not good for running the open foundation). 
You can read our latest annual report on who we are and what the organization does for its projects:

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 12:40 PM Anil Vishnoi <vishnoianil@...> wrote:
I am new to CNCF TOC model, so i have a newbi question here for my understanding, so please bear with me. 
Are there any specific reasons that TOC still has 6 GB nominations, rather than keeping these nominations open? 

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



--
Thanks
Anil


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


--
Thanks
Anil


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


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

Leonardo Di Donato
 

Huge +1 to Matt and transparency

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 23:03, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Thank you Matt, we will move the discussion there!

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 1:35 PM Matt Klein <mattklein123@...> wrote:
I opened https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/323 to track this thread.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:39 AM Matt Klein via Lists.Cncf.Io <mattklein123=gmail.com@...> 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



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

--
L.


Re: [VOTE] Falco moving to incubation

Matt Klein
 

+1 binding

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 10:26 AM Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
Falco has requested to move to the incubation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/307

The Falco community believes it has fulfilled all the incubation criteria:

Joe Beda from the TOC has performed due diligence:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TJCzW8dQ6858lw2UNY-H5LMnvEd4GzwjuOcDInimeyA/edit?ts=5dacfd96#heading=h.378jkvcve1nq

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/307

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager, CNCF | amye@...


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

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Thank you Matt, we will move the discussion there!

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 1:35 PM Matt Klein <mattklein123@...> wrote:
I opened https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/323 to track this thread.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:39 AM Matt Klein via Lists.Cncf.Io <mattklein123=gmail.com@...> 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



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


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

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Anil, it is a completely open model, the charter is a living document that evolves over time based on input from different constituents.


There are questions on evolving the process to be more transparent for something in, but the whole organization is an open non-profit. I asked you to read the charter and other documents on the foundation's github.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 1:05 PM Anil Vishnoi <vishnoianil@...> wrote:


On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 12:44 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
It's enshrined in the charter and most of the GB helps pay the bills and keep the lights on for the foundation:

Thanks Chris for the pointers. IMHO that's not a very strong reason when we talk in the context of open and transparent technical community, but it's just me here :). I have been part of the board/TOC where they started with this model and eventually moved toward total open model, so that's where i was bit curious to understand the rationals (not saying that this model is essentially not good for running the open foundation). 
You can read our latest annual report on who we are and what the organization does for its projects:

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 12:40 PM Anil Vishnoi <vishnoianil@...> wrote:
I am new to CNCF TOC model, so i have a newbi question here for my understanding, so please bear with me. 
Are there any specific reasons that TOC still has 6 GB nominations, rather than keeping these nominations open? 

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



--
Thanks
Anil


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


--
Thanks
Anil


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


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

Matt Klein
 

I opened https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/323 to track this thread.


On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:39 AM Matt Klein via Lists.Cncf.Io <mattklein123=gmail.com@...> 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

Anil Vishnoi
 



On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 12:59 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
I am new to CNCF TOC model, so i have a newbi question here for my understanding, so please bear with me. 
Are there any specific reasons that TOC still has 6 GB nominations, rather than keeping these nominations open? 

To add a little context for those who don't know...

The Governing Board (GB) gets to select 6 of the people who hold seats on the TOC. People are nominated, vetted, and then the GB votes to select the people. They don't all come up for re-election at the same time. You can see whose seat is up for re-election over at https://github.com/cncf/toc. The End User community (not everyone who is an end user but end users as opposed to vendors who are members of the CNCF) has a similar process to select among themselves.
Thanks for clarification Matt. Just started reading the charter to better understand it. 

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019, at 3:40 PM, Anil Vishnoi wrote:
I am new to CNCF TOC model, so i have a newbi question here for my understanding, so please bear with me. 
Are there any specific reasons that TOC still has 6 GB nominations, rather than keeping these nominations open? 

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





--
Thanks
Anil



--
Thanks
Anil


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

Anil Vishnoi
 



On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 12:44 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
It's enshrined in the charter and most of the GB helps pay the bills and keep the lights on for the foundation:

Thanks Chris for the pointers. IMHO that's not a very strong reason when we talk in the context of open and transparent technical community, but it's just me here :). I have been part of the board/TOC where they started with this model and eventually moved toward total open model, so that's where i was bit curious to understand the rationals (not saying that this model is essentially not good for running the open foundation). 
You can read our latest annual report on who we are and what the organization does for its projects:

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 12:40 PM Anil Vishnoi <vishnoianil@...> wrote:
I am new to CNCF TOC model, so i have a newbi question here for my understanding, so please bear with me. 
Are there any specific reasons that TOC still has 6 GB nominations, rather than keeping these nominations open? 

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



--
Thanks
Anil


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


--
Thanks
Anil


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

Matt Farina
 

I am new to CNCF TOC model, so i have a newbi question here for my understanding, so please bear with me. 
Are there any specific reasons that TOC still has 6 GB nominations, rather than keeping these nominations open? 

To add a little context for those who don't know...

The Governing Board (GB) gets to select 6 of the people who hold seats on the TOC. People are nominated, vetted, and then the GB votes to select the people. They don't all come up for re-election at the same time. You can see whose seat is up for re-election over at https://github.com/cncf/toc. The End User community (not everyone who is an end user but end users as opposed to vendors who are members of the CNCF) has a similar process to select among themselves.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019, at 3:40 PM, Anil Vishnoi wrote:
I am new to CNCF TOC model, so i have a newbi question here for my understanding, so please bear with me. 
Are there any specific reasons that TOC still has 6 GB nominations, rather than keeping these nominations open? 

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





--
Thanks
Anil


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

Chris Aniszczyk
 

It's enshrined in the charter and most of the GB helps pay the bills and keep the lights on for the foundation:

You can read our latest annual report on who we are and what the organization does for its projects:


On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 12:40 PM Anil Vishnoi <vishnoianil@...> wrote:
I am new to CNCF TOC model, so i have a newbi question here for my understanding, so please bear with me. 
Are there any specific reasons that TOC still has 6 GB nominations, rather than keeping these nominations open? 

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



--
Thanks
Anil


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


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

Kris Nova <kris.nova@...>
 

+1 as well to Dims and Matt,

Hearing Matt's comment at KubeCon about how he didn't even understand how he was elected seems worrisome. For instance a project I am deeply involved in is directly at the mercy of the ToC as we speak, and folks are getting elected and we don't even know how? I think some transparency would be helpful here both for the projects as well as future ToC members getting elected to their surprise. 

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 11:53 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
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



--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105


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

Anil Vishnoi
 

I am new to CNCF TOC model, so i have a newbi question here for my understanding, so please bear with me. 
Are there any specific reasons that TOC still has 6 GB nominations, rather than keeping these nominations open? 

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



--
Thanks
Anil


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

Chris Aniszczyk
 

"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?"

We will be posting maintainer election policy that was discussed at the GB meeting and I'll make sure to have it have language in there to address your concerns and have nothing to preclude having a comment period and other things mentioned on this thread, it should be posted by Monday.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 12:17 PM Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote:
+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@...   



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

3241 - 3260 of 7167