|
Re: [VOTE] Tech Lead nomination for SIG Observability: Bartłomiej Płotka
|
|
|
Re: Istio Steering Committee
I'm keen to discuss this in the TOC, and then work out details in the various WGs and community. When is everyone back?
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] KubeEdge for Incubation
|
|
|
Re: Istio Steering Committee
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] TiKV Graduation
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Mon, 24 Aug 2020, 02:06 Li, Xiang, < x.li@...> wrote: +1 binding ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sent At:2020 Aug. 21 (Fri.) 20:59 Subject:Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] TiKV Graduation
+1 NB Thanks -- Shanghai DaoCloud Network Technology Co,. Ltd #Your Cloud Native Application Delivered!# +1 binding. -alena.
On Jul 6, 2020, at 3:05 PM, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
本邮件及附件含 DaoCloud 保密信息，仅限发送给上面地址中列出的个人或群组，禁止任何其他人以任何形式使用本邮件中的信息。若误收本邮件，请务必通知发送人并直接删去，不得使用、传播或复制本邮件。
|
|
|
FYI: End User TOC Seat Election Opening for September 2020
Chris Aniszczyk
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Tech Lead nomination for SIG Observability: Bartłomiej Płotka
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
+1 binding
Regards,
Andrew Aitken
GM & Global Open Source Practice Leader
Wipro Technologies
650-704-6321
** This mail has been sent from an external source. Treat hyperlinks and attachments in this email with caution**
The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should
not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted via email. The recipient should check this email and any attachments
for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. www.wipro.com
|
|
|
Re: Istio Steering Committee
On 8/25/20 12:53 PM, April Kyle Nassi wrote: I do echo Kris' comment about CNCF having an opinion on how projects
govern. It seems like as CNCF has grown, perhaps there is now a desire
to be more explicit about the types of governance we want projects to
have? This is something those of us on the Governance WG would love to
get more direction around so we can help make templates, etc and build
programs that would benefit projects. There's going to be a huge gap between the governance structures we *recommend* and the ones that are *acceptable to CNCF*. The CNCF was founded on having considerable autonmy for projects in governance, and that has to include adopting systems we think are "bad". -- -- Josh Berkus Kubernetes Community Red Hat OSPO
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Rook Graduation
+1 binding Great addition to the graduated suite of CNCF projects!
+1 binding
-alena. On Jul 6, 2020, at 3:03 PM, Amye Scavarda Perrin < ascavarda@...> wrote:
|
|
|
Re: Istio Steering Committee
Kris Nova <kris.nova@...>
Not trying to create a fallacy - apologies - these threads seem to be glamorizing steering committees more and more - and I just wanted to advocate that not every project needs one.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 12:46 PM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Nobody is suggesting imposing anything. That suggestion is a red herring.
+1 to Josh Speaking as a Falco maintainer here, our community just re-vamped our model for how we manage sub projects, official support, and decision making in the open. All of these seem like they would fit under a steering committee charter. [1] [2] We even mentioned this in our latest update [3].
Having a steering committee imposed on the project would just create more process and impair innovation for us. It's not that we are necessarily against the idea, we just aren't there yet as a project. Furthermore I doubt any of the engineers are going to be keen on introducing process to solve a problem that doesn't exist yet for the project. As far as end-users are concerned, we see them engaged in all of the community activities and contributing to the process outlined in the references below. Again -- we just aren't there yet.
I look at a SC like a tool. It's a well-known tool, that obviously works to solve well-known issues for folks. Can we just keep it at that? It's a tool. The tool works well, if you happen to need it and decide to use it. <click here to read more>
TLDR; I thought that the whole point of this was that the CNCF didn't impose rules/regulations on how projects self-govern? Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought that was -- like -- a thing.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 12:38 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Agree that SC should (if suggested) remain a known good option, and Not Compulsory.
Agree that some projects are "small" - but i would have said Helm is small! My belief is that SCs can help growth. Many projects now have numerous repos and moving parts. The direction may not be clear. End users may want more of a say. Contributors and maintainers should welcome this, and most do.
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020, 20:30 Josh Berkus, < jberkus@...> wrote: On 8/25/20 12:20 PM, Alexis Richardson wrote:
> During the summer break it occurred to me that many of the advantages i
> could envisage in adding SCs would be achieved if the notion of
> Maintainer was broadened to include non coding people. But you still
> get benefit from org level direction over the top.
And for large projects like Helm, an SC has these benefits. Just like
Kubernetes. But in smaller projects, where you're looking at a couple
dozen regular contributors period, there's not a lot o benefit --
generally the exact same people are on the SC as are in the other
groups. Unless you add someone from outside the project, in which case
you have different problems.
For a small project, I'd recommend (were I advising them) trying to
broaden their maintainers group to include non-code maintainers (like
docs and advocacy), which is usually a better approach when dealing with
a small pool.
Of course, it's really up to what the project wants.
> Fwiw, i don't believe in imposing or forcing things either. Apologies
> if I have given that impression.
We have to recognize that if we make an SC an alternative for other
governance requirements, that will result in an SC being imposed on a
few projects where the contributors otherwise don't want one.
BTW, in this thread I am speaking as a single member of SIG-Contributor
Strategy, and not for the whole committee. Other members of the SIG may
well disagree with me. I am also not speaking for Red Hat.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Kubernetes Community
Red Hat OSPO
--
Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate
85 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105
-- Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate
85 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105
|
|
|
Re: Istio Steering Committee
Kris Nova <kris.nova@...>
+1 to Josh Speaking as a Falco maintainer here, our community just re-vamped our model for how we manage sub projects, official support, and decision making in the open. All of these seem like they would fit under a steering committee charter. [1] [2] We even mentioned this in our latest update [3].
Having a steering committee imposed on the project would just create more process and impair innovation for us. It's not that we are necessarily against the idea, we just aren't there yet as a project. Furthermore I doubt any of the engineers are going to be keen on introducing process to solve a problem that doesn't exist yet for the project. As far as end-users are concerned, we see them engaged in all of the community activities and contributing to the process outlined in the references below. Again -- we just aren't there yet.
I look at a SC like a tool. It's a well-known tool, that obviously works to solve well-known issues for folks. Can we just keep it at that? It's a tool. The tool works well, if you happen to need it and decide to use it. <click here to read more>
TLDR; I thought that the whole point of this was that the CNCF didn't impose rules/regulations on how projects self-govern? Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought that was -- like -- a thing.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 12:38 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Agree that SC should (if suggested) remain a known good option, and Not Compulsory.
Agree that some projects are "small" - but i would have said Helm is small! My belief is that SCs can help growth. Many projects now have numerous repos and moving parts. The direction may not be clear. End users may want more of a say. Contributors and maintainers should welcome this, and most do.
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020, 20:30 Josh Berkus, < jberkus@...> wrote: On 8/25/20 12:20 PM, Alexis Richardson wrote:
> During the summer break it occurred to me that many of the advantages i
> could envisage in adding SCs would be achieved if the notion of
> Maintainer was broadened to include non coding people. But you still
> get benefit from org level direction over the top.
And for large projects like Helm, an SC has these benefits. Just like
Kubernetes. But in smaller projects, where you're looking at a couple
dozen regular contributors period, there's not a lot o benefit --
generally the exact same people are on the SC as are in the other
groups. Unless you add someone from outside the project, in which case
you have different problems.
For a small project, I'd recommend (were I advising them) trying to
broaden their maintainers group to include non-code maintainers (like
docs and advocacy), which is usually a better approach when dealing with
a small pool.
Of course, it's really up to what the project wants.
> Fwiw, i don't believe in imposing or forcing things either. Apologies
> if I have given that impression.
We have to recognize that if we make an SC an alternative for other
governance requirements, that will result in an SC being imposed on a
few projects where the contributors otherwise don't want one.
BTW, in this thread I am speaking as a single member of SIG-Contributor
Strategy, and not for the whole committee. Other members of the SIG may
well disagree with me. I am also not speaking for Red Hat.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Kubernetes Community
Red Hat OSPO
-- Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate
85 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105
|
|
|
Re: Istio Steering Committee
Thanks for bringing this up Stephen.
I would suggest that the structure (which includes SC or not) can't fix problems that may be cultural. For example, knowing ones audience is important. Taking the time to sit down with users, understand them, understand when one project ends and others begin, and work for the benefit of the people involved is a cultural trait.
I would like to see more that teaches this trait.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020, at 3:42 PM, Stephen Augustus wrote:
(+ SIG ContribStrat)
I could see the overarching theme as "distilling what it could mean to be a 'good maintainer'".
SIG Contributor Strategy is exactly the kind of venue to have this discussion and we'd welcome (kind) discourse around this across our main meeting, WG Governance, and the soon-to-be-launched Maintainer's Circle.
-- Stephen
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020, 15:38 alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Agree that SC should (if suggested) remain a known good option, and Not Compulsory.
Agree that some projects are "small" - but i would have said Helm is small! My belief is that SCs can help growth. Many projects now have numerous repos and moving parts. The direction may not be clear. End users may want more of a say. Contributors and maintainers should welcome this, and most do.
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020, 20:30 Josh Berkus, < jberkus@...> wrote: On 8/25/20 12:20 PM, Alexis Richardson wrote:
> During the summer break it occurred to me that many of the advantages i
> could envisage in adding SCs would be achieved if the notion of
> Maintainer was broadened to include non coding people. But you still
> get benefit from org level direction over the top.
And for large projects like Helm, an SC has these benefits. Just like
Kubernetes. But in smaller projects, where you're looking at a couple
dozen regular contributors period, there's not a lot o benefit --
generally the exact same people are on the SC as are in the other
groups. Unless you add someone from outside the project, in which case
you have different problems.
For a small project, I'd recommend (were I advising them) trying to
broaden their maintainers group to include non-code maintainers (like
docs and advocacy), which is usually a better approach when dealing with
a small pool.
Of course, it's really up to what the project wants.
> Fwiw, i don't believe in imposing or forcing things either. Apologies
> if I have given that impression.
We have to recognize that if we make an SC an alternative for other
governance requirements, that will result in an SC being imposed on a
few projects where the contributors otherwise don't want one.
BTW, in this thread I am speaking as a single member of SIG-Contributor
Strategy, and not for the whole committee. Other members of the SIG may
well disagree with me. I am also not speaking for Red Hat.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Kubernetes Community
Red Hat OSPO
|
|
|
Re: Istio Steering Committee
Not trying to create a fallacy - apologies - these threads seem to be glamorizing steering committees more and more - and I just wanted to advocate that not every project needs one.
Agree.
The underlying issues are set out here
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 12:46 PM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Nobody is suggesting imposing anything. That suggestion is a red herring.
+1 to Josh Speaking as a Falco maintainer here, our community just re-vamped our model for how we manage sub projects, official support, and decision making in the open. All of these seem like they would fit under a steering committee charter. [1] [2] We even mentioned this in our latest update [3].
Having a steering committee imposed on the project would just create more process and impair innovation for us. It's not that we are necessarily against the idea, we just aren't there yet as a project. Furthermore I doubt any of the engineers are going to be keen on introducing process to solve a problem that doesn't exist yet for the project. As far as end-users are concerned, we see them engaged in all of the community activities and contributing to the process outlined in the references below. Again -- we just aren't there yet.
I look at a SC like a tool. It's a well-known tool, that obviously works to solve well-known issues for folks. Can we just keep it at that? It's a tool. The tool works well, if you happen to need it and decide to use it. <click here to read more>
TLDR; I thought that the whole point of this was that the CNCF didn't impose rules/regulations on how projects self-govern? Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought that was -- like -- a thing.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 12:38 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Agree that SC should (if suggested) remain a known good option, and Not Compulsory.
Agree that some projects are "small" - but i would have said Helm is small! My belief is that SCs can help growth. Many projects now have numerous repos and moving parts. The direction may not be clear. End users may want more of a say. Contributors and maintainers should welcome this, and most do.
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020, 20:30 Josh Berkus, < jberkus@...> wrote: On 8/25/20 12:20 PM, Alexis Richardson wrote:
> During the summer break it occurred to me that many of the advantages i
> could envisage in adding SCs would be achieved if the notion of
> Maintainer was broadened to include non coding people. But you still
> get benefit from org level direction over the top.
And for large projects like Helm, an SC has these benefits. Just like
Kubernetes. But in smaller projects, where you're looking at a couple
dozen regular contributors period, there's not a lot o benefit --
generally the exact same people are on the SC as are in the other
groups. Unless you add someone from outside the project, in which case
you have different problems.
For a small project, I'd recommend (were I advising them) trying to
broaden their maintainers group to include non-code maintainers (like
docs and advocacy), which is usually a better approach when dealing with
a small pool.
Of course, it's really up to what the project wants.
> Fwiw, i don't believe in imposing or forcing things either. Apologies
> if I have given that impression.
We have to recognize that if we make an SC an alternative for other
governance requirements, that will result in an SC being imposed on a
few projects where the contributors otherwise don't want one.
BTW, in this thread I am speaking as a single member of SIG-Contributor
Strategy, and not for the whole committee. Other members of the SIG may
well disagree with me. I am also not speaking for Red Hat.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Kubernetes Community
Red Hat OSPO
--
Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate
85 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105
--
Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate
85 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105
|
|
|
Re: Istio Steering Committee
I think we can all agree that there is no one way to do open source, and that every project has different needs.
I do echo Kris' comment about CNCF having an opinion on how projects govern. It seems like as CNCF has grown, perhaps there is now a desire to be more explicit about the types of governance we want projects to have? This is something those of us on the Governance WG would love to get more direction around so we can help make templates, etc and build programs that would benefit projects.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 12:46 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Nobody is suggesting imposing anything. That suggestion is a red herring.
+1 to Josh Speaking as a Falco maintainer here, our community just re-vamped our model for how we manage sub projects, official support, and decision making in the open. All of these seem like they would fit under a steering committee charter. [1] [2] We even mentioned this in our latest update [3].
Having a steering committee imposed on the project would just create more process and impair innovation for us. It's not that we are necessarily against the idea, we just aren't there yet as a project. Furthermore I doubt any of the engineers are going to be keen on introducing process to solve a problem that doesn't exist yet for the project. As far as end-users are concerned, we see them engaged in all of the community activities and contributing to the process outlined in the references below. Again -- we just aren't there yet.
I look at a SC like a tool. It's a well-known tool, that obviously works to solve well-known issues for folks. Can we just keep it at that? It's a tool. The tool works well, if you happen to need it and decide to use it. <click here to read more>
TLDR; I thought that the whole point of this was that the CNCF didn't impose rules/regulations on how projects self-govern? Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought that was -- like -- a thing.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 12:38 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Agree that SC should (if suggested) remain a known good option, and Not Compulsory.
Agree that some projects are "small" - but i would have said Helm is small! My belief is that SCs can help growth. Many projects now have numerous repos and moving parts. The direction may not be clear. End users may want more of a say. Contributors and maintainers should welcome this, and most do.
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020, 20:30 Josh Berkus, < jberkus@...> wrote: On 8/25/20 12:20 PM, Alexis Richardson wrote:
> During the summer break it occurred to me that many of the advantages i
> could envisage in adding SCs would be achieved if the notion of
> Maintainer was broadened to include non coding people. But you still
> get benefit from org level direction over the top.
And for large projects like Helm, an SC has these benefits. Just like
Kubernetes. But in smaller projects, where you're looking at a couple
dozen regular contributors period, there's not a lot o benefit --
generally the exact same people are on the SC as are in the other
groups. Unless you add someone from outside the project, in which case
you have different problems.
For a small project, I'd recommend (were I advising them) trying to
broaden their maintainers group to include non-code maintainers (like
docs and advocacy), which is usually a better approach when dealing with
a small pool.
Of course, it's really up to what the project wants.
> Fwiw, i don't believe in imposing or forcing things either. Apologies
> if I have given that impression.
We have to recognize that if we make an SC an alternative for other
governance requirements, that will result in an SC being imposed on a
few projects where the contributors otherwise don't want one.
BTW, in this thread I am speaking as a single member of SIG-Contributor
Strategy, and not for the whole committee. Other members of the SIG may
well disagree with me. I am also not speaking for Red Hat.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Kubernetes Community
Red Hat OSPO
--
Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate
85 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105
|
|
|
Re: Istio Steering Committee
> We have to recognize that if we make an SC an alternative for other governance requirements, that will result in an SC being imposed on a few projects where the contributors otherwise don't want one.
This is why I really like the idea that Dims brought to the table with governance badging. We shouldn’t be prescribing governance but making sure its align with the open values of the project/cncf and a Steering committee can be one of those vehicles, discovered clearly on the readme. There is a wg-governance meeting next Tuesday to go into the badging idea more and continue other governance conversations: can we all meet there and discuss? alexis?
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 12:30 PM Josh Berkus < jberkus@...> wrote: On 8/25/20 12:20 PM, Alexis Richardson wrote:
> During the summer break it occurred to me that many of the advantages i
> could envisage in adding SCs would be achieved if the notion of
> Maintainer was broadened to include non coding people. But you still
> get benefit from org level direction over the top.
And for large projects like Helm, an SC has these benefits. Just like
Kubernetes. But in smaller projects, where you're looking at a couple
dozen regular contributors period, there's not a lot o benefit --
generally the exact same people are on the SC as are in the other
groups. Unless you add someone from outside the project, in which case
you have different problems.
For a small project, I'd recommend (were I advising them) trying to
broaden their maintainers group to include non-code maintainers (like
docs and advocacy), which is usually a better approach when dealing with
a small pool.
Of course, it's really up to what the project wants.
> Fwiw, i don't believe in imposing or forcing things either. Apologies
> if I have given that impression.
We have to recognize that if we make an SC an alternative for other
governance requirements, that will result in an SC being imposed on a
few projects where the contributors otherwise don't want one.
BTW, in this thread I am speaking as a single member of SIG-Contributor
Strategy, and not for the whole committee. Other members of the SIG may
well disagree with me. I am also not speaking for Red Hat.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Kubernetes Community
Red Hat OSPO
|
|
|
Re: Istio Steering Committee
Nobody is suggesting imposing anything. That suggestion is a red herring.
+1 to Josh Speaking as a Falco maintainer here, our community just re-vamped our model for how we manage sub projects, official support, and decision making in the open. All of these seem like they would fit under a steering committee charter. [1] [2] We even mentioned this in our latest update [3].
Having a steering committee imposed on the project would just create more process and impair innovation for us. It's not that we are necessarily against the idea, we just aren't there yet as a project. Furthermore I doubt any of the engineers are going to be keen on introducing process to solve a problem that doesn't exist yet for the project. As far as end-users are concerned, we see them engaged in all of the community activities and contributing to the process outlined in the references below. Again -- we just aren't there yet.
I look at a SC like a tool. It's a well-known tool, that obviously works to solve well-known issues for folks. Can we just keep it at that? It's a tool. The tool works well, if you happen to need it and decide to use it. <click here to read more>
TLDR; I thought that the whole point of this was that the CNCF didn't impose rules/regulations on how projects self-govern? Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought that was -- like -- a thing.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 12:38 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Agree that SC should (if suggested) remain a known good option, and Not Compulsory.
Agree that some projects are "small" - but i would have said Helm is small! My belief is that SCs can help growth. Many projects now have numerous repos and moving parts. The direction may not be clear. End users may want more of a say. Contributors and maintainers should welcome this, and most do.
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020, 20:30 Josh Berkus, < jberkus@...> wrote: On 8/25/20 12:20 PM, Alexis Richardson wrote:
> During the summer break it occurred to me that many of the advantages i
> could envisage in adding SCs would be achieved if the notion of
> Maintainer was broadened to include non coding people. But you still
> get benefit from org level direction over the top.
And for large projects like Helm, an SC has these benefits. Just like
Kubernetes. But in smaller projects, where you're looking at a couple
dozen regular contributors period, there's not a lot o benefit --
generally the exact same people are on the SC as are in the other
groups. Unless you add someone from outside the project, in which case
you have different problems.
For a small project, I'd recommend (were I advising them) trying to
broaden their maintainers group to include non-code maintainers (like
docs and advocacy), which is usually a better approach when dealing with
a small pool.
Of course, it's really up to what the project wants.
> Fwiw, i don't believe in imposing or forcing things either. Apologies
> if I have given that impression.
We have to recognize that if we make an SC an alternative for other
governance requirements, that will result in an SC being imposed on a
few projects where the contributors otherwise don't want one.
BTW, in this thread I am speaking as a single member of SIG-Contributor
Strategy, and not for the whole committee. Other members of the SIG may
well disagree with me. I am also not speaking for Red Hat.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Kubernetes Community
Red Hat OSPO
--
Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate
85 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105
|
|
|
Re: Istio Steering Committee
Stephen Augustus
(+ SIG ContribStrat)
I could see the overarching theme as "distilling what it could mean to be a 'good maintainer'".
SIG Contributor Strategy is exactly the kind of venue to have this discussion and we'd welcome (kind) discourse around this across our main meeting, WG Governance, and the soon-to-be-launched Maintainer's Circle.
-- Stephen
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020, 15:38 alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Agree that SC should (if suggested) remain a known good option, and Not Compulsory.
Agree that some projects are "small" - but i would have said Helm is small! My belief is that SCs can help growth. Many projects now have numerous repos and moving parts. The direction may not be clear. End users may want more of a say. Contributors and maintainers should welcome this, and most do.
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020, 20:30 Josh Berkus, < jberkus@...> wrote: On 8/25/20 12:20 PM, Alexis Richardson wrote:
> During the summer break it occurred to me that many of the advantages i
> could envisage in adding SCs would be achieved if the notion of
> Maintainer was broadened to include non coding people. But you still
> get benefit from org level direction over the top.
And for large projects like Helm, an SC has these benefits. Just like
Kubernetes. But in smaller projects, where you're looking at a couple
dozen regular contributors period, there's not a lot o benefit --
generally the exact same people are on the SC as are in the other
groups. Unless you add someone from outside the project, in which case
you have different problems.
For a small project, I'd recommend (were I advising them) trying to
broaden their maintainers group to include non-code maintainers (like
docs and advocacy), which is usually a better approach when dealing with
a small pool.
Of course, it's really up to what the project wants.
> Fwiw, i don't believe in imposing or forcing things either. Apologies
> if I have given that impression.
We have to recognize that if we make an SC an alternative for other
governance requirements, that will result in an SC being imposed on a
few projects where the contributors otherwise don't want one.
BTW, in this thread I am speaking as a single member of SIG-Contributor
Strategy, and not for the whole committee. Other members of the SIG may
well disagree with me. I am also not speaking for Red Hat.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Kubernetes Community
Red Hat OSPO
|
|
|
Re: Istio Steering Committee
Agree that SC should (if suggested) remain a known good option, and Not Compulsory.
Agree that some projects are "small" - but i would have said Helm is small! My belief is that SCs can help growth. Many projects now have numerous repos and moving parts. The direction may not be clear. End users may want more of a say. Contributors and maintainers should welcome this, and most do.
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020, 20:30 Josh Berkus, < jberkus@...> wrote: On 8/25/20 12:20 PM, Alexis Richardson wrote:
> During the summer break it occurred to me that many of the advantages i
> could envisage in adding SCs would be achieved if the notion of
> Maintainer was broadened to include non coding people. But you still
> get benefit from org level direction over the top.
And for large projects like Helm, an SC has these benefits. Just like
Kubernetes. But in smaller projects, where you're looking at a couple
dozen regular contributors period, there's not a lot o benefit --
generally the exact same people are on the SC as are in the other
groups. Unless you add someone from outside the project, in which case
you have different problems.
For a small project, I'd recommend (were I advising them) trying to
broaden their maintainers group to include non-code maintainers (like
docs and advocacy), which is usually a better approach when dealing with
a small pool.
Of course, it's really up to what the project wants.
> Fwiw, i don't believe in imposing or forcing things either. Apologies
> if I have given that impression.
We have to recognize that if we make an SC an alternative for other
governance requirements, that will result in an SC being imposed on a
few projects where the contributors otherwise don't want one.
BTW, in this thread I am speaking as a single member of SIG-Contributor
Strategy, and not for the whole committee. Other members of the SIG may
well disagree with me. I am also not speaking for Red Hat.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Kubernetes Community
Red Hat OSPO
|
|
|
Re: Istio Steering Committee
On 8/25/20 12:20 PM, Alexis Richardson wrote: During the summer break it occurred to me that many of the advantages i
could envisage in adding SCs would be achieved if the notion of
Maintainer was broadened to include non coding people. But you still
get benefit from org level direction over the top. And for large projects like Helm, an SC has these benefits. Just like Kubernetes. But in smaller projects, where you're looking at a couple dozen regular contributors period, there's not a lot o benefit -- generally the exact same people are on the SC as are in the other groups. Unless you add someone from outside the project, in which case you have different problems. For a small project, I'd recommend (were I advising them) trying to broaden their maintainers group to include non-code maintainers (like docs and advocacy), which is usually a better approach when dealing with a small pool. Of course, it's really up to what the project wants. Fwiw, i don't believe in imposing or forcing things either. Apologies
if I have given that impression. We have to recognize that if we make an SC an alternative for other governance requirements, that will result in an SC being imposed on a few projects where the contributors otherwise don't want one. BTW, in this thread I am speaking as a single member of SIG-Contributor Strategy, and not for the whole committee. Other members of the SIG may well disagree with me. I am also not speaking for Red Hat. -- -- Josh Berkus Kubernetes Community Red Hat OSPO
|
|
|
Re: Istio Steering Committee
I think you are creating a strawman argument. We are not substituting one form of governance for another.
The issue is how SCs can add value eg direction, participation, and user confidence that features won't be withheld. I think Matt offered an example of a project, Helm, where the SC complements, at org level, the repo level project governance.
During the summer break it occurred to me that many of the advantages i could envisage in adding SCs would be achieved if the notion of Maintainer was broadened to include non coding people. But you still get benefit from org level direction over the top.
Fwiw, i don't believe in imposing or forcing things either. Apologies if I have given that impression.
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020, 20:13 Josh Berkus, < jberkus@...> wrote: On 8/25/20 12:10 PM, Alexis Richardson wrote:
> Josh, please disentangle your feelings about istio from the constructive
> discussion i can see you want to have.
>
Then pick a better example of a steering committee.
I don't know of a single example of a steering committee successfully
evolving otherwise broken leadership within a project. Maybe you do?
I've never seen it in practice.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Kubernetes Community
Red Hat OSPO
|
|
|
