Date   

Re: Results from Sandbox Inclusion Meeting, April 26

Max Jonas Werner
 

For posterity, the YT playlist for those is

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLj6h78yzYM2Mf6GCZzW6CAk6GlZESbemB

Cheers!
/max

On Jun 10 7:59am, Amye Scavarda Perrin wrote:
Sandbox Review meetings are closed meetings but they are recorded, the
recording will be available on YouTube the same day as the meeting.

On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 2:14 AM Huabing Zhao <zhaohuabing@...> wrote:

Hi Amye,

Is the sandbox reviewing meeting open to the community?

I have a proposed project that is supposed to be reviewed on June 14. I
just think it might be helpful to attend the meeting. So if there're any
questions or concerns raised by the TOC, I can answer them at the meeting.

Thanks,
Huabing Zhao

On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 2:25 AM Amye Scavarda Perrin <
ascavarda@...> wrote:

The TOC met today to review the sandbox applications available at
sandbox.cncf.io.

OpenFunction - passes with a majority vote of the TOC
Teller - passes with a majority vote of the TOC
sealer - passes with a majority vote of the TOC

Our next Sandbox review meeting is June 14.

Not included at the sandbox level:

Ketch: Reapply with a more robust community presence.
container-structure-test: Reapply with a more robust community presence.
Clusternet: TOC would like to see more people who are active in the
project actively doing PRS and reviews and issues.
Tarian: Consider becoming a subproject of Falco
Kubescape: would like to see more community growth, TAG + SIG Security
may be useful here, reapply in 6 months
Lagoon: Reapply in 6 months to a year.
Matos: Reapply in January '23 showing more robust community.
KTLS: Suggest meeting with Kubernetes SIG-Release to work together.
Cluster API Provider for CloudStack(CAPC): Suggest meeting with SIG
Cluster Lifecycle.

--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Director of Developer Programs, CNCF |
amye@...


--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Director of Developer Programs, CNCF |
amye@...





Re: Results from Sandbox Inclusion Meeting, April 26

Amye Scavarda Perrin
 

Sandbox Review meetings are closed meetings but they are recorded, the recording will be available on YouTube the same day as the meeting.


On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 2:14 AM Huabing Zhao <zhaohuabing@...> wrote:
Hi Amye,

Is the sandbox reviewing meeting open to the community? 

I have a proposed project that is supposed to be reviewed on June 14. I just think it might be helpful to attend the meeting. So if there're any questions or concerns raised by the TOC, I can answer them at the meeting.

Thanks,
Huabing Zhao

On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 2:25 AM Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
The TOC met today to review the sandbox applications available at sandbox.cncf.io.

OpenFunction - passes with a majority vote of the TOC
Teller - passes with a majority vote of the TOC
sealer - passes with a majority vote of the TOC

Our next Sandbox review meeting is June 14.

Not included at the sandbox level:

Ketch: Reapply with a more robust community presence.
container-structure-test: Reapply with a more robust community presence.
Clusternet: TOC would like to see more people who are active in the project actively doing PRS and reviews and issues.
Tarian: Consider becoming a subproject of Falco
Kubescape: would like to see more community growth, TAG + SIG Security may be useful here, reapply in 6 months
Lagoon: Reapply in 6 months to a year.
Matos: Reapply in January '23 showing more robust community.
KTLS: Suggest meeting with Kubernetes SIG-Release to work together.
Cluster API Provider for CloudStack(CAPC): Suggest meeting with SIG Cluster Lifecycle.

--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Director of Developer Programs, CNCF | amye@...



--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Director of Developer Programs, CNCF | amye@...


Re: CNCF Governing Board Town Hall, Developer Seats

Richard Hartmann
 

To close the loop: We talked about this during the GB town hall itself.

None of them were on the CNCF community calendar; that was an
oversight, apologies. Going forward they will be.


Best,
Richard


Kuberhealthy 2022 Annual Review

Eric Greer <EricGreer@...>
 

Hello everyone!

Kuberhealthy has filed the 2022 annual review pull request for your consideration: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/848

Thanks CNCF!

Eric Greer


Re: Results from Sandbox Inclusion Meeting, April 26

Huabing Zhao
 

Hi Amye,

Is the sandbox reviewing meeting open to the community? 

I have a proposed project that is supposed to be reviewed on June 14. I just think it might be helpful to attend the meeting. So if there're any questions or concerns raised by the TOC, I can answer them at the meeting.

Thanks,
Huabing Zhao

On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 2:25 AM Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
The TOC met today to review the sandbox applications available at sandbox.cncf.io.

OpenFunction - passes with a majority vote of the TOC
Teller - passes with a majority vote of the TOC
sealer - passes with a majority vote of the TOC

Our next Sandbox review meeting is June 14.

Not included at the sandbox level:

Ketch: Reapply with a more robust community presence.
container-structure-test: Reapply with a more robust community presence.
Clusternet: TOC would like to see more people who are active in the project actively doing PRS and reviews and issues.
Tarian: Consider becoming a subproject of Falco
Kubescape: would like to see more community growth, TAG + SIG Security may be useful here, reapply in 6 months
Lagoon: Reapply in 6 months to a year.
Matos: Reapply in January '23 showing more robust community.
KTLS: Suggest meeting with Kubernetes SIG-Release to work together.
Cluster API Provider for CloudStack(CAPC): Suggest meeting with SIG Cluster Lifecycle.

--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Director of Developer Programs, CNCF | amye@...


Re: [cncf-gb] Formation of CNCF CoC Update Working Group

Davanum Srinivas
 

Karena,

Currently we have one `External Advisor' which is Joanna Lee [1] (who led the BOF [2]) during kubecon and has been helping with setting up the CoCC WG. I'll leave it to CNCF staff to speak to the second part of your question.

thanks,
Dims

[1] https://www.gesmer.com/team/joanna-lee/


On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 5:14 PM Karena Angell <kangell@...> wrote:
+1 to Stephen and Josh

Dims - could you please clarify what 'External Advisors' means and how they are selected? 



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


Re: [cncf-gb] Formation of CNCF CoC Update Working Group

Karena Angell
 

Also, as follow-up questions since the eligibility requirements seem quite restrictive:

  1. Will this Working Group be held in an open forum similar to other CNCF Working Groups or is this suggesting a closed group?
  2. The representatives of the Code of Conduct Working Group - are they voting members and others (non-reps) are still able to participate?
  3. Again, who qualifies as an 'External Advisor' - and who selects the 'External Advisors'?
Karena


Re: [cncf-gb] Formation of CNCF CoC Update Working Group

Karena Angell
 

+1 to Stephen and Josh

Dims - could you please clarify what 'External Advisors' means and how they are selected? 


Re: [cncf-gb] Formation of CNCF CoC Update Working Group

Stephen Augustus (augustus)
 

+1.

 

If we’re saying that one of the goals is to ensure a minimum participation bound from each of these representative groups, I would maybe suggest:

  • Allow the representative group to determine how they will satisfy it e.g., several GB alternates are subject matter experts (read: I disagree w/ enforcing that this needs to be a primary GB rep)
  • (Loosely) assist (but not enforce) what the expectations for these representatives are around the feedback loop between this WG and their group

 

On the other clarifications to eligibility…

 

TAG reps

 

From the ContribStrat charter:

This charter describes the operations of the CNCF Technical Advisory Group (TAG) Contributor Strategy. This TAG is responsible for contributor experience, sustainability, governance, and openness guidance to help CNCF community groups and projects with their own contributor strategies for a healthy project.

 

I mention that to say, it could be useful to instead suggest a minimal representative group from all TAGs, and ask TAG ContribStrat to provide guidance/help coordinate with other TAGs who that group might be.

 

Kubernetes CoC Committee

 

Most of the emeritus members of K8s CoCC are still involved in some way/shape/form with the CNCF community.

I’m not sure I understand the value in restricting to active members, especially given the thoughtfulness and precision that is required to effectively serve on that committee for the Kubernetes community.

 

Again, I feel this is a selection that can and should be deferred to the group.

 

Finally, given that:

Updates to the Code of Conduct must be approved by the TOC (CNCF Charter §13), but creation of a CoC Committee to handle CoC incident response & resolution must be approved by the Governing Board (CNCF Charter §5(d)(vii))

 

I see no need for the co-chairs of this WG to be representatives of the GB and the TOC.

The outcomes of these discussions will naturally route to these bodies as resolutions/proposals.

 

Delegate the responsibility to the representative groups to select their delegates.

Then have those delegates select their co-chairs.

 

Precedence examples:

  • GB chairperson selection
  • TOC chairperson selection
  • K8s Steering GB rep selection

 

---


Stephen Augustus (he/him)

Head of Open Source

augustus@...

 

Open Source Program Office questions? Reach us at ospo@....

 

My working hours may not be your working hours.
Please do not feel obligated to reply outside of your normal work schedule.

 

On 6/9/22, 15:00, "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

On 09/06/22 11:29 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:

>On 6/9/22 03:28, Davanum Srinivas wrote:

>> 

>>most of the bodies, you can see that we are asking to send 1 or 2

>>people who essentially will help the WG interface with the body. We

>>ended up this way because of the unbounded group of maintainers (we

>>don't know how many of them will actually show up! and we wanted to

>>keep the WG of a manageable size). Of course as we get it started

>>the WG chairs (one from TOC and one from WG, which may not be

>>Arun/me) and the WG can figure out how best to do their work once

>>they are constituted (depending on who shows up and how many of

>>them!).

>That was what I assumed when each group was asked to appoint someone.

>In TAG-CS, we were already discussing who we would nominate.

>However, TAG chairs and core maintainers are the most overcommitted

>people we have in the ecosystem.  If this WG is going to be successful

>in designing a new CoCC system for a very complicated situation, it

>can't be primarily made up of people who are already oversubscribed.

>Beyond that, we had an excellent discussion and intro session at

>KubeCon with Joanna Lee. That session led attendees to expect that

>they would be invited to participate further in CoC process

>discussions in the CNCF. Most of the attendees in that session would

>be excluded from participation under this criteria.

>I guess what I'm getting at is: why is this a closed group with

>membership restrictions? That's not how we run any of our TAGs.  

>What's the reason to not make the group open to any committed

>community member who's willing to do the hard work required?

>--

>-- Josh Berkus

>   Kubernetes Community Architect

>   OSPO, OCTO

 

+1

 

 

 

 

 


Re: [cncf-gb] Formation of CNCF CoC Update Working Group

Vincent Batts
 

On 09/06/22 11:29 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 6/9/22 03:28, Davanum Srinivas wrote:

most of the bodies, you can see that we are asking to send 1 or 2 people who essentially will help the WG interface with the body. We ended up this way because of the unbounded group of maintainers (we don't know how many of them will actually show up! and we wanted to keep the WG of a manageable size). Of course as we get it started the WG chairs (one from TOC and one from WG, which may not be Arun/me) and the WG can figure out how best to do their work once they are constituted (depending on who shows up and how many of them!).
That was what I assumed when each group was asked to appoint someone. In TAG-CS, we were already discussing who we would nominate.

However, TAG chairs and core maintainers are the most overcommitted people we have in the ecosystem. If this WG is going to be successful in designing a new CoCC system for a very complicated situation, it can't be primarily made up of people who are already oversubscribed.

Beyond that, we had an excellent discussion and intro session at KubeCon with Joanna Lee. That session led attendees to expect that they would be invited to participate further in CoC process discussions in the CNCF. Most of the attendees in that session would be excluded from participation under this criteria.

I guess what I'm getting at is: why is this a closed group with membership restrictions? That's not how we run any of our TAGs. What's the reason to not make the group open to any committed community member who's willing to do the hard work required?

--
-- Josh Berkus
Kubernetes Community Architect
OSPO, OCTO
+1


Re: [cncf-gb] Formation of CNCF CoC Update Working Group

Josh Berkus
 

On 6/9/22 03:28, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
most of the bodies, you can see that we are asking to send 1 or 2 people who essentially will help the WG interface with the body. We ended up this way because of the unbounded group of maintainers (we don't know how many of them will actually show up! and we wanted to keep the WG of a manageable size). Of course as we get it started the WG chairs (one from TOC and one from WG, which may not be Arun/me) and the WG can figure out how best to do their work once they are constituted (depending on who shows up and how many of them!).
That was what I assumed when each group was asked to appoint someone. In TAG-CS, we were already discussing who we would nominate.

However, TAG chairs and core maintainers are the most overcommitted people we have in the ecosystem. If this WG is going to be successful in designing a new CoCC system for a very complicated situation, it can't be primarily made up of people who are already oversubscribed.

Beyond that, we had an excellent discussion and intro session at KubeCon with Joanna Lee. That session led attendees to expect that they would be invited to participate further in CoC process discussions in the CNCF. Most of the attendees in that session would be excluded from participation under this criteria.

I guess what I'm getting at is: why is this a closed group with membership restrictions? That's not how we run any of our TAGs. What's the reason to not make the group open to any committed community member who's willing to do the hard work required?

--
-- Josh Berkus
Kubernetes Community Architect
OSPO, OCTO


Re: [cncf-gb] Formation of CNCF CoC Update Working Group

Davanum Srinivas
 

Hi Josh,

good question! we had competing interests (size of WG to ensure it's not too big to do its work vs broad criteria to accommodate folks from various bodies)

most of the bodies, you can see that we are asking to send 1 or 2 people who essentially will help the WG interface with the body. We ended up this way because of the unbounded group of maintainers (we don't know how many of them will actually show up! and we wanted to keep the WG of a manageable size). Of course as we get it started the WG chairs (one from TOC and one from WG, which may not be Arun/me) and the WG can figure out how best to do their work once they are constituted (depending on who shows up and how many of them!). 

I totally agree that we need to engage all the subject matter experts. A few things we talked about that are in our notes and probably not in this email are around things like a public github repo etc (and use community processes like issues/prs that anyone can propose items) as well in addition to the work folks put in directly as part of the WG. Also looking at options for anonymous feedback as well.

I'll let Arun write more if I missed stuff.

thanks,
Dims


On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 6:47 PM Josh Berkus <jberkus@...> wrote:
On 6/8/22 14:54, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
> Here are some updates to the eligibility of the CoCC WG.

I'm confused by the updated criteria.

For example, within TAG Contributor Strategy, we have several people who
have direct expertise in CoCC formation.  They are not our chairs.

Shouldn't the COC-WG be composed of people with subject matter expertise?

--
-- Josh Berkus
    Kubernetes Community Architect
    OSPO, OCTO



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


Re: [cncf-gb] Formation of CNCF CoC Update Working Group

Josh Berkus
 

On 6/8/22 14:54, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Here are some updates to the eligibility of the CoCC WG.
I'm confused by the updated criteria.

For example, within TAG Contributor Strategy, we have several people who have direct expertise in CoCC formation. They are not our chairs.

Shouldn't the COC-WG be composed of people with subject matter expertise?

--
-- Josh Berkus
Kubernetes Community Architect
OSPO, OCTO


[cncf-gb] Formation of CNCF CoC Update Working Group

Davanum Srinivas
 

Folks,

Here are some updates to the eligibility of the CoCC WG.

thanks,
Dims

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Gupta, Arun <arun.gupta@...>
Date: Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: [cncf-gb] Formation of CNCF CoC Update Working Group
To: cncf-gb <cncf-gb@...>
Cc: Taylor Waggoner <twaggoner@...>


To members of the CNCF Governing Board:

 

There has been some confusion regarding eligibility to serve as a representative on the Code of Conduct Working Group, so we’re sharing additional details to clarify.  Please see the updated composition list below with clarifications highlighted:

  • Any active Incubating + Graduated Maintainer who wishes to volunteer
  • 1-2 representatives from the Governing Board - must be a primary member, not an alternate
  • 1–2 representatives from the Technical Oversight Committee
  • 1 representative from each TAG - must be a chair or technical lead of the TAG
    • TAG-Security
    • TAG-Storage
    • TAG-App-Delivery
    • TAG-Network
    • TAG-Runtime
    • TAG Contributor Strategy
    • TAG Observability
  • 1 representative from the Kubernetes CoC Committee - must be an active current member
  • 1 representative from the Marketing Committee - must be a chair
  • 2 CNCF staff 
  • 1 LF Events staff
  • External advisors for support

 

If you would like to participate and are eligible per the list above, please notify Taylor Waggoner <twaggoner@...> no later than June 14. 

 

We apologize for any confusion.

 

Sincerely,

 

Chairs for CNCF Governing Board & Technical Oversight Committee

 

 

From: cncf-gb@... <cncf-gb@...> On Behalf Of Gupta, Arun
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 5:50 PM
To: cncf-gb <cncf-gb@...>
Cc: Taylor Waggoner <twaggoner@...>
Subject: [cncf-gb] Formation of CNCF CoC Update Working Group

 

To members of the CNCF Governing Board:

 

At KubeCon EU a few weeks ago, CNCF community members and staff came together to discuss making improvements to CNCF’s Code of Conduct (CoC) processes.  CoC process updates will happen in several phases, as described in our recent blog post on Upcoming Code of Conduct Updates at CNCF.  As one important step forward, we are now forming a CNCF Code of Conduct Update Working Group (WG) to continue developing and refining a set of proposed new processes and documentation.  Many thanks to those who have already been working on proposals that will help us move forward.

 

The intended output of this WG is a set of updated policies that can be submitted to the appropriate governing body* for approval, including:

·        Improvements to the CNCF Code of Conduct

·        Charter for a new CNCF CoC Committee 

·        Updated policies regarding communication, confidentiality, & transparency

·        Updated conflict of interest policy

·        Written policy outlining who has jurisdiction of which incidents (LF Events, CNCF CoC Committee, or project-level CoC Committee)

 

Although CNCF has already been operating in accordance with policies of the types listed above, we want to update and better document them through a collaborative community process.

 

*Updates to the Code of Conduct must be approved by the TOC (CNCF Charter §13), but creation of a CoC Committee to handle CoC incident response & resolution must be approved by the Governing Board (CNCF Charter §5(d)(vii)).

 

We are seeking Working Group participants from the following roles:

  • Any active Incubating + Graduated Maintainers who wish to volunteer
  • 1-2 representatives from the Governing Board (GB)
  • 1–2 representatives from the Technical Oversight Committee (TOC)
  • 1 representative from each TAG:
    • TAG-Security
    • TAG-Storage
    • TAG-App-Delivery
    • TAG-Network
    • TAG-Runtime
    • TAG Contributor Strategy
    • TAG Observability
  • 1 representative from the Kubernetes CoC Committee
  • 1 representative from the Marketing Committee
  • 2 CNCF staff 
  • 1 LF Events staff
  • External advisors for support

 

If you are an active Incubated or Graduated Maintainer or belong to one of the governing bodies listed above, and you would like to participate in the Working Group, please notify Taylor Waggoner <twaggoner@...> no later than June 14.  If there are more volunteers from a governing body than seats allocated, the governing body will select its representative.  The time commitment for WG participants would be 3-6 hours per month for a total of 4-6 months. The WG will have 2 co-chairs, one from TOC and one from the GB side to lead meetings, facilitate consensus, etc. 

 

Feedback from the broader community as well as the Governing Board and TOC will be solicited on a regular basis.  Anyone in the community is welcome to submit proposals (PRs on Github) and may be invited to a WG meeting to present it.  

 

The WG will use a private slack and a public github repository for formalizing content. We will schedule the first WG meeting shortly after the WG participants are confirmed.

 

Sincerely,

 

Chairs for CNCF Governing Board & Technical Oversight Committee

 



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


Re: CNCF Governing Board Town Hall, Developer Seats

Josh Berkus
 

On 6/8/22 07:58, Richard Hartmann wrote:
If you're trying to join the CNCF Governing Board Town Hall, Developer
Seats which will start in two minutes:
... was this supposed to be a community-wide event?

It's not on the CNCF community calendar.

--
-- Josh Berkus
Kubernetes Community Architect
OSPO, OCTO


Re: CNCF Governing Board Town Hall, Developer Seats

Josh Gavant
 

This seems like a great meeting for me as a developer contributor, so happy to receive this message! Where was it advertised so I can subscribe for next time? Thank you!


CNCF Governing Board Town Hall, Developer Seats

Richard Hartmann
 

Dear all,

If you're trying to join the CNCF Governing Board Town Hall, Developer
Seats which will start in two minutes:

The old Zoom was invalid, the new one is https://zoom.us/j/5382335327

Sorry for the last minute back and forth.


See you in two?
Richard


Re: Request for Comment: Mentoring WG

Davanum Srinivas
 

Josh,

+100 in principle! TOC folks will read/review the charter and comment in the doc or here.

thanks,
Dims


On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 10:40 AM Josh Berkus <jberkus@...> wrote:
TOC:

TAG Contributor Strategy would like to create the Mentoring Working
Group, under our TAG.

You can find, and comment on, a draft charter here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B_hpVAKxxNaSgVYAsHdjq_57eZEkYUuxcxecbcl3H9c/edit?usp=sharing

The Mentoring WG is a home for organized mentoring activity that was
already happening in the CNCF.  It was originally requested by Ihor
before he became unavailable, and will be led by CNCF staff and
contractors; particularly Nate Waddington (CNCF) and Jay Tihema (ii) to
start. They hope to recruit additional WG contributors from our
community, of course, and a few have tentatively stepped up per the charter.

Right now Mentoring is a Team inside TAG-CS, and we've already begun
work on several initiatives, including LFX, GSOC, GSOD, Outreachy, and a
new effort to make students in NZ aware of internship opportunities in
the CNCF.

The latter will include creation of an indigenous pilot programme to
launch among regional education providers; and career and resource
development in collaboration with stakeholders in community, education,
industry and local government.

We expect learning gained from this approach will help to identify and
bridge suitable candidates into the various mentoring opportunities
available, and act as a framework that can be applied to other groups
globally.

--
-- Josh Berkus, TAG-CS Chair
    Dawn Foster, TAG-CS Chair
    Jay Tihema, Mentoring Team Lead
    Nate Waddington, Mentoring Team Lead








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


Request for Comment: Mentoring WG

Josh Berkus
 

TOC:

TAG Contributor Strategy would like to create the Mentoring Working Group, under our TAG.

You can find, and comment on, a draft charter here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B_hpVAKxxNaSgVYAsHdjq_57eZEkYUuxcxecbcl3H9c/edit?usp=sharing

The Mentoring WG is a home for organized mentoring activity that was already happening in the CNCF. It was originally requested by Ihor before he became unavailable, and will be led by CNCF staff and contractors; particularly Nate Waddington (CNCF) and Jay Tihema (ii) to start. They hope to recruit additional WG contributors from our community, of course, and a few have tentatively stepped up per the charter.

Right now Mentoring is a Team inside TAG-CS, and we've already begun work on several initiatives, including LFX, GSOC, GSOD, Outreachy, and a new effort to make students in NZ aware of internship opportunities in the CNCF.

The latter will include creation of an indigenous pilot programme to launch among regional education providers; and career and resource development in collaboration with stakeholders in community, education, industry and local government.

We expect learning gained from this approach will help to identify and bridge suitable candidates into the various mentoring opportunities available, and act as a framework that can be applied to other groups globally.

--
-- Josh Berkus, TAG-CS Chair
Dawn Foster, TAG-CS Chair
Jay Tihema, Mentoring Team Lead
Nate Waddington, Mentoring Team Lead


[VOTE] Kyverno for incubation

Ankit Rawat
 

+1 NB

621 - 640 of 7724