Date   

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

Libby Meren
 

Agree with Aeva and others’ comments. The community should participate in defining the CoC, and be part of selecting the people responsible for representing them in maintaining the CoC.

And, I struggle to understand defining a CoC committee that isn’t inclusive and which prioritizes representation. That seems wholly antithetical to the purpose of a CoC and the values of the foundation.

Thanks,

Libby 

On 12 Jun 2022, at 12:16 pm, Frederick Kautz <frederick@...> wrote:


Perhaps we can separate out participation from acceptance?

I don’t feel comfortable with a community code of conduct not including the community, but also think many of us will acknowledge that some group of people need to be responsible for reviewing, accepting and merging changes.

I recommend treating it like any other open source project. Keep the code public in git, hold public reviews, and merge changes over time after discussing and general acceptance.

On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 10:48 AM Aeva <aeva.online@...> wrote:
+1 to the concerns which Stephen and Josh have articulated. There were several other folks attending the BoF in Valencia who have subject expertise and volunteered to help -- but who have been excluded by this framework.

I have been leading a lot of the work on the Kubernetes Code of Conduct Committee's evolution since 2019, and have continued to support up-leveling of policy changes even after my term ended. Particularly given the clarification to this election process, it is evident that I am being excluded from this WG -- even though it is chartered to continue my work. For context, I am both a Board Alternate and an Emeritus k8s CoCC member.

So. What is the goal of a representational Working Group that excludes the domain experts?

Regards,
--Aeva



On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 11:15 AM <celeste.e.horgan@...> wrote:
As this committee is currently structured, I do not feel that my participation in it would be productive.

Regards
Celeste Horgan


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

Frederick Kautz
 

Perhaps we can separate out participation from acceptance?

I don’t feel comfortable with a community code of conduct not including the community, but also think many of us will acknowledge that some group of people need to be responsible for reviewing, accepting and merging changes.

I recommend treating it like any other open source project. Keep the code public in git, hold public reviews, and merge changes over time after discussing and general acceptance.

On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 10:48 AM Aeva <aeva.online@...> wrote:
+1 to the concerns which Stephen and Josh have articulated. There were several other folks attending the BoF in Valencia who have subject expertise and volunteered to help -- but who have been excluded by this framework.

I have been leading a lot of the work on the Kubernetes Code of Conduct Committee's evolution since 2019, and have continued to support up-leveling of policy changes even after my term ended. Particularly given the clarification to this election process, it is evident that I am being excluded from this WG -- even though it is chartered to continue my work. For context, I am both a Board Alternate and an Emeritus k8s CoCC member.

So. What is the goal of a representational Working Group that excludes the domain experts?

Regards,
--Aeva



On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 11:15 AM <celeste.e.horgan@...> wrote:
As this committee is currently structured, I do not feel that my participation in it would be productive.

Regards
Celeste Horgan


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

Aeva
 

+1 to the concerns which Stephen and Josh have articulated. There were several other folks attending the BoF in Valencia who have subject expertise and volunteered to help -- but who have been excluded by this framework.

I have been leading a lot of the work on the Kubernetes Code of Conduct Committee's evolution since 2019, and have continued to support up-leveling of policy changes even after my term ended. Particularly given the clarification to this election process, it is evident that I am being excluded from this WG -- even though it is chartered to continue my work. For context, I am both a Board Alternate and an Emeritus k8s CoCC member.

So. What is the goal of a representational Working Group that excludes the domain experts?

Regards,
--Aeva



On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 11:15 AM <celeste.e.horgan@...> wrote:
As this committee is currently structured, I do not feel that my participation in it would be productive.

Regards
Celeste Horgan


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

celeste.e.horgan@...
 

As this committee is currently structured, I do not feel that my participation in it would be productive.

Regards
Celeste Horgan


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

Josh Berkus
 

On 6/10/22 14:54, Arun Gupta wrote:
The group is critical that we'd like the TAG leadership, as opposed to a delegate, to be represented here directly.
Who is the "we" making these decisions? Did the General Board vote on this approach?

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


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

Arun Gupta
 

Let me provide some more color here.

This Working Group is a "bootstrap committee" approach that will layout the foundation for CNCF CoCC. The WG is intentionally designed to include a wide range of voices across many projects, not just Kubernetes. This approach is not very different from k8s CoCC bootstrapping process https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/committee-code-of-conduct/bootstrapping-process.md. The only difference is it needs to provide an equal voice to 120+ projects across the board.

More than 500 maintainers listed at https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/main/project-maintainers.csv (only incubation and graduated projects) will be allowed to participate in this WG. This ensures diversity and inclusion in the WG from across the community. We don't know how many maintainers will join but also want to make sure the group size is manageable. We also want to make sure that all voices are heard.

The group is critical that we'd like the TAG leadership, as opposed to a delegate, to be represented here directly.

Anybody in the community would be allowed to share their proposals by sending a PR to a GH repo. We are in the process of creating this GH repo and will report back once its done. I personally encourage everybody here that cares about this topic to submit their thoughts there.

Thanks for your patience and understanding while we work through the process.

Thanks
Arun


On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 6:39 PM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
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: 2022 Skooner Annual Review

Davanum Srinivas
 

Thanks Jade. Ack.

On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 12:37 PM Jade Applegate (she/her/hers) via lists.cncf.io <japplegate=indeed.com@...> wrote:

Hello,

We are writing to let you know that we have submitted the Skooner project's annual review, available here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/850

Thank you,
Jade

--

Jade Applegate (she/her)

Program Manager

Open Source Program Office

https://opensource.indeedeng.io/

Indeed - We help people get jobs.





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


2022 Skooner Annual Review

Jade Applegate (she/her/hers) <japplegate@...>
 

Hello,

We are writing to let you know that we have submitted the Skooner project's annual review, available here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/850

Thank you,
Jade

--

Jade Applegate (she/her)

Program Manager

Open Source Program Office

https://opensource.indeedeng.io/

Indeed - We help people get jobs.




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

601 - 620 of 7712