+100000 for transparency -- Erin A. Boyd Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO Red Hat

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

Big +1 to what Matt said!-- Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims

+1 non-binding -- Chris Short He/Him/His Web | Newsletter | Podcast | Twitter | LinkedIn

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. This is completely opaque to the community

Hey all (also including Falco mailing list) Just wanted to bump this thread to see if we had made any movement on this? We just had our weekly open source call and we had folks from the community

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

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

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

As a maintainer, I would also appreciate this information. :) -- Jaice Singer DuMars Open Source Strategy, Open Source Programs Office +1 (206) 371-2293 345 Spear St., San Francisco CA 94105

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

<caniszczyk@...> wrote: This is phrased as if all projects suggest one common nominee. Prometheus team understood the process to be that every project suggests a person and then all

+1 Great suggestion Matt. Best Regards, Shannon Williams Rancher Labs shannon@... +1 650-521-6902

The process is baked into the charter here (6)(e): https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/master/charter.md#6-technical-oversight-committee-toc I don't have a problem in publicizing the "Qualified

+1 I think this is an excellent suggestion

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

Thanks Chris!-- Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims

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

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

Hi Nicola - Thanks for your email. I do not believe there are however you are welcome to email the below email in case they have additional information. kcsp@... Best, Jessie -- Jessie Adams