Anil, it is a completely open model, the charter is a living document that evolves over time based on input from different constituents. You can see the history here:

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

Thanks for clarification Matt. Just started reading the charter to better understand it. -- Thanks Anil

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

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

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

+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

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

"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

+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