|
Re: CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way, having App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
Jeff
On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote:
This email is from an external sender.
Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
Our next step: draft a charter. We'd love a few keen would-be
SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please! Also, we shall
figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
Interested? Email us offline.
Alexis+Michelle
|
|
|
Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
Our next step: draft a charter. We'd love a few keen would-be
SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please! Also, we shall
figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
Interested? Email us offline.
Alexis+Michelle
|
|
|
[RESULT] CNCF Security SIG (APPROVED)
Chris Aniszczyk
|
|
|
Chris Aniszczyk
Here's a friendly reminder that we meet tomorrow:
-- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
Re: Encouraging diversity through the SIGs
+1.
This does seem to be going in the right direction. Thanks
From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
On Behalf Of chrisdidato@...
Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2019 11:14 PM
To: Liz Rice
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Encouraging diversity through the SIGs
+1. Do it.
Sent from the virtual desk of Chris Didato. (Please excuse the brevity and any typos).
On May 30, 2019, at 4:29 AM, Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Alexis just shared an idea with me that I think is so great that I wanted to act immediately! This comes out of discussions with several folks at KubeCon and elsewhere about how we can improve diversity at all
levels of the community.
Now that we’ve formalised the existence of CNCF SIGs, they’re a great place to scale out the diversity effort. Let's add to the CNCF SIG requirements that they need to have initiatives in place to actively encourage diversity (of all sorts) within their activities.
The goal should be nurturing a more diverse range of people into positions like SIG Tech Leads and Chairs, and other SIG-specific roles (e.g. taking part in security assessments in SIG security). The SIG Chairs would need to assume the responsibility to make
sure this is happening.
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] CNCF Security SIG
I thought I had already voted but apparently sent it just to Chris. I can't email. For the record:
+1 binding!
From: cncf-toc@... on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 6:17 AM
To: CNCF TOC
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] CNCF Security SIG
A new CNCF Security SIG has been proposed with Liz Rice and Joe Beda as the TOC liaisons. The Co-Chairs: Sarah Allen, Dan Shaw, Jeyappragash JJ
Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/146
Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
Re: Encouraging diversity through the SIGs
+1. Do it. Sent from the virtual desk of Chris Didato. (Please excuse the brevity and any typos).
On May 30, 2019, at 4:29 AM, Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote: Alexis just shared an idea with me that I think is so great that I wanted to act immediately! This comes out of discussions with several folks at KubeCon and elsewhere about how we can improve diversity at all levels of the community. Now that we’ve formalised the existence of CNCF SIGs, they’re a great place to scale out the diversity effort. Let's add to the CNCF SIG requirements that they need to have initiatives in place to actively encourage diversity (of all sorts) within their activities. The goal should be nurturing a more diverse range of people into positions like SIG Tech Leads and Chairs, and other SIG-specific roles (e.g. taking part in security assessments in SIG security). The SIG Chairs would need to assume the responsibility to make sure this is happening. Thoughts & ideas?
Liz
|
|
|
Re: Encouraging diversity through the SIGs
Excellent points!
I'd love to see more auto transcription if that is feasible.
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019, 17:20 Sarah Allen, < sarah@...> wrote: I applaud the definition of diversity as more than gender.... though we should be a bit careful about using the term "diversity of thought" (since that has emerged as a code word used by some who aren't genuinely addressing diversity and inclusion).
Through my work volunteering at Bridge Foundry, as well as recruiting diverse teams in industry and for the US government, I have a bit of experience in this area and could generate some practical tips for co-chairs and tech leads. From my perspective, there are a lot of incredibly obvious things that aren't being done. Here are some quick thoughts, starting with what seems easy and ought to be accessible to current and new SIG co-chairs and tech leads:
Time Zone bias Like many of you, I'm guilty of time zone bias -- we need to get a bit more creative to come up with some patterns that allow for participation in every timezone. A relatively straightforward part of that is to ensure that our governance processes makes is clear how to participate and take a leadership role outside of meetings. For example, in the past few months, in formalizing SIG-Security, I've put some effort into documenting roles and communications processes that explain how decision making happens and how people can participate asynchronously, based on 2018 work by Rachel Myers and Jeyappragash JJ on the initial SAFE WG governance with its proposal process.
Native English-speaker bias
One of the SIG members recently asked me, when facilitating meetings, to request that people turn on their video when speaking. At first I thought this was just a preference, and I said that some people may not be comfortable being recorded on camera and I didn't feel like I could insist upon that. With a thoughtful suggestion, my false assumption was corrected: I could simply suggest that people consider turning on their video to make it easier for non-native English speakers to follow conversation. I tried this in the last meeting and all the speakers shared their video when speaking, and I hope that made it easier for our global SIG members. I've also requested that the CNCF fund transcripts of the presentations that have been given at SIG meetings, and we could consider translating as well, where we have SIG members who can proof-read, as I plan to do with the English transcripts.
Increasing representation across gender, race, etc. Addressing bias takes effort, but it's actually quite simple -- don't just invite who you know, don't just recruit in the usual places, make your material accessible to everyone, actively find the incredibly awesome and talented people who you are excluding. Be intentional with your communications. Every time you tell someone who you already know some CNCF news, think about how you might spend the same amount of time telling someone you don't know. It's inconvenient; it takes effort; but it isn't actually that hard.
It would be helpful to brainstorm with someone who is interested in this and feels like they don't know what to do. I have many ideas and suggestions, it's hard to know what to write down. For starters, this blog post that I wrote long ago may be helpful: https://www.ultrasaurus.com/2014/07/recruit-diverse-team/
Sarah
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 11:00 AM Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote: Might I suggest that along with the requirements we include specific examples for the SIG leads for how they might go about increasing the diversity within their SIG? SIG leads might be supportive but not actually know how to go about it.
Very good point! Suggestions on this (or pointers to existing examples) would be welcome and super-helpful
Let's do the best we can, knowing it will be flawed, and get better over time.
Thanks. As a Jewish (and raised before we were as widely viewed as “white”) white-skinned not entirely cis queer person, I wonder whether we need to compete for the allotted seats at the table, but also focus on more seats.
I am specifically concerned on a recent workplace issue that focused on someone’s behavior but refused to engage with it through the window of the person’s neuroatypicality and make accommodations that could have prevented or
mitigated the situation. This is not rare in the industry and community, and labeling people as “assholes” is not really an appropriate response. This is not specifically a representation issue, but it is a serious blind spit in communities. (And that sentence
itself is probably problematic...)
On May 30, 2019, at 8:26 AM, Jaice Singer DuMars < jaice@...> wrote:
As a Jewish, white-skinned, gender non-conforming individual, I understand. I would give up my place at the table, however, for a person of color or other under-represented person. Yes, there's a spectrum, but reduction in this specific case
is a reasonable compromise.
(Though I would say that stating the issue solely as “white” and “men” is reductive in the gender issue, ignores the heteronormativity, and ignores physical, developmental, and other disability.)
+1 for this +1.
+1 as well, and glad to see this conversation moving forward.
One point I want to make absolutely clear is that diversity does not mean "corporate diversity" or "diversity of thought" or any other form of
diversity that means the room is all white men and still considered "diverse".
Also, huge +1 to expanding recruiting efforts to under-represented people. We should be bringing in new contributors to SIGs, and using these as great opportunities for people to learn about problem domains without the triggering aspects of first-time
technical contributions.
+1 and a comment:
It has seemed to me so far that the term “diversity” at CNCF is widely assumed to mean “more, and more equitable representation of, women.” I attended a diversity session at Seattle, for instance, and while it was not described with any qualifiers, it
was almost exclusively about making the workplace and work policies more amenable to women with children, and the panel was all white and Asian women.
There are many other aspects - non-white/Asian people, LGBTQ+ people, people with disabilities - whose lack of centering affect both our workplaces and our work in significant and destructive ways. While the situation of women is hugely important in the
industry and the community, it is not the only aspect of diversity to be concerned about.
On May 30, 2019, at 4:31 AM, Stephen Augustus < Stephen@...> wrote:
Huge +1!!
On Thu, May 30, 2019, 07:29 Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote:
Alexis just shared an idea with me that I think is so great that I wanted to act immediately! This comes out of discussions with several folks at KubeCon and elsewhere about how we can improve diversity at all levels of the community.
Now that we’ve formalised the existence of CNCF SIGs, they’re a great place to scale out the diversity effort. Let's add to the CNCF SIG requirements that they need to have initiatives in place to actively encourage diversity (of all sorts) within their activities.
The goal should be nurturing a more diverse range of people into positions like SIG Tech Leads and Chairs, and other SIG-specific roles (e.g. taking part in security assessments in SIG security). The SIG Chairs would need to assume the responsibility to make
sure this is happening.
Thoughts & ideas?
Liz
--
|
|
Jaice
Singer DuMars
Cloud
Native Strategy
+1 (206)
371-2293
601 N.
34th St., Seattle WA 98103
|
--
|
|
Jaice
Singer DuMars
Cloud
Native Strategy
+1 (206)
371-2293
601 N.
34th St., Seattle WA 98103
|
|
|
|
Re: Encouraging diversity through the SIGs
I applaud the definition of diversity as more than gender.... though we should be a bit careful about using the term "diversity of thought" (since that has emerged as a code word used by some who aren't genuinely addressing diversity and inclusion).
Through my work volunteering at Bridge Foundry, as well as recruiting diverse teams in industry and for the US government, I have a bit of experience in this area and could generate some practical tips for co-chairs and tech leads. From my perspective, there are a lot of incredibly obvious things that aren't being done. Here are some quick thoughts, starting with what seems easy and ought to be accessible to current and new SIG co-chairs and tech leads:
Time Zone bias Like many of you, I'm guilty of time zone bias -- we need to get a bit more creative to come up with some patterns that allow for participation in every timezone. A relatively straightforward part of that is to ensure that our governance processes makes is clear how to participate and take a leadership role outside of meetings. For example, in the past few months, in formalizing SIG-Security, I've put some effort into documenting roles and communications processes that explain how decision making happens and how people can participate asynchronously, based on 2018 work by Rachel Myers and Jeyappragash JJ on the initial SAFE WG governance with its proposal process.
Native English-speaker bias
One of the SIG members recently asked me, when facilitating meetings, to request that people turn on their video when speaking. At first I thought this was just a preference, and I said that some people may not be comfortable being recorded on camera and I didn't feel like I could insist upon that. With a thoughtful suggestion, my false assumption was corrected: I could simply suggest that people consider turning on their video to make it easier for non-native English speakers to follow conversation. I tried this in the last meeting and all the speakers shared their video when speaking, and I hope that made it easier for our global SIG members. I've also requested that the CNCF fund transcripts of the presentations that have been given at SIG meetings, and we could consider translating as well, where we have SIG members who can proof-read, as I plan to do with the English transcripts.
Increasing representation across gender, race, etc. Addressing bias takes effort, but it's actually quite simple -- don't just invite who you know, don't just recruit in the usual places, make your material accessible to everyone, actively find the incredibly awesome and talented people who you are excluding. Be intentional with your communications. Every time you tell someone who you already know some CNCF news, think about how you might spend the same amount of time telling someone you don't know. It's inconvenient; it takes effort; but it isn't actually that hard.
It would be helpful to brainstorm with someone who is interested in this and feels like they don't know what to do. I have many ideas and suggestions, it's hard to know what to write down. For starters, this blog post that I wrote long ago may be helpful: https://www.ultrasaurus.com/2014/07/recruit-diverse-team/
Sarah
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 11:00 AM Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote: Might I suggest that along with the requirements we include specific examples for the SIG leads for how they might go about increasing the diversity within their SIG? SIG leads might be supportive but not actually know how to go about it.
Very good point! Suggestions on this (or pointers to existing examples) would be welcome and super-helpful
Let's do the best we can, knowing it will be flawed, and get better over time.
Thanks. As a Jewish (and raised before we were as widely viewed as “white”) white-skinned not entirely cis queer person, I wonder whether we need to compete for the allotted seats at the table, but also focus on more seats.
I am specifically concerned on a recent workplace issue that focused on someone’s behavior but refused to engage with it through the window of the person’s neuroatypicality and make accommodations that could have prevented or
mitigated the situation. This is not rare in the industry and community, and labeling people as “assholes” is not really an appropriate response. This is not specifically a representation issue, but it is a serious blind spit in communities. (And that sentence
itself is probably problematic...)
On May 30, 2019, at 8:26 AM, Jaice Singer DuMars < jaice@...> wrote:
As a Jewish, white-skinned, gender non-conforming individual, I understand. I would give up my place at the table, however, for a person of color or other under-represented person. Yes, there's a spectrum, but reduction in this specific case
is a reasonable compromise.
(Though I would say that stating the issue solely as “white” and “men” is reductive in the gender issue, ignores the heteronormativity, and ignores physical, developmental, and other disability.)
+1 for this +1.
+1 as well, and glad to see this conversation moving forward.
One point I want to make absolutely clear is that diversity does not mean "corporate diversity" or "diversity of thought" or any other form of
diversity that means the room is all white men and still considered "diverse".
Also, huge +1 to expanding recruiting efforts to under-represented people. We should be bringing in new contributors to SIGs, and using these as great opportunities for people to learn about problem domains without the triggering aspects of first-time
technical contributions.
+1 and a comment:
It has seemed to me so far that the term “diversity” at CNCF is widely assumed to mean “more, and more equitable representation of, women.” I attended a diversity session at Seattle, for instance, and while it was not described with any qualifiers, it
was almost exclusively about making the workplace and work policies more amenable to women with children, and the panel was all white and Asian women.
There are many other aspects - non-white/Asian people, LGBTQ+ people, people with disabilities - whose lack of centering affect both our workplaces and our work in significant and destructive ways. While the situation of women is hugely important in the
industry and the community, it is not the only aspect of diversity to be concerned about.
On May 30, 2019, at 4:31 AM, Stephen Augustus < Stephen@...> wrote:
Huge +1!!
On Thu, May 30, 2019, 07:29 Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote:
Alexis just shared an idea with me that I think is so great that I wanted to act immediately! This comes out of discussions with several folks at KubeCon and elsewhere about how we can improve diversity at all levels of the community.
Now that we’ve formalised the existence of CNCF SIGs, they’re a great place to scale out the diversity effort. Let's add to the CNCF SIG requirements that they need to have initiatives in place to actively encourage diversity (of all sorts) within their activities.
The goal should be nurturing a more diverse range of people into positions like SIG Tech Leads and Chairs, and other SIG-specific roles (e.g. taking part in security assessments in SIG security). The SIG Chairs would need to assume the responsibility to make
sure this is happening.
Thoughts & ideas?
Liz
--
|
|
Jaice
Singer DuMars
Cloud
Native Strategy
+1 (206)
371-2293
601 N.
34th St., Seattle WA 98103
|
--
|
|
Jaice
Singer DuMars
Cloud
Native Strategy
+1 (206)
371-2293
601 N.
34th St., Seattle WA 98103
|
|
|
|
Re: Clarifying TOC Sponsor and Sandbox entry requirements
Chris Aniszczyk
I'll work on adding an FAQ before next week's TOC meeting on this topic and some other things that have been in the backlog:
re 3 TOC sponsors, created an issue to track https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/249, I'm generally supportive of this idea as it disallows say 2 TOC sponsors from the same company to bring a project in which technically is allowed now imho
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 6:59 AM Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote:
Thanks Alexis! This helps a lot, but also highlights the need to get the docs to match the reality so that projects know what is going to be asked of them.
We need to get that full questionnaire for Incubation onto GitHub*. Chris / Amye please could you take care of this? (I still think all these questions are appropriate to ask at Sandbox level too)
1. project present a pitch for TOC to consider it worthy of applying
for Incubation
2. if one TOC member volunteers to act as "sponsor" then the
Incubation process begins
3. a questionnaire is completed (it has LOTS of qns eg history of the project)
4. using docs and github, a formal DD takes place (this got documented
in a lot of detail later on)
5. chris gets LF to do their own DD
6. when the DD teams are happy, everyone presents results to TOC for
review, discussion, vote.
7. the TOC sponsor is involved at all stages especially vouching for 6
being done right
Great - we need to write this up so it’s not lost in the archives, and we also need to adjust it to take into account the role of CNCF SIGs.
Please note that all this may be separate from, and parallel to, legal
and other non-technical DD that the LF/CNCF may require.
This highlights the need to have the process an explicit sign-off by CNCF staff that a project meets the non-technical criteria at all three levels
Because the roles & processes are so different, I don't see any need
for the number of sponsors to be the same. If we increase Sandbox
quorum from 2 to 3, I would personally not see value in having 3
champions for the incubation technical DD process.
I would like to revisit the idea of needing 3 TOC Sponsors for Sandbox. It’s still a substantially lower bar than the votes required for Incubation / Graduation.
On 31 May 2019, 11:20 +0100, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>, wrote:
Liz
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:07 AM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Hello TOC folks,
We have some slightly conflicting / ambiguous documentation which I’d like to get tidied up (partly inspired by this issue).
Excellent!
It seems odd that Sandbox requires two sponsors but other levels only require one.
Personally I’m inclined towards two at all levels, on the basis of two heads being better than one, and that hopefully two TOC sponsors will chivvy each other along rather than one being a potential bottleneck for the project. Wdyt? We could discuss in the meeting this week if folks think that’s appropriate.
Let me try to clarify our previous processes, to date.
The roles of sponsor have been very different for Incubation & Sandbox.
1) Incubation: the sponsor acts as a champion for the end-end process
and may get very deeply involved in technical DD and user interviews.
2) Sandbox: the sponsor is part of a quorum of N (=2 today). That is
all. There are no down-votes or deep DD docs.
The processes are also very different:
1) Incubation. Needs filling out lots of docs. Needs user
interviews. DD should be a high bar. TOC vote is by majority (6/9)
2) Sandbox. There is no formal technical DD. The process is
deliberately minimal.
Please note that all this may be separate from, and parallel to, legal
and other non-technical DD that the LF/CNCF may require.
Because the roles & processes are so different, I don't see any need
for the number of sponsors to be the same. If we increase Sandbox
quorum from 2 to 3, I would personally not see value in having 3
champions for the incubation technical DD process.
We should clarify / document the role of a TOC Sponsor within the Proposal process
Mentoring the project *through the Proposal process* (this isn’t an ongoing commitment post acceptance)
Calling for a TOC vote when they feel the project and proposal are ready
So to be clear, being the TOC Sponsor doesn’t necessarily mean that you think it’s ready yet - you have just agreed to advise the project on what they need to get ready. Does that match everyone’s understanding?
We set out a process, which is buried (alas) in the email archives
which are now locked up inside a barely-usable tool.
Roughly it was this:
1. project present a pitch for TOC to consider it worthy of applying
for Incubation
2. if one TOC member volunteers to act as "sponsor" then the
Incubation process begins
3. a questionnaire is completed (it has LOTS of qns eg history of the project)
4. using docs and github, a formal DD takes place (this got documented
in a lot of detail later on)
5. chris gets LF to do their own DD
6. when the DD teams are happy, everyone presents results to TOC for
review, discussion, vote.
7. the TOC sponsor is involved at all stages especially vouching for 6
being done right
As part of this we should add a link to the Proposal process from the Sandbox Process to clarify that the same template and process is required.
This a major change from how we did it before. The processes are
completely different.
BTW - happy to support changes, just want to clarify prior art.
In that proposal process we ask about who the initial committers are and how long they have been working on the project. I suggest we also add into that something broader about the history of the project - was it originally a fork or greenfields? Did it originate from a company, a community effort, or an individual contributor? Not that there are any wrong answers, but this could help us get a sense of “smell” about the project and what further questions we might want to ask.
This stuff does get asked in the questionnaire.
alexis
Thanks,
Liz
-- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
Re: Clarifying TOC Sponsor and Sandbox entry requirements
Thanks Alexis! This helps a lot, but also highlights the need to get the docs to match the reality so that projects know what is going to be asked of them.
We need to get that full questionnaire for Incubation onto GitHub*. Chris / Amye please could you take care of this? (I still think all these questions are appropriate to ask at Sandbox level too)
1. project present a pitch for TOC to consider it worthy of applying
for Incubation
2. if one TOC member volunteers to act as "sponsor" then the
Incubation process begins
3. a questionnaire is completed (it has LOTS of qns eg history of the project)
4. using docs and github, a formal DD takes place (this got documented
in a lot of detail later on)
5. chris gets LF to do their own DD
6. when the DD teams are happy, everyone presents results to TOC for
review, discussion, vote.
7. the TOC sponsor is involved at all stages especially vouching for 6
being done right
Great - we need to write this up so it’s not lost in the archives, and we also need to adjust it to take into account the role of CNCF SIGs.
Please note that all this may be separate from, and parallel to, legal
and other non-technical DD that the LF/CNCF may require.
This highlights the need to have the process an explicit sign-off by CNCF staff that a project meets the non-technical criteria at all three levels
Because the roles & processes are so different, I don't see any need
for the number of sponsors to be the same. If we increase Sandbox
quorum from 2 to 3, I would personally not see value in having 3
champions for the incubation technical DD process.
I would like to revisit the idea of needing 3 TOC Sponsors for Sandbox. It’s still a substantially lower bar than the votes required for Incubation / Graduation.
On 31 May 2019, 11:20 +0100, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>, wrote:
Liz
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:07 AM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Hello TOC folks,
We have some slightly conflicting / ambiguous documentation which I’d like to get tidied up (partly inspired by this issue).
Excellent!
It seems odd that Sandbox requires two sponsors but other levels only require one.
Personally I’m inclined towards two at all levels, on the basis of two heads being better than one, and that hopefully two TOC sponsors will chivvy each other along rather than one being a potential bottleneck for the project. Wdyt? We could discuss in the meeting this week if folks think that’s appropriate.
Let me try to clarify our previous processes, to date.
The roles of sponsor have been very different for Incubation & Sandbox.
1) Incubation: the sponsor acts as a champion for the end-end process
and may get very deeply involved in technical DD and user interviews.
2) Sandbox: the sponsor is part of a quorum of N (=2 today). That is
all. There are no down-votes or deep DD docs.
The processes are also very different:
1) Incubation. Needs filling out lots of docs. Needs user
interviews. DD should be a high bar. TOC vote is by majority (6/9)
2) Sandbox. There is no formal technical DD. The process is
deliberately minimal.
Please note that all this may be separate from, and parallel to, legal
and other non-technical DD that the LF/CNCF may require.
Because the roles & processes are so different, I don't see any need
for the number of sponsors to be the same. If we increase Sandbox
quorum from 2 to 3, I would personally not see value in having 3
champions for the incubation technical DD process.
We should clarify / document the role of a TOC Sponsor within the Proposal process
Mentoring the project *through the Proposal process* (this isn’t an ongoing commitment post acceptance)
Calling for a TOC vote when they feel the project and proposal are ready
So to be clear, being the TOC Sponsor doesn’t necessarily mean that you think it’s ready yet - you have just agreed to advise the project on what they need to get ready. Does that match everyone’s understanding?
We set out a process, which is buried (alas) in the email archives
which are now locked up inside a barely-usable tool.
Roughly it was this:
1. project present a pitch for TOC to consider it worthy of applying
for Incubation
2. if one TOC member volunteers to act as "sponsor" then the
Incubation process begins
3. a questionnaire is completed (it has LOTS of qns eg history of the project)
4. using docs and github, a formal DD takes place (this got documented
in a lot of detail later on)
5. chris gets LF to do their own DD
6. when the DD teams are happy, everyone presents results to TOC for
review, discussion, vote.
7. the TOC sponsor is involved at all stages especially vouching for 6
being done right
As part of this we should add a link to the Proposal process from the Sandbox Process to clarify that the same template and process is required.
This a major change from how we did it before. The processes are
completely different.
BTW - happy to support changes, just want to clarify prior art.
In that proposal process we ask about who the initial committers are and how long they have been working on the project. I suggest we also add into that something broader about the history of the project - was it originally a fork or greenfields? Did it originate from a company, a community effort, or an individual contributor? Not that there are any wrong answers, but this could help us get a sense of “smell” about the project and what further questions we might want to ask.
This stuff does get asked in the questionnaire.
alexis
Thanks,
Liz
|
|
|
Re: Clarifying TOC Sponsor and Sandbox entry requirements
Liz On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:07 AM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Hello TOC folks,
We have some slightly conflicting / ambiguous documentation which I’d like to get tidied up (partly inspired by this issue).
Excellent! It seems odd that Sandbox requires two sponsors but other levels only require one.
Personally I’m inclined towards two at all levels, on the basis of two heads being better than one, and that hopefully two TOC sponsors will chivvy each other along rather than one being a potential bottleneck for the project. Wdyt? We could discuss in the meeting this week if folks think that’s appropriate. Let me try to clarify our previous processes, to date. The roles of sponsor have been very different for Incubation & Sandbox. 1) Incubation: the sponsor acts as a champion for the end-end process and may get very deeply involved in technical DD and user interviews. 2) Sandbox: the sponsor is part of a quorum of N (=2 today). That is all. There are no down-votes or deep DD docs. The processes are also very different: 1) Incubation. Needs filling out lots of docs. Needs user interviews. DD should be a high bar. TOC vote is by majority (6/9) 2) Sandbox. There is no formal technical DD. The process is deliberately minimal. Please note that all this may be separate from, and parallel to, legal and other non-technical DD that the LF/CNCF may require. Because the roles & processes are so different, I don't see any need for the number of sponsors to be the same. If we increase Sandbox quorum from 2 to 3, I would personally not see value in having 3 champions for the incubation technical DD process. We should clarify / document the role of a TOC Sponsor within the Proposal process
Mentoring the project *through the Proposal process* (this isn’t an ongoing commitment post acceptance)
Calling for a TOC vote when they feel the project and proposal are ready
So to be clear, being the TOC Sponsor doesn’t necessarily mean that you think it’s ready yet - you have just agreed to advise the project on what they need to get ready. Does that match everyone’s understanding? We set out a process, which is buried (alas) in the email archives which are now locked up inside a barely-usable tool. Roughly it was this: 1. project present a pitch for TOC to consider it worthy of applying for Incubation 2. if one TOC member volunteers to act as "sponsor" then the Incubation process begins 3. a questionnaire is completed (it has LOTS of qns eg history of the project) 4. using docs and github, a formal DD takes place (this got documented in a lot of detail later on) 5. chris gets LF to do their own DD 6. when the DD teams are happy, everyone presents results to TOC for review, discussion, vote. 7. the TOC sponsor is involved at all stages especially vouching for 6 being done right As part of this we should add a link to the Proposal process from the Sandbox Process to clarify that the same template and process is required. This a major change from how we did it before. The processes are completely different. BTW - happy to support changes, just want to clarify prior art. In that proposal process we ask about who the initial committers are and how long they have been working on the project. I suggest we also add into that something broader about the history of the project - was it originally a fork or greenfields? Did it originate from a company, a community effort, or an individual contributor? Not that there are any wrong answers, but this could help us get a sense of “smell” about the project and what further questions we might want to ask. This stuff does get asked in the questionnaire. alexis
Thanks,
Liz
|
|
|
Clarifying TOC Sponsor and Sandbox entry requirements
Hello TOC folks,
We have some slightly conflicting / ambiguous documentation which I’d like to get tidied up (partly inspired by this issue).
- It seems odd that Sandbox requires two sponsors but other levels only require one. Personally I’m inclined towards two at all levels, on the basis of two heads being better than one, and that hopefully two TOC sponsors will chivvy each other along rather than one being a potential bottleneck for the project. Wdyt? We could discuss in the meeting this week if folks think that’s appropriate.
- We should clarify / document the role of a TOC Sponsor within the Proposal process
- Mentoring the project *through the Proposal process* (this isn’t an ongoing commitment post acceptance)
- Calling for a TOC vote when they feel the project and proposal are ready
- So to be clear, being the TOC Sponsor doesn’t necessarily mean that you think it’s ready yet - you have just agreed to advise the project on what they need to get ready. Does that match everyone’s understanding?
- As part of this we should add a link to the Proposal process from the Sandbox Process to clarify that the same template and process is required.
- In that proposal process we ask about who the initial committers are and how long they have been working on the project. I suggest we also add into that something broader about the history of the project - was it originally a fork or greenfields? Did it originate from a company, a community effort, or an individual contributor? Not that there are any wrong answers, but this could help us get a sense of “smell” about the project and what further questions we might want to ask.
Thanks,
Liz
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] CNCF Security SIG
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 9:17 AM Chris Aniszczyk < caniszczyk@...> wrote: A new CNCF Security SIG has been proposed with Liz Rice and Joe Beda as the TOC liaisons. The Co-Chairs: Sarah Allen, Dan Shaw, Jeyappragash JJ Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/146Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!
-- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
Re: Encouraging diversity through the SIGs
Might I suggest that along with the requirements we include specific examples for the SIG leads for how they might go about increasing the diversity within their SIG? SIG leads might be supportive but not actually know how to go about it.
Very good point! Suggestions on this (or pointers to existing examples) would be welcome and super-helpful
Let's do the best we can, knowing it will be flawed, and get better over time.
Thanks. As a Jewish (and raised before we were as widely viewed as “white”) white-skinned not entirely cis queer person, I wonder whether we need to compete for the allotted seats at the table, but also focus on more seats.
I am specifically concerned on a recent workplace issue that focused on someone’s behavior but refused to engage with it through the window of the person’s neuroatypicality and make accommodations that could have prevented or
mitigated the situation. This is not rare in the industry and community, and labeling people as “assholes” is not really an appropriate response. This is not specifically a representation issue, but it is a serious blind spit in communities. (And that sentence
itself is probably problematic...)
On May 30, 2019, at 8:26 AM, Jaice Singer DuMars < jaice@...> wrote:
As a Jewish, white-skinned, gender non-conforming individual, I understand. I would give up my place at the table, however, for a person of color or other under-represented person. Yes, there's a spectrum, but reduction in this specific case
is a reasonable compromise.
(Though I would say that stating the issue solely as “white” and “men” is reductive in the gender issue, ignores the heteronormativity, and ignores physical, developmental, and other disability.)
+1 for this +1.
+1 as well, and glad to see this conversation moving forward.
One point I want to make absolutely clear is that diversity does not mean "corporate diversity" or "diversity of thought" or any other form of
diversity that means the room is all white men and still considered "diverse".
Also, huge +1 to expanding recruiting efforts to under-represented people. We should be bringing in new contributors to SIGs, and using these as great opportunities for people to learn about problem domains without the triggering aspects of first-time
technical contributions.
+1 and a comment:
It has seemed to me so far that the term “diversity” at CNCF is widely assumed to mean “more, and more equitable representation of, women.” I attended a diversity session at Seattle, for instance, and while it was not described with any qualifiers, it
was almost exclusively about making the workplace and work policies more amenable to women with children, and the panel was all white and Asian women.
There are many other aspects - non-white/Asian people, LGBTQ+ people, people with disabilities - whose lack of centering affect both our workplaces and our work in significant and destructive ways. While the situation of women is hugely important in the
industry and the community, it is not the only aspect of diversity to be concerned about.
On May 30, 2019, at 4:31 AM, Stephen Augustus < Stephen@...> wrote:
Huge +1!!
On Thu, May 30, 2019, 07:29 Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote:
Alexis just shared an idea with me that I think is so great that I wanted to act immediately! This comes out of discussions with several folks at KubeCon and elsewhere about how we can improve diversity at all levels of the community.
Now that we’ve formalised the existence of CNCF SIGs, they’re a great place to scale out the diversity effort. Let's add to the CNCF SIG requirements that they need to have initiatives in place to actively encourage diversity (of all sorts) within their activities.
The goal should be nurturing a more diverse range of people into positions like SIG Tech Leads and Chairs, and other SIG-specific roles (e.g. taking part in security assessments in SIG security). The SIG Chairs would need to assume the responsibility to make
sure this is happening.
Thoughts & ideas?
Liz
--
|
|
Jaice
Singer DuMars
Cloud
Native Strategy
+1 (206)
371-2293
601 N.
34th St., Seattle WA 98103
|
--
|
|
Jaice
Singer DuMars
Cloud
Native Strategy
+1 (206)
371-2293
601 N.
34th St., Seattle WA 98103
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] CNCF Security SIG
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] CNCF Security SIG
Leonardo Di Donato
|
|
|
Re: Encouraging diversity through the SIGs
Jaice Singer DuMars <jaice@...>
Let's do the best we can, knowing it will be flawed, and get better over time.
Thanks. As a Jewish (and raised before we were as widely viewed as “white”) white-skinned not entirely cis queer person, I wonder whether we need to compete for the allotted seats at the table, but also focus on more seats.
I am specifically concerned on a recent workplace issue that focused on someone’s behavior but refused to engage with it through the window of the person’s neuroatypicality and make accommodations that could have prevented or
mitigated the situation. This is not rare in the industry and community, and labeling people as “assholes” is not really an appropriate response. This is not specifically a representation issue, but it is a serious blind spit in communities. (And that sentence
itself is probably problematic...)
On May 30, 2019, at 8:26 AM, Jaice Singer DuMars < jaice@...> wrote:
As a Jewish, white-skinned, gender non-conforming individual, I understand. I would give up my place at the table, however, for a person of color or other under-represented person. Yes, there's a spectrum, but reduction in this specific case
is a reasonable compromise.
(Though I would say that stating the issue solely as “white” and “men” is reductive in the gender issue, ignores the heteronormativity, and ignores physical, developmental, and other disability.)
+1 for this +1.
+1 as well, and glad to see this conversation moving forward.
One point I want to make absolutely clear is that diversity does not mean "corporate diversity" or "diversity of thought" or any other form of
diversity that means the room is all white men and still considered "diverse".
Also, huge +1 to expanding recruiting efforts to under-represented people. We should be bringing in new contributors to SIGs, and using these as great opportunities for people to learn about problem domains without the triggering aspects of first-time
technical contributions.
+1 and a comment:
It has seemed to me so far that the term “diversity” at CNCF is widely assumed to mean “more, and more equitable representation of, women.” I attended a diversity session at Seattle, for instance, and while it was not described with any qualifiers, it
was almost exclusively about making the workplace and work policies more amenable to women with children, and the panel was all white and Asian women.
There are many other aspects - non-white/Asian people, LGBTQ+ people, people with disabilities - whose lack of centering affect both our workplaces and our work in significant and destructive ways. While the situation of women is hugely important in the
industry and the community, it is not the only aspect of diversity to be concerned about.
On May 30, 2019, at 4:31 AM, Stephen Augustus < Stephen@...> wrote:
Huge +1!!
On Thu, May 30, 2019, 07:29 Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote:
Alexis just shared an idea with me that I think is so great that I wanted to act immediately! This comes out of discussions with several folks at KubeCon and elsewhere about how we can improve diversity at all levels of the community.
Now that we’ve formalised the existence of CNCF SIGs, they’re a great place to scale out the diversity effort. Let's add to the CNCF SIG requirements that they need to have initiatives in place to actively encourage diversity (of all sorts) within their activities.
The goal should be nurturing a more diverse range of people into positions like SIG Tech Leads and Chairs, and other SIG-specific roles (e.g. taking part in security assessments in SIG security). The SIG Chairs would need to assume the responsibility to make
sure this is happening.
Thoughts & ideas?
Liz
--
|
|
Jaice
Singer DuMars
Cloud
Native Strategy
+1 (206)
371-2293
601 N.
34th St., Seattle WA 98103
|
--
|
|
Jaice
Singer DuMars
Cloud
Native Strategy
+1 (206)
371-2293
601 N.
34th St., Seattle WA 98103
|
|
|
|
Re: Encouraging diversity through the SIGs
Roger Klorese <roger.klorese@...>
(Even without the typo. I’ll yield the floor now.)
Thanks. As a Jewish (and raised before we were as widely viewed as “white”) white-skinned not entirely cis queer person, I wonder whether we need to compete for the allotted seats at the table, but also focus on more seats.
I am specifically concerned on a recent workplace issue that focused on someone’s behavior but refused to engage with it through the window of the person’s neuroatypicality and make accommodations that could have prevented or
mitigated the situation. This is not rare in the industry and community, and labeling people as “assholes” is not really an appropriate response. This is not specifically a representation issue, but it is a serious blind spit in communities. (And that sentence
itself is probably problematic...)
On May 30, 2019, at 8:26 AM, Jaice Singer DuMars < jaice@...> wrote:
As a Jewish, white-skinned, gender non-conforming individual, I understand. I would give up my place at the table, however, for a person of color or other under-represented person. Yes, there's a spectrum, but reduction in this specific case
is a reasonable compromise.
(Though I would say that stating the issue solely as “white” and “men” is reductive in the gender issue, ignores the heteronormativity, and ignores physical, developmental, and other disability.)
+1 for this +1.
+1 as well, and glad to see this conversation moving forward.
One point I want to make absolutely clear is that diversity does not mean "corporate diversity" or "diversity of thought" or any other form of
diversity that means the room is all white men and still considered "diverse".
Also, huge +1 to expanding recruiting efforts to under-represented people. We should be bringing in new contributors to SIGs, and using these as great opportunities for people to learn about problem domains without the triggering aspects of first-time
technical contributions.
+1 and a comment:
It has seemed to me so far that the term “diversity” at CNCF is widely assumed to mean “more, and more equitable representation of, women.” I attended a diversity session at Seattle, for instance, and while it was not described with any qualifiers, it
was almost exclusively about making the workplace and work policies more amenable to women with children, and the panel was all white and Asian women.
There are many other aspects - non-white/Asian people, LGBTQ+ people, people with disabilities - whose lack of centering affect both our workplaces and our work in significant and destructive ways. While the situation of women is hugely important in the
industry and the community, it is not the only aspect of diversity to be concerned about.
On May 30, 2019, at 4:31 AM, Stephen Augustus < Stephen@...> wrote:
Huge +1!!
On Thu, May 30, 2019, 07:29 Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote:
Alexis just shared an idea with me that I think is so great that I wanted to act immediately! This comes out of discussions with several folks at KubeCon and elsewhere about how we can improve diversity at all levels of the community.
Now that we’ve formalised the existence of CNCF SIGs, they’re a great place to scale out the diversity effort. Let's add to the CNCF SIG requirements that they need to have initiatives in place to actively encourage diversity (of all sorts) within their activities.
The goal should be nurturing a more diverse range of people into positions like SIG Tech Leads and Chairs, and other SIG-specific roles (e.g. taking part in security assessments in SIG security). The SIG Chairs would need to assume the responsibility to make
sure this is happening.
Thoughts & ideas?
Liz
--
|
|
Jaice
Singer DuMars
Cloud
Native Strategy
+1 (206)
371-2293
601 N.
34th St., Seattle WA 98103
|
--
|
|
Jaice
Singer DuMars
Cloud
Native Strategy
+1 (206)
371-2293
601 N.
34th St., Seattle WA 98103
|
|
|
|
Re: Encouraging diversity through the SIGs
Roger Klorese <roger.klorese@...>
Thanks. As a Jewish (and raised before we were as widely viewed as “white”) white-skinned not entirely cis queer person, I wonder whether we need to compete for the allotted seats at the table, but also focus on more seats.
I am specifically concerned on a recent workplace issue that focused on someone’s behavior but refused to engage with it through the window of the person’s neuroatypicality and make accommodations that could have prevented or
mitigated the situation. This is not rare in the industry and community, and labeling people as “assholes” is not really an appropriate response. This is not specifically a representation issue, but it is a serious blind spit in communities. (And that sentence
itself is probably problematic...)
On May 30, 2019, at 8:26 AM, Jaice Singer DuMars < jaice@...> wrote:
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
As a Jewish, white-skinned, gender non-conforming individual, I understand. I would give up my place at the table, however, for a person of color or other under-represented person. Yes, there's a spectrum, but reduction in this specific case
is a reasonable compromise.
(Though I would say that stating the issue solely as “white” and “men” is reductive in the gender issue, ignores the heteronormativity, and ignores physical, developmental, and other disability.)
+1 for this +1.
+1 as well, and glad to see this conversation moving forward.
One point I want to make absolutely clear is that diversity does not mean "corporate diversity" or "diversity of thought" or any other form of
diversity that means the room is all white men and still considered "diverse".
Also, huge +1 to expanding recruiting efforts to under-represented people. We should be bringing in new contributors to SIGs, and using these as great opportunities for people to learn about problem domains without the triggering aspects of first-time
technical contributions.
+1 and a comment:
It has seemed to me so far that the term “diversity” at CNCF is widely assumed to mean “more, and more equitable representation of, women.” I attended a diversity session at Seattle, for instance, and while it was not described with any qualifiers, it
was almost exclusively about making the workplace and work policies more amenable to women with children, and the panel was all white and Asian women.
There are many other aspects - non-white/Asian people, LGBTQ+ people, people with disabilities - whose lack of centering affect both our workplaces and our work in significant and destructive ways. While the situation of women is hugely important in the
industry and the community, it is not the only aspect of diversity to be concerned about.
On May 30, 2019, at 4:31 AM, Stephen Augustus < Stephen@...> wrote:
Huge +1!!
On Thu, May 30, 2019, 07:29 Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote:
Alexis just shared an idea with me that I think is so great that I wanted to act immediately! This comes out of discussions with several folks at KubeCon and elsewhere about how we can improve diversity at all levels of the community.
Now that we’ve formalised the existence of CNCF SIGs, they’re a great place to scale out the diversity effort. Let's add to the CNCF SIG requirements that they need to have initiatives in place to actively encourage diversity (of all sorts) within their activities.
The goal should be nurturing a more diverse range of people into positions like SIG Tech Leads and Chairs, and other SIG-specific roles (e.g. taking part in security assessments in SIG security). The SIG Chairs would need to assume the responsibility to make
sure this is happening.
Thoughts & ideas?
Liz
--
|
|
Jaice
Singer DuMars
Cloud
Native Strategy
+1 (206)
371-2293
601 N.
34th St., Seattle WA 98103
|
--
|
|
Jaice
Singer DuMars
Cloud
Native Strategy
+1 (206)
371-2293
601 N.
34th St., Seattle WA 98103
|
|
|
|
