Date   

Re: Results from Sandbox Inclusion Meeting, 6/14

Huabing Zhao
 

Hi Davanum, Amye,

I noticed that there's a to-do for Aeraki Mesh. Should I reach out to someone to proceed?

Aeraki Mesh  - passes with a majority vote of the TOC, establish open contribution guidelines

Thanks,

Huabing 

On Wed, Jun 15, 2022, 1:25 AM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Folks,

Please ping us on #toc channel or drop an email to the toc or private-toc mailing list if you have any questions after reviewing the video of the zoom call today. Please don't mind the short abbreviated response here, you will hear more of our concerns on the recording.

thanks,
Dims

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 1:16 PM Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
The TOC met today to review the sandbox applications available at sandbox.cncf.io

  • Clusterpedia  - passes with a majority vote of the TOC
  • Turnbuckle  - reapply in 6 months with a more robust community, engage more with Kubernetes community: K8s wg-batch, sig-scheduling, sig-security
  • pallet  -  reapply in 6 months with a more robust community, engage more with Kubernetes community
  • OpenCost - passes with a majority vote of the TOC, suggest engaging with the environmental sustainability WG
  • Aeraki Mesh  - passes with a majority vote of the TOC, establish open contribution guidelines
  • Curve - passes with a majority vote of the TOC,  will need license exception approval from the GB
  • OpenFeature -   passes with a majority vote of the TOC
  • kubewarden - passes with a majority vote of the TOC
  • Hidra - will need to be relicensed, reapply in 6 months
  • DevStream  - passes with a majority vote of the TOC
  • Hexa Policy Orchestration - present to TAG Security for clarity, IDQL language is unclear

July 26th is our next Sandbox Inclusion Meeting, we'll pick up from where we left off! 

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



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


Re: Policy question: What happens when projects merge?

Evan Anderson
 

The OpenTracing and OpenCensus communities seem to have blazed the way here with OpenTelemetry -- I don't know if they have any learnings that they'd want to share about what worked well, or what could have been done better.

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Davanum Srinivas via lists.cncf.io <davanum=gmail.com@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 3:27 AM
To: Nick Young <inocuo@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Policy question: What happens when projects merge?
 
Nick,

Thanks for reaching out. One of the main objectives of the process is to give assurance to the end users of CNCF projects that we as a community stand behind the projects they are using (esp graduated ones). So we cannot do this in good faith for Contour. So my feeling is that we should leave contour where it is now, put the effort on the replacement, figure out docs (esp migration etc) and slowly wean the community off contour onto the new replacement which is Envoy Gateway.

thanks,
Dims

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 1:15 AM Nick Young <inocuo@...> wrote:

Hi TOC, and everyone else,


With the successful launch of Envoy Gateway, there's a question about what to do about Contour's lifecycle as an incubated project in the CNCF.


I firmly believe that Envoy Gateway's launch is a huge win for the cloud native landscape, and the deduplication of effort possible by having us all working together will prove worthwhile once we get something built.


Normally, there's a (reasonable) requirement for incubating projects to show motion in the direction of becoming graduated, and a timeline to become graduated. But it seems to me that graduation implies a level of "this will be supported for the foreseeable future" that I don't know is viable for Contour.


VMware has committed to ensuring our maintenance of the project will be ongoing until users are ready to move away, see [our blog](https://blogs.vmware.com/opensource/2022/05/16/contour-and-community-build-new-envoy-gateway/) for more details. To summarize that blog, Contour's VMware maintainers will be helping to ensure that current users of Contour are looked after with features and support as long as possible, Wearing my Contour maintainer hat, we're an incubating project that will, within the next year or two, be mostly obsoleted by a functional, production-ready Envoy Gateway.  This implies that I need to figure out what we're going to do about Contour's incubation status.


The scenario I had assumed is that Contour may not graduate, and personally this makes me a little sad, but I recognize the larger opportunity that Envoy Gateway represents for the cloud native community. I know this situation hasn't come up before, but I suspect that this won't be the last time that CNCF projects interact in this fashion. I’d definitely like the TOC’s guidance here rather than making assumptions though.


Should Contour stay in incubating until Envoy Gateway is a viable alternative and users have moved away, then be archived? The timeline for this I would see as at least two years.


I personally see this as a successful exit for Contour, and have heard it referred to as "the open-source version of being acquired", but it would be nice for the TOC to give both us and other projects who may run into this situation in the future some guidance here.


Thanks for your time, everyone!


Nick Young

Wearing two of my maintainer hats for this email (Contour and Envoy Gateway).




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



Re: Results from Sandbox Inclusion Meeting, 6/14

Davanum Srinivas
 

Folks,

Please ping us on #toc channel or drop an email to the toc or private-toc mailing list if you have any questions after reviewing the video of the zoom call today. Please don't mind the short abbreviated response here, you will hear more of our concerns on the recording.

thanks,
Dims


On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 1:16 PM Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
The TOC met today to review the sandbox applications available at sandbox.cncf.io

  • Clusterpedia  - passes with a majority vote of the TOC
  • Turnbuckle  - reapply in 6 months with a more robust community, engage more with Kubernetes community: K8s wg-batch, sig-scheduling, sig-security
  • pallet  -  reapply in 6 months with a more robust community, engage more with Kubernetes community
  • OpenCost - passes with a majority vote of the TOC, suggest engaging with the environmental sustainability WG
  • Aeraki Mesh  - passes with a majority vote of the TOC, establish open contribution guidelines
  • Curve - passes with a majority vote of the TOC,  will need license exception approval from the GB
  • OpenFeature -   passes with a majority vote of the TOC
  • kubewarden - passes with a majority vote of the TOC
  • Hidra - will need to be relicensed, reapply in 6 months
  • DevStream  - passes with a majority vote of the TOC
  • Hexa Policy Orchestration - present to TAG Security for clarity, IDQL language is unclear

July 26th is our next Sandbox Inclusion Meeting, we'll pick up from where we left off! 

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



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


Results from Sandbox Inclusion Meeting, 6/14

Amye Scavarda Perrin
 

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

  • Clusterpedia  - passes with a majority vote of the TOC
  • Turnbuckle  - reapply in 6 months with a more robust community, engage more with Kubernetes community: K8s wg-batch, sig-scheduling, sig-security
  • pallet  -  reapply in 6 months with a more robust community, engage more with Kubernetes community
  • OpenCost - passes with a majority vote of the TOC, suggest engaging with the environmental sustainability WG
  • Aeraki Mesh  - passes with a majority vote of the TOC, establish open contribution guidelines
  • Curve - passes with a majority vote of the TOC,  will need license exception approval from the GB
  • OpenFeature -   passes with a majority vote of the TOC
  • kubewarden - passes with a majority vote of the TOC
  • Hidra - will need to be relicensed, reapply in 6 months
  • DevStream  - passes with a majority vote of the TOC
  • Hexa Policy Orchestration - present to TAG Security for clarity, IDQL language is unclear

July 26th is our next Sandbox Inclusion Meeting, we'll pick up from where we left off! 

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


Re: Policy question: What happens when projects merge?

Davanum Srinivas
 

Nick,

Thanks for reaching out. One of the main objectives of the process is to give assurance to the end users of CNCF projects that we as a community stand behind the projects they are using (esp graduated ones). So we cannot do this in good faith for Contour. So my feeling is that we should leave contour where it is now, put the effort on the replacement, figure out docs (esp migration etc) and slowly wean the community off contour onto the new replacement which is Envoy Gateway.

thanks,
Dims


On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 1:15 AM Nick Young <inocuo@...> wrote:

Hi TOC, and everyone else,


With the successful launch of Envoy Gateway, there's a question about what to do about Contour's lifecycle as an incubated project in the CNCF.


I firmly believe that Envoy Gateway's launch is a huge win for the cloud native landscape, and the deduplication of effort possible by having us all working together will prove worthwhile once we get something built.


Normally, there's a (reasonable) requirement for incubating projects to show motion in the direction of becoming graduated, and a timeline to become graduated. But it seems to me that graduation implies a level of "this will be supported for the foreseeable future" that I don't know is viable for Contour.


VMware has committed to ensuring our maintenance of the project will be ongoing until users are ready to move away, see [our blog](https://blogs.vmware.com/opensource/2022/05/16/contour-and-community-build-new-envoy-gateway/) for more details. To summarize that blog, Contour's VMware maintainers will be helping to ensure that current users of Contour are looked after with features and support as long as possible, Wearing my Contour maintainer hat, we're an incubating project that will, within the next year or two, be mostly obsoleted by a functional, production-ready Envoy Gateway.  This implies that I need to figure out what we're going to do about Contour's incubation status.


The scenario I had assumed is that Contour may not graduate, and personally this makes me a little sad, but I recognize the larger opportunity that Envoy Gateway represents for the cloud native community. I know this situation hasn't come up before, but I suspect that this won't be the last time that CNCF projects interact in this fashion. I’d definitely like the TOC’s guidance here rather than making assumptions though.


Should Contour stay in incubating until Envoy Gateway is a viable alternative and users have moved away, then be archived? The timeline for this I would see as at least two years.


I personally see this as a successful exit for Contour, and have heard it referred to as "the open-source version of being acquired", but it would be nice for the TOC to give both us and other projects who may run into this situation in the future some guidance here.


Thanks for your time, everyone!


Nick Young

Wearing two of my maintainer hats for this email (Contour and Envoy Gateway).




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


Re: Policy question: What happens when projects merge?

Richard Hartmann
 

Something similar did happen in the past: As part of OpenTelemetry's
move from sandbox to incubation, the OpenTracing project agreed to
archive itself.

*Without having looked at the details, going just from what you described*:
While the project is maintained, even without substantial feature
work, it seems that no immediate action on project status is needed.
Personally, I would put deprecation notices and pointers to migration
guides in all the right places to avoid onboarding new users and
making offboarding existing ones more effective and efficient. Once
you see that a sunset is feasible send a timeline to your last users
and share it with TOC.

NB: It seems unlikely based on what you described, but the approach
above allows interested third parties to step up to become Contour
maintainers if they want to carry the project forward long-term.


Policy question: What happens when projects merge?

Nick Young
 

Hi TOC, and everyone else,


With the successful launch of Envoy Gateway, there's a question about what to do about Contour's lifecycle as an incubated project in the CNCF.


I firmly believe that Envoy Gateway's launch is a huge win for the cloud native landscape, and the deduplication of effort possible by having us all working together will prove worthwhile once we get something built.


Normally, there's a (reasonable) requirement for incubating projects to show motion in the direction of becoming graduated, and a timeline to become graduated. But it seems to me that graduation implies a level of "this will be supported for the foreseeable future" that I don't know is viable for Contour.


VMware has committed to ensuring our maintenance of the project will be ongoing until users are ready to move away, see [our blog](https://blogs.vmware.com/opensource/2022/05/16/contour-and-community-build-new-envoy-gateway/) for more details. To summarize that blog, Contour's VMware maintainers will be helping to ensure that current users of Contour are looked after with features and support as long as possible, Wearing my Contour maintainer hat, we're an incubating project that will, within the next year or two, be mostly obsoleted by a functional, production-ready Envoy Gateway.  This implies that I need to figure out what we're going to do about Contour's incubation status.


The scenario I had assumed is that Contour may not graduate, and personally this makes me a little sad, but I recognize the larger opportunity that Envoy Gateway represents for the cloud native community. I know this situation hasn't come up before, but I suspect that this won't be the last time that CNCF projects interact in this fashion. I’d definitely like the TOC’s guidance here rather than making assumptions though.


Should Contour stay in incubating until Envoy Gateway is a viable alternative and users have moved away, then be archived? The timeline for this I would see as at least two years.


I personally see this as a successful exit for Contour, and have heard it referred to as "the open-source version of being acquired", but it would be nice for the TOC to give both us and other projects who may run into this situation in the future some guidance here.


Thanks for your time, everyone!


Nick Young

Wearing two of my maintainer hats for this email (Contour and Envoy Gateway).



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

Karena Angell
 

Great, thanks Dims - looking forward to hearing what the alternate proposal will be.

Joanna sounds like a fantastic external advisor. How are others selected? What is the approval process?

Thanks again,
Karena

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 9:48 PM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Q: Will this Working Group be held in an open forum similar to other CNCF Working Groups or is this suggesting a closed group?
A: We are revisiting the composition of this WG, please stay tuned for an alternate proposal.
Q: The representatives of the Code of Conduct Working Group - are they voting members and others (non-reps) are still able to participate?
A: With a new alternate composition of the WG, yes we will enable this.
Q: Again, who qualifies as an 'External Advisor' - and who selects the 'External Advisors'?
A: At the moment we have one which is Joanna Lee [1], who is helping us. I will let CNCF folks answer how Joanna came to be involved. from what i know, Joanna has been helping the GB meetings etc before and was available to help us with this.

Hoping this helps Karena.

Thanks,
Dims

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

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:39 PM Karena Angell <kangell@...> wrote:
Hi Dims,

I appreciate that you are addressing concerns. My questions are separate from Josh’s and really haven’t been answered either. Would be great if someone could provide real clarification.

Thanks,
Karena

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 7:53 PM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Josh,


thanks,
Dims

On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 7:10 PM Josh Berkus <jberkus@...> wrote:
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



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

Karena Angell

Principal Product Manager, OpenShift

Red Hat OpenShift

kangell@...     



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

Karena Angell

Principal Product Manager, OpenShift

Red Hat OpenShift

kangell@...     


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

Davanum Srinivas
 

Q: Will this Working Group be held in an open forum similar to other CNCF Working Groups or is this suggesting a closed group?
A: We are revisiting the composition of this WG, please stay tuned for an alternate proposal.
Q: The representatives of the Code of Conduct Working Group - are they voting members and others (non-reps) are still able to participate?
A: With a new alternate composition of the WG, yes we will enable this.
Q: Again, who qualifies as an 'External Advisor' - and who selects the 'External Advisors'?
A: At the moment we have one which is Joanna Lee [1], who is helping us. I will let CNCF folks answer how Joanna came to be involved. from what i know, Joanna has been helping the GB meetings etc before and was available to help us with this.

Hoping this helps Karena.

Thanks,
Dims

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

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:39 PM Karena Angell <kangell@...> wrote:
Hi Dims,

I appreciate that you are addressing concerns. My questions are separate from Josh’s and really haven’t been answered either. Would be great if someone could provide real clarification.

Thanks,
Karena

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 7:53 PM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:
Josh,


thanks,
Dims

On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 7:10 PM Josh Berkus <jberkus@...> wrote:
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



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

Karena Angell

Principal Product Manager, OpenShift

Red Hat OpenShift

kangell@...     



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


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

Davanum Srinivas
 

Celeste,

Hang in there :) Don't want to lose your participation!! https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/7127

thanks,
Dims


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



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


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

Davanum Srinivas
 

Thanks for the feedback Aeva, please see https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/7127 from Arun.

-- Dims


On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 1:48 PM 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



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


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

Davanum Srinivas
 

Josh,


thanks,
Dims


On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 7:10 PM Josh Berkus <jberkus@...> wrote:
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



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


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

Davanum Srinivas
 

Frederick,

Yep, will see how to get something close to how other WGs work today. Also see https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/7127

thanks,
Dims


On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 3:16 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



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


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

Davanum Srinivas
 

Thanks for the feedback Libby, please see update here ( https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/7127 ) we will try to do better.


On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 9:52 PM Libby Meren <libbymeren@...> wrote:
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



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


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

Davanum Srinivas
 

Dawn,

Yep. got that! understood.

-- dims


On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 2:48 AM Dawn Foster <fosterd@...> wrote:

Hi all,

 

I’m concerned that limiting this to TAG Leadership puts even more work on already overloaded individuals. I know that as a TAG Leader, I personally don’t have the bandwidth to attend and participate in yet another WG.

 

It would be much better if the TAGs could select someone who is passionate about the topic and has the relevant expertise to participate, regardless of whether they are a TAG leader. This will result better outcomes for the CoC Working Group because we can get the right people involved who have the expertise, time, and passion for the topic.

 

Cheers,
Dawn

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Arun Gupta via lists.cncf.io <arun.gupta=gmail.com@...>
Date: Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:55 PM
To: davanum@... <davanum@...>
Cc: Karena Angell <kangell@...>, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [cncf-gb] Formation of CNCF CoC Update Working Group

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


 

--

 




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


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

Davanum Srinivas
 

Folks,

FYI. Thanks for all the feedback so far on the WG structure! Please see the update from Arun.

-- Dims

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Gupta, Arun <arun.gupta@...>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 9:22 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:

 

We have received a lot of feedback on the proposed Working Group structure. We are taking that into consideration to ensure that there is diversity and inclusion of people and opinions. We appreciate your patience while this is being worked upon. Please stay tuned.

 

Arun

 

From: cncf-gb@... <cncf-gb@...> on behalf of Gupta, Arun <arun.gupta@...>
Date: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 2:33 PM
To: cncf-gb <cncf-gb@...>
Cc: Taylor Waggoner <twaggoner@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-gb] Formation of CNCF CoC Update Working Group

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


Trickster Annual Sandbox Review

James Ranson <james@...>
 

Greetings!

The Trickster team is pleased to share our Annual Review PR with the TOC at https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/852

Thank you,
James


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

Dawn Foster
 

Hi all,

 

I’m concerned that limiting this to TAG Leadership puts even more work on already overloaded individuals. I know that as a TAG Leader, I personally don’t have the bandwidth to attend and participate in yet another WG.

 

It would be much better if the TAGs could select someone who is passionate about the topic and has the relevant expertise to participate, regardless of whether they are a TAG leader. This will result better outcomes for the CoC Working Group because we can get the right people involved who have the expertise, time, and passion for the topic.

 

Cheers,
Dawn

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Arun Gupta via lists.cncf.io <arun.gupta=gmail.com@...>
Date: Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:55 PM
To: davanum@... <davanum@...>
Cc: Karena Angell <kangell@...>, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [cncf-gb] Formation of CNCF CoC Update Working Group

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: [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

601 - 620 of 7730