1. cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io
  2. Messages
   Date   
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
Re: [cncf-gb] Formation of CNCF CoC Update Working Group

Aeva
 

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

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

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

Regards,
--Aeva



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

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

celeste.e.horgan@...
 

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

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

Josh Berkus
 

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

--
-- Josh Berkus
Kubernetes Community Architect
OSPO, OCTO
Re: [cncf-gb] Formation of CNCF CoC Update Working Group

Arun Gupta
 

Let me provide some more color here.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks
Arun


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

Currently we have one `External Advisor' which is Joanna Lee [1] (who led the BOF [2]) during kubecon and has been helping with setting up the CoCC WG. I'll leave it to CNCF staff to speak to the second part of your question.

thanks,
Dims

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

On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 5:14 PM Karena Angell <kangell@...> wrote:
+1 to Stephen and Josh

Dims - could you please clarify what 'External Advisors' means and how they are selected? 



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



--

Re: 2022 Skooner Annual Review

Davanum Srinivas
 

Thanks Jade. Ack.

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

Hello,

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

Thank you,
Jade

--

Jade Applegate (she/her)

Program Manager

Open Source Program Office

https://opensource.indeedeng.io/

Indeed - We help people get jobs.





--
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims
2022 Skooner Annual Review

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

Hello,

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

Thank you,
Jade

--

Jade Applegate (she/her)

Program Manager

Open Source Program Office

https://opensource.indeedeng.io/

Indeed - We help people get jobs.
Re: Results from Sandbox Inclusion Meeting, April 26

Max Jonas Werner
 

For posterity, the YT playlist for those is

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLj6h78yzYM2Mf6GCZzW6CAk6GlZESbemB

Cheers!
/max

On Jun 10 7:59am, Amye Scavarda Perrin wrote:
Sandbox Review meetings are closed meetings but they are recorded, the
recording will be available on YouTube the same day as the meeting.

On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 2:14 AM Huabing Zhao <zhaohuabing@...> wrote:

Hi Amye,

Is the sandbox reviewing meeting open to the community?

I have a proposed project that is supposed to be reviewed on June 14. I
just think it might be helpful to attend the meeting. So if there're any
questions or concerns raised by the TOC, I can answer them at the meeting.

Thanks,
Huabing Zhao

On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 2:25 AM Amye Scavarda Perrin <
ascavarda@...> wrote:

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

OpenFunction - passes with a majority vote of the TOC
Teller - passes with a majority vote of the TOC
sealer - passes with a majority vote of the TOC

Our next Sandbox review meeting is June 14.

Not included at the sandbox level:

Ketch: Reapply with a more robust community presence.
container-structure-test: Reapply with a more robust community presence.
Clusternet: TOC would like to see more people who are active in the
project actively doing PRS and reviews and issues.
Tarian: Consider becoming a subproject of Falco
Kubescape: would like to see more community growth, TAG + SIG Security
may be useful here, reapply in 6 months
Lagoon: Reapply in 6 months to a year.
Matos: Reapply in January '23 showing more robust community.
KTLS: Suggest meeting with Kubernetes SIG-Release to work together.
Cluster API Provider for CloudStack(CAPC): Suggest meeting with SIG
Cluster Lifecycle.

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


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




?
signature.asc

Re: Results from Sandbox Inclusion Meeting, April 26

Amye Scavarda Perrin
 

Sandbox Review meetings are closed meetings but they are recorded, the recording will be available on YouTube the same day as the meeting.


On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 2:14 AM Huabing Zhao <zhaohuabing@...> wrote:
Hi Amye,

Is the sandbox reviewing meeting open to the community? 

I have a proposed project that is supposed to be reviewed on June 14. I just think it might be helpful to attend the meeting. So if there're any questions or concerns raised by the TOC, I can answer them at the meeting.

Thanks,
Huabing Zhao

On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 2:25 AM Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
The TOC met today to review the sandbox applications available at sandbox.cncf.io.

OpenFunction - passes with a majority vote of the TOC
Teller - passes with a majority vote of the TOC
sealer - passes with a majority vote of the TOC

Our next Sandbox review meeting is June 14.

Not included at the sandbox level:

Ketch: Reapply with a more robust community presence.
container-structure-test: Reapply with a more robust community presence.
Clusternet: TOC would like to see more people who are active in the project actively doing PRS and reviews and issues.
Tarian: Consider becoming a subproject of Falco
Kubescape: would like to see more community growth, TAG + SIG Security may be useful here, reapply in 6 months
Lagoon: Reapply in 6 months to a year.
Matos: Reapply in January '23 showing more robust community.
KTLS: Suggest meeting with Kubernetes SIG-Release to work together.
Cluster API Provider for CloudStack(CAPC): Suggest meeting with SIG Cluster Lifecycle.

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



--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Director of Developer Programs, CNCF | amye@...
821 - 840 of 7942