Date   

[VOTE] Tech Lead nomination for SIG Observability: Bartłomiej Płotka

Amye Scavarda Perrin
 

Matt Young and Richard Hartman of SIG Observability have nominated Bartłomiej Płotka as Tech Lead.
https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4592

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread.

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...


Re: Sandbox annual reviews

Katie Gamanji
 

Absolutely! +1 


On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 4:57 PM Alena Prokharchyk via lists.cncf.io <aprokharchyk=apple.com@...> wrote:
+1, sounds like a logical thing to do.

-alena.

On Jul 9, 2020, at 1:58 AM, Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

Now that we have the new Sandbox application process running, it might make sense to make similar tweaks to the Sandbox annual review process too. Specifically I'd like to suggest: 

* Moving from three sponsors to a simple TOC majority vote
* A regular cadence to review & vote on these, so that projects know when they can expect to get feedback

Wdyt? 
Liz 

 



Re: Proposal for a new "Steering Committee Charter"

alexis richardson
 

Folks

The issue we are facing here is how to make projects, and hence the cncf, sustainable.  As Quinton pointed out this requires incentives.  Marketing buzz is short lived and sponsors will move on to the next thing, if there isn't an economic system to help the ecosystem. 

We have seen this before in various forms, including asf, esf, and openstack.  Ultimately these foundations need to make it possible for enough actors to make money or it is really hard to keep going.   Openstack made it too hard to differentiate.  Eclipse got bogged down in tools.  Apache is overrun by bureaucracy and placepeople, and is overprotective of its marks in the name of "open source".  

When we formed cncf we wanted something better that learned from all the prior art.  CFF was quite interesting and had created terrific end user interest, but lacked diverse projects. It was basically CF plus libs and addons. 

CNCF is not Kubernetes plus addons.  Yes k8s is our sun.  But many use cases don't use or need it, and this also helps users.  In addition ISVs like Hashicorp can see value for integration of their suite with multiple points in CNCF. 

If you look away from the bright light of k8s, you see a diverse range of projects.  Many come from ISVs, and some from end users.  

Can i suggest that we listen to these ISVs about what works *for them* and without assuming that they want to game the system or corrupt the ideals of this foundation. 

Please. 

Alexis 







On Thu, 9 Jul 2020, 18:48 Jaice Singer DuMars, <jdumars@...> wrote:
As an observer, I think this is a very solid analysis and recommendation. The risk of a "rubber stamp" steering committee is a serious concern, and clearly doesn't resolve the underlying challenge of meaningful corporate diversity among maintainers. 

That said, I do believe a standardized steering committee template has value though, especially for projects reaching the natural governance evolution where one makes sense. It's easy to forget that the Kubernetes steering committee was a response to community distress as documented in the contributor survey at the time. Having a vetted and well thought-out charter to start from can limit the time needed to resolve governance friction.

Is this working group going to suggest an alternative? 

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 9:59 AM Josh Berkus <jberkus@...> wrote:
As promised, we had an in-depth discussion of the Steering Committee
proposal drafted by Alexis Richardson for the July 7th TOC meeting
during the Governance WG meeting.  Six members were present and
participated in the discussion; notes are available here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSfiN1PRL3dH_ohfAs1lYvNWaBpAdvAI-9OQZYYIx8ahgy6230_oRbqljl6dUiGf5hTVJiferJgBmSX/pub

Assessment:

Regarding the specific proposal of using steering committees (SC) as a
workaround for the requirement to have maintainers from multiple
organizations for projects to move to the Graduated level, the
Governance WG recommends that the TOC not adopt it.

Full explanation:

Steering Committees are frequently important governance tools for large
and distributed projects, and more projects should consider having one
as a channel for end-user, collaborator, and diverse audience
representation.  We valued Alexis’ writeup, and would like to
incorporate it into our handbooks in progress for CNCF projects on how
to develop governance.

Projects that would need the "SC workaround" are projects that have been
unable to attract a single maintainer from outside the original
sponsoring organization, which is usually a sign of serious issues
within the project. The Governance WG feels that the CNCF ecosystem is
ill-served by moving projects with such problems to the Graduated level,
and the proposal will not have the desired outcomes.

Our decision was based on what we view as the inability of a
non-technical Steering Committee to ensure that a project with
maintainers* exclusively employed by the same organization treat
submissions, roadmap items, and maintainer candidates from other
organizations fairly.  Even diligent SC members would find it difficult
to understand enough about technical architecture decisions to
differentiate between bias and legitimate objections in reviews.
Further, unlike code and docs maintainers, it would be challenging for
the TOC to monitor activity and involvement levels of SC members, as
that would not create the same kind of contribution trail.

For this proposal, we considered specifically projects that are having
problems attracting contributors, because only such projects would need
this mechanism. It certainly takes time to bring code reviewers up to
speed, but the current requirement is a low bar; even a single dedicated
documentation leader from an end-user company would technically satisfy it.

While many folks have cited the Kubernetes project as an example,
Kubernetes has a diversity of maintainers all the way down to the SIG
level, so it would qualify for a maintainer multi-org requirement even
without a Steering Committee. At this point, the Governance WG does not
know of a good example of a project that successfully has used an SC to
moderate the influence of development being dominated by a single
company, so doing so would be experimental. As an experiment, we might
adopt it for one specific project, but we'd want to see the outcome of
that before we adopt it as general policy.

Even Alexis’s document suggests that in problem cases it would be up to
the TOC or their delegates to intervene to resolve project problems.
Given this, it’s unclear what advantage having an SC would offer over
Alexis’s original suggestion of having designated TOC monitors.

Overall, our judgement was that adopting the SC workaround would be, in
essence, removing the maintainer multi-organization requirement, and
that it would be better to simply remove the requirement instead if that
is the direction the TOC wishes to go.

Drafted by Governance WG:
Josh Berkus
Dawn Foster
Jennifer Davis
Davinum Srinivas
Paris Pittman

(* by “maintainers” we mean involved, leading contributors with the
authority to merge code, docs, and/or community materials into any of
the key repos belonging to the project.  Such contributors may be called
"maintainers", "committers", or other titles.  It does not refer to the
official CNCF maintainer list for voting purposes, as that list contains
many people who do not have merge authority in their individual projects.)


--
--
Josh Berkus
Kubernetes Community
Red Hat OSPO





Re: Proposal for a new "Steering Committee Charter"

Josh Berkus
 

On 7/9/20 10:48 AM, Jaice Singer DuMars wrote:

That said, I do believe a standardized steering committee template has
value though, especially for projects reaching the natural governance
evolution where one makes sense. It's easy to forget that the Kubernetes
steering committee was a response to community distress as documented in
the contributor survey at the time. Having a vetted and well thought-out
charter to start from can limit the time needed to resolve governance
friction.
The template is a great idea, and we'd like to borrow that from Alexis'
draft. We're creating a templates repo that projects can clone if they
want to use our templates for the various requirements, including
contributors.md, contributor ladder, etc. He hasn't given permission to
use it though, so I may need to rewrite it from scratch.

Is this working group going to suggest an alternative?
If you're asking about an alternative to the "SC workaround", our
recommendation would be that projects that are struggling with
attracting minority-org maintainers reach out to SIG-ContribStrat and
we'll work with them to make that happen. It's part of why we created
the SIG.

--
--
Josh Berkus
Kubernetes Community
Red Hat OSPO


Re: Proposal for a new "Steering Committee Charter"

Jaice Singer DuMars
 

As an observer, I think this is a very solid analysis and recommendation. The risk of a "rubber stamp" steering committee is a serious concern, and clearly doesn't resolve the underlying challenge of meaningful corporate diversity among maintainers. 

That said, I do believe a standardized steering committee template has value though, especially for projects reaching the natural governance evolution where one makes sense. It's easy to forget that the Kubernetes steering committee was a response to community distress as documented in the contributor survey at the time. Having a vetted and well thought-out charter to start from can limit the time needed to resolve governance friction.

Is this working group going to suggest an alternative? 

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 9:59 AM Josh Berkus <jberkus@...> wrote:
As promised, we had an in-depth discussion of the Steering Committee
proposal drafted by Alexis Richardson for the July 7th TOC meeting
during the Governance WG meeting.  Six members were present and
participated in the discussion; notes are available here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSfiN1PRL3dH_ohfAs1lYvNWaBpAdvAI-9OQZYYIx8ahgy6230_oRbqljl6dUiGf5hTVJiferJgBmSX/pub

Assessment:

Regarding the specific proposal of using steering committees (SC) as a
workaround for the requirement to have maintainers from multiple
organizations for projects to move to the Graduated level, the
Governance WG recommends that the TOC not adopt it.

Full explanation:

Steering Committees are frequently important governance tools for large
and distributed projects, and more projects should consider having one
as a channel for end-user, collaborator, and diverse audience
representation.  We valued Alexis’ writeup, and would like to
incorporate it into our handbooks in progress for CNCF projects on how
to develop governance.

Projects that would need the "SC workaround" are projects that have been
unable to attract a single maintainer from outside the original
sponsoring organization, which is usually a sign of serious issues
within the project. The Governance WG feels that the CNCF ecosystem is
ill-served by moving projects with such problems to the Graduated level,
and the proposal will not have the desired outcomes.

Our decision was based on what we view as the inability of a
non-technical Steering Committee to ensure that a project with
maintainers* exclusively employed by the same organization treat
submissions, roadmap items, and maintainer candidates from other
organizations fairly.  Even diligent SC members would find it difficult
to understand enough about technical architecture decisions to
differentiate between bias and legitimate objections in reviews.
Further, unlike code and docs maintainers, it would be challenging for
the TOC to monitor activity and involvement levels of SC members, as
that would not create the same kind of contribution trail.

For this proposal, we considered specifically projects that are having
problems attracting contributors, because only such projects would need
this mechanism. It certainly takes time to bring code reviewers up to
speed, but the current requirement is a low bar; even a single dedicated
documentation leader from an end-user company would technically satisfy it.

While many folks have cited the Kubernetes project as an example,
Kubernetes has a diversity of maintainers all the way down to the SIG
level, so it would qualify for a maintainer multi-org requirement even
without a Steering Committee. At this point, the Governance WG does not
know of a good example of a project that successfully has used an SC to
moderate the influence of development being dominated by a single
company, so doing so would be experimental. As an experiment, we might
adopt it for one specific project, but we'd want to see the outcome of
that before we adopt it as general policy.

Even Alexis’s document suggests that in problem cases it would be up to
the TOC or their delegates to intervene to resolve project problems.
Given this, it’s unclear what advantage having an SC would offer over
Alexis’s original suggestion of having designated TOC monitors.

Overall, our judgement was that adopting the SC workaround would be, in
essence, removing the maintainer multi-organization requirement, and
that it would be better to simply remove the requirement instead if that
is the direction the TOC wishes to go.

Drafted by Governance WG:
Josh Berkus
Dawn Foster
Jennifer Davis
Davinum Srinivas
Paris Pittman

(* by “maintainers” we mean involved, leading contributors with the
authority to merge code, docs, and/or community materials into any of
the key repos belonging to the project.  Such contributors may be called
"maintainers", "committers", or other titles.  It does not refer to the
official CNCF maintainer list for voting purposes, as that list contains
many people who do not have merge authority in their individual projects.)


--
--
Josh Berkus
Kubernetes Community
Red Hat OSPO





KubeEdge Incubation Public Comment Period

Alena Prokharchyk
 

KubeEdge has applied for promotion from Sandbox to Incubation level: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/461 

With the completion of KubeEdge Due Diligence and SIG Runtime recommendation, I'm opening the public comment period.


SIG Runtime recommendations can be found at the end of the doc.

The public comment period is now open for 2 weeks, and all SIGs, end users, TOC members, and community members are welcome to comment either in this thread, or on the github issue.

- Alena Prokharchyk


Re: Proposal for a new "Steering Committee Charter"

Josh Berkus
 

As promised, we had an in-depth discussion of the Steering Committee
proposal drafted by Alexis Richardson for the July 7th TOC meeting
during the Governance WG meeting. Six members were present and
participated in the discussion; notes are available here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSfiN1PRL3dH_ohfAs1lYvNWaBpAdvAI-9OQZYYIx8ahgy6230_oRbqljl6dUiGf5hTVJiferJgBmSX/pub

Assessment:

Regarding the specific proposal of using steering committees (SC) as a
workaround for the requirement to have maintainers from multiple
organizations for projects to move to the Graduated level, the
Governance WG recommends that the TOC not adopt it.

Full explanation:

Steering Committees are frequently important governance tools for large
and distributed projects, and more projects should consider having one
as a channel for end-user, collaborator, and diverse audience
representation. We valued Alexis’ writeup, and would like to
incorporate it into our handbooks in progress for CNCF projects on how
to develop governance.

Projects that would need the "SC workaround" are projects that have been
unable to attract a single maintainer from outside the original
sponsoring organization, which is usually a sign of serious issues
within the project. The Governance WG feels that the CNCF ecosystem is
ill-served by moving projects with such problems to the Graduated level,
and the proposal will not have the desired outcomes.

Our decision was based on what we view as the inability of a
non-technical Steering Committee to ensure that a project with
maintainers* exclusively employed by the same organization treat
submissions, roadmap items, and maintainer candidates from other
organizations fairly. Even diligent SC members would find it difficult
to understand enough about technical architecture decisions to
differentiate between bias and legitimate objections in reviews.
Further, unlike code and docs maintainers, it would be challenging for
the TOC to monitor activity and involvement levels of SC members, as
that would not create the same kind of contribution trail.

For this proposal, we considered specifically projects that are having
problems attracting contributors, because only such projects would need
this mechanism. It certainly takes time to bring code reviewers up to
speed, but the current requirement is a low bar; even a single dedicated
documentation leader from an end-user company would technically satisfy it.

While many folks have cited the Kubernetes project as an example,
Kubernetes has a diversity of maintainers all the way down to the SIG
level, so it would qualify for a maintainer multi-org requirement even
without a Steering Committee. At this point, the Governance WG does not
know of a good example of a project that successfully has used an SC to
moderate the influence of development being dominated by a single
company, so doing so would be experimental. As an experiment, we might
adopt it for one specific project, but we'd want to see the outcome of
that before we adopt it as general policy.

Even Alexis’s document suggests that in problem cases it would be up to
the TOC or their delegates to intervene to resolve project problems.
Given this, it’s unclear what advantage having an SC would offer over
Alexis’s original suggestion of having designated TOC monitors.

Overall, our judgement was that adopting the SC workaround would be, in
essence, removing the maintainer multi-organization requirement, and
that it would be better to simply remove the requirement instead if that
is the direction the TOC wishes to go.

Drafted by Governance WG:
Josh Berkus
Dawn Foster
Jennifer Davis
Davinum Srinivas
Paris Pittman

(* by “maintainers” we mean involved, leading contributors with the
authority to merge code, docs, and/or community materials into any of
the key repos belonging to the project. Such contributors may be called
"maintainers", "committers", or other titles. It does not refer to the
official CNCF maintainer list for voting purposes, as that list contains
many people who do not have merge authority in their individual projects.)


--
--
Josh Berkus
Kubernetes Community
Red Hat OSPO


Re: Sandbox annual reviews

Alena Prokharchyk
 

+1, sounds like a logical thing to do.

-alena.

On Jul 9, 2020, at 1:58 AM, Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

Now that we have the new Sandbox application process running, it might make sense to make similar tweaks to the Sandbox annual review process too. Specifically I'd like to suggest: 

* Moving from three sponsors to a simple TOC majority vote
* A regular cadence to review & vote on these, so that projects know when they can expect to get feedback

Wdyt? 
Liz 

 



[RESULT] Operator Framework SDK and OLM approved

Amye Scavarda Perrin
 

Operator Framework SDK and OLM sub-projects have applied to join as incubating projects (https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303).


+1 Binding: *note: Quorum is 10 as Jeff Brewer has been away*
Katie Gamanji: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4799
Liz Rice: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4833
Justin Cormack: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4834
Xiang Li: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4835
Alena Prokharchyk: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4849
Brendan Burns: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4839
Michelle Noorali: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4939

+1 Non-binding:
Alex Chircop: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4789
Ken Owens: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4790
Karl Wehden: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4791
Ricardo Aravena: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4792
Gou Rao: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4795
Ken Sipe: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4797
Anil Vishnoi: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4801
Erin Boyd: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4802
Diane Mueller: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4803
Rob Szumksi: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4804
Oleg Chornyi: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4805
Marc Boorshtein: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4806
Alexis Richardson: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4807
Alois Reitbauer: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4808
Paul Buck: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4809
Steven Dake: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4820
Jonathan Berkhaun: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4821
Srinivas R Brahmaroutu: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4822
Naren Narendra: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4823
Chris Short: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4824
Suresh Krishnan: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4826
Fredrick Kautz: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4837
Jifeng: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4852

--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...


Re: Sandbox annual reviews

Kiran Mova
 

+1 NB - sounds good!

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 6:58 PM Michelle Noorali <michelle.noorali@...> wrote:
+1

On Jul 9, 2020, at 4:58 AM, Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:


Now that we have the new Sandbox application process running, it might make sense to make similar tweaks to the Sandbox annual review process too. Specifically I'd like to suggest: 

* Moving from three sponsors to a simple TOC majority vote
* A regular cadence to review & vote on these, so that projects know when they can expect to get feedback

Wdyt? 
Liz 

 


Re: Sandbox annual reviews

Michelle Noorali <michelle.noorali@...>
 

+1

On Jul 9, 2020, at 4:58 AM, Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:


Now that we have the new Sandbox application process running, it might make sense to make similar tweaks to the Sandbox annual review process too. Specifically I'd like to suggest: 

* Moving from three sponsors to a simple TOC majority vote
* A regular cadence to review & vote on these, so that projects know when they can expect to get feedback

Wdyt? 
Liz 

 


Re: Proposal for a new "Steering Committee Charter"

Quinton Hoole <quinton@...>
 

Nice idea, and very well written doc.

 I can't help thinking that it might promote excess and undesirable bureaucracy though, unless quite carefully scoped.

Anecdotally, the most common failure modes of oss projects appear to center around a shortage of suitably skilled contributors to competently plan, design, build and document commonly required functionality.  That is in turn typically caused by lack of willingness by companies to hire, pay and otherwise support said suitably skilled contributors (specifically engineers/coders and project co-ordinator/managers).

Assuming that the above assertions are true, presumably we want to incentivize companies and individuals to fill the above gaps (i.e. fund competent engineers and project managers) , rather than form committees to decide what should hypothetically be done by the aforementioned missing people?

Alternatively stated, should the companies who find and pay the people needed to build what's required, not get to strongly influence what's built? 

If such competent contributions are being unreasonably blocked, I agree that a good escalation path is needed. Ultimately I think this should end up at well-constitued SIGS and the TOC, but a more focussed Steering Committee per project might we'll make sense, in some cases. But perhaps its purpose should be squarely focussed on ensuring that real and legitimate contributions are not unreasonably blocked. That's all.

Q


On Thu, Jul 2, 2020, 14:50 alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Hi all

Please see below a link to a public document that describes a proposed
charter for projects wishing to establish a Steering Committee.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/11Hiz1dGYRS7GcjedpRVnSlDjIj0AVjeTa0-Td7aW-Lk/edit?usp=sharing

The model proposed in the doc is intended to provide 'best practice'
for projects and governance through graduation and beyond. It is not
intended to be mandatory.  It is consistent with our existing CNCF TOC
Principles.

The model addresses some of the questions raised in this github thread
- https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/459

I welcome commentary in the doc or on this list.

alexis




Re: [EXTERNAL] [cncf-toc] Sandbox annual reviews

Alex Chircop
 

Agreed - makes sense.   We should also merge the new sandbox proposal process into main workflow doc too: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/project_proposals.adoc

Thanks,
Alex


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Lee Calcote via lists.cncf.io <leecalcote=gmail.com@...>
Sent: 09 July 2020 12:31
To: michelle.noorali@... <michelle.noorali@...>
Cc: Liz Rice via lists.cncf.io <liz=lizrice.com@...>; cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>; liz@... <liz@...>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [cncf-toc] Sandbox annual reviews
 
+1 NB. Sound logic here. 

- Lee

On Jul 9, 2020, at 4:42 AM, Michelle Noorali via lists.cncf.io <michelle.noorali=microsoft.com@...> wrote:


+1

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Liz Rice via lists.cncf.io <liz=lizrice.com@...>
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 4:58 AM
To: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [cncf-toc] Sandbox annual reviews
 
Now that we have the new Sandbox application process running, it might make sense to make similar tweaks to the Sandbox annual review process too. Specifically I'd like to suggest: 

* Moving from three sponsors to a simple TOC majority vote
* A regular cadence to review & vote on these, so that projects know when they can expect to get feedback

Wdyt? 
Liz 

 


Re: [EXTERNAL] [cncf-toc] Sandbox annual reviews

Lee Calcote
 

+1 NB. Sound logic here. 

- Lee

On Jul 9, 2020, at 4:42 AM, Michelle Noorali via lists.cncf.io <michelle.noorali=microsoft.com@...> wrote:


+1

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Liz Rice via lists.cncf.io <liz=lizrice.com@...>
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 4:58 AM
To: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [cncf-toc] Sandbox annual reviews
 
Now that we have the new Sandbox application process running, it might make sense to make similar tweaks to the Sandbox annual review process too. Specifically I'd like to suggest: 

* Moving from three sponsors to a simple TOC majority vote
* A regular cadence to review & vote on these, so that projects know when they can expect to get feedback

Wdyt? 
Liz 

 


Re: [EXTERNAL] [cncf-toc] Sandbox annual reviews

Michelle Noorali
 

+1


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Liz Rice via lists.cncf.io <liz=lizrice.com@...>
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 4:58 AM
To: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [cncf-toc] Sandbox annual reviews
 
Now that we have the new Sandbox application process running, it might make sense to make similar tweaks to the Sandbox annual review process too. Specifically I'd like to suggest: 

* Moving from three sponsors to a simple TOC majority vote
* A regular cadence to review & vote on these, so that projects know when they can expect to get feedback

Wdyt? 
Liz 

 


Sandbox annual reviews

Liz Rice
 

Now that we have the new Sandbox application process running, it might make sense to make similar tweaks to the Sandbox annual review process too. Specifically I'd like to suggest: 

* Moving from three sponsors to a simple TOC majority vote
* A regular cadence to review & vote on these, so that projects know when they can expect to get feedback

Wdyt? 
Liz 

 


Re: Proposal for a new "Steering Committee Charter"

alexis richardson
 

Thanks Quinton, you raise good points. 

The SC is indeed meant to add value to the project and not introduce bureaucracy or 'interference'.  Most projects are pretty good at running themselves.  We should aim for guidelines that protect that principle.

I agree, strongly, that economic incentives are super important for driving purposeful and sustainable development.  The SC model attempts to introduce enough ecosystem balance to solve the open core described in the doc, while keeping enough incentives in place.  The mechanism is to look to others than the core maintainers to help with the balance.  

It's only one model, and I think other models are good too.  This model in particular should help keep ISVs interested and bring users closer to projects. 






On Thu, 9 Jul 2020, 06:30 Quinton Hoole, <quinton@...> wrote:
Nice idea, and very well written doc.

 I can't help thinking that it might promote excess and undesirable bureaucracy though, unless quite carefully scoped.

Anecdotally, the most common failure modes of oss projects appear to center around a shortage of suitably skilled contributors to competently plan, design, build and document commonly required functionality.  That is in turn typically caused by lack of willingness by companies to hire, pay and otherwise support said suitably skilled contributors (specifically engineers/coders and project co-ordinator/managers).

Assuming that the above assertions are true, presumably we want to incentivize companies and individuals to fill the above gaps (i.e. fund competent engineers and project managers) , rather than form committees to decide what should hypothetically be done by the aforementioned missing people?

Alternatively stated, should the companies who find and pay the people needed to build what's required, not get to strongly influence what's built? 

If such competent contributions are being unreasonably blocked, I agree that a good escalation path is needed. Ultimately I think this should end up at well-constitued SIGS and the TOC, but a more focussed Steering Committee per project might we'll make sense, in some cases. But perhaps its purpose should be squarely focussed on ensuring that real and legitimate contributions are not unreasonably blocked. That's all.

Q

On Thu, Jul 2, 2020, 14:50 alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Hi all

Please see below a link to a public document that describes a proposed
charter for projects wishing to establish a Steering Committee.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/11Hiz1dGYRS7GcjedpRVnSlDjIj0AVjeTa0-Td7aW-Lk/edit?usp=sharing

The model proposed in the doc is intended to provide 'best practice'
for projects and governance through graduation and beyond. It is not
intended to be mandatory.  It is consistent with our existing CNCF TOC
Principles.

The model addresses some of the questions raised in this github thread
- https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/459

I welcome commentary in the doc or on this list.

alexis




Re: Proposal for a new "Steering Committee Charter"

alexis richardson
 

Josh

Thanks!

I would like to keep this at top level (TOC) for now, to maximise the
attention on it. Once the foundational principles have been
established (or rejected) by the TOC, I would be very happy to move it
into the WG for further details and, if needed, a long term home.

alexis

On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 11:56 PM Josh Berkus <jberkus@redhat.com> wrote:

On 7/2/20 2:50 PM, alexis richardson wrote:
Hi all

Please see below a link to a public document that describes a proposed
charter for projects wishing to establish a Steering Committee.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/11Hiz1dGYRS7GcjedpRVnSlDjIj0AVjeTa0-Td7aW-Lk/edit?usp=sharing

The model proposed in the doc is intended to provide 'best practice'
for projects and governance through graduation and beyond. It is not
intended to be mandatory. It is consistent with our existing CNCF TOC
Principles.
Hey, this is a really useful advisory. I'd like to include it in the
Governance WG advisory documents, and collaborate on it there, if you're
up for it?

--
--
Josh Berkus
Kubernetes Community
Red Hat OSPO


Re: [VOTE] Operator Framework SDK and OLM

Michelle Noorali <michelle.noorali@...>
 

+1 binding 

On Jun 24, 2020, at 5:54 AM, jifeng@... wrote:



+1 binding

------------------------------------------------------------------
发件人:Justin Cormack via lists.cncf.io<justin.cormack=docker.com@...>
日 期:2020年06月16日 21:26:35
收件人:Amye Scavarda Perrin<ascavarda@...>
抄 送:CNCF TOC<cncf-toc@...>
主 题:Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Operator Framework SDK and OLM

+1 (binding)

Justin


On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 1:10 AM Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
Operator Framework SDK and OLM sub-projects have applied for join as incubation projects (https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303).

Katie Gamanji is the TOC sponsor for Operator Framework, has completed DD and has called for a vote.  

Due diligence doc can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YJz3_UdJlM1IZmIthUtdvVXwid0V7dOHyQ4kuX--4TE/ 

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread.

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...



Re: [VOTE] TiKV Graduation

Li, Xiang
 

+1 binding

------------------------------------------------------------------
From:Richard Hartmann <richih@...>
Sent At:2020 Jul. 7 (Tue.) 05:55
To:Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>
Cc:CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject:Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] TiKV Graduation

+1 NB

On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 12:06 AM Amye Scavarda Perrin
<ascavarda@...> wrote:
>
> The TiKV project has applied for promotion to "Graduated" (see https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/414).
>
> Saad Ali is the TOC sponsor and has called for the vote at the end of the public comment period. (https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4847)
>
> Due diligence doc can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KCFeOdTIUXEkJJjaBrge8aIdovwdx4W2HngmUm5nfOA/edit#
>
> CNCF SIG Storage has reviewed the proposal, their recommendation can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15TQERAYI-6NWj3eTGZxKJ_g3kBP9E11v1b-Gx8lFpt0/edit#
>
> Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread.
>
> Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!
>
> --
> Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...


1101 - 1120 of 6053