Thanks for all those thoughts Matt and for reviewing the steering committee proposal and GH issue https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/459. I'm going to topline you here for brevity but LMK if you would

+1 for async comms For sync, I can't due any time after 10am PT due to family commitments.

I'm keen to discuss this in the TOC, and then work out details in the various WGs and community. When is everyone back?

Agree. The underlying issues are set out here https://docs.google.com/document/d/11Hiz1dGYRS7GcjedpRVnSlDjIj0AVjeTa0-Td7aW-Lk/edit?usp=drivesdk

Nobody is suggesting imposing anything. That suggestion is a red herring.

Agree that SC should (if suggested) remain a known good option, and Not Compulsory. Agree that some projects are "small" - but i would have said Helm is small! My belief is that SCs can help growth. M

I think you are creating a strawman argument. We are not substituting one form of governance for another. The issue is how SCs can add value eg direction, participation, and user confidence that featu

Josh, please disentangle your feelings about istio from the constructive discussion i can see you want to have.

It isn't but it has aspects we can learn from (good and bad) as do other projects (eg apache kafka to name one). This thread is specifically about steering committees, and what they can help with espe

Josh, feel free to highlight the negative aspects of Istio's history and governance on another thread. I may well join you. But please let's also give them credit for moving forward with improvements.

Good points Matt. Helm is well run and provides a useful model of one successful pattern. I don't think there is one true governance rule for who is on the SC. IMHO it is critical to include non code

Good comments Joe. I also don't adore every aspect of the Istio model. eg I agree that "credit for contributions accrue to companies, not individuals" isn't optimal. But I still like what they are try

Hi TOC community I saw this news and wanted to highlight it. With kubecon behind us and apparently summer too, perhaps we can revisit the Steering Committee thread. https://twitter.com/DanCiruli/statu

congratulations and thank you all for the respectful discussion on this complex topic

+1 nb <bburns=microsoft.com@...> wrote:

Currently k3s is a distro of k8s. We used to have a k8s sandbox. If we still did then k3s would happily live there as a way to show k8s how to be a better project.

-1, nb +1 to joe & bob comments. I am very keen to see k3s initiative do well I am even more keen to see it feed back into K8s let's find a way to make this work! I don't know the answer and recognise

+1 nb

Matt Thank you for the feedback and for reviewing the proposal. I agree that the doc is light on continuity details. We have a lot of prior art on projects that face growth challenges but very little

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