[cncf-gb] Formation of CNCF CoC Update Working Group
|
To members of the CNCF Community: FYI ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Gupta, Arun <arun.gupta@...> Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 8:50 PM Subject: [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:
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:
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 |
|
|
|
Josh Berkus
On 6/6/22 17:52, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
To members of the CNCF Community:Is someone going to directly contact all of the groups who are being solicited for representatives? Or is that TBD? -- -- Josh Berkus Kubernetes Community Architect OSPO, OCTO |
|
|
|
Josh, There is a request in there for folks (see criteria in there!) to reach out to Taylor. A bunch of us will actively ping/poke as well. Thanks, Dims On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 9:02 PM Josh Berkus <jberkus@...> wrote: On 6/6/22 17:52, Davanum Srinivas wrote: --
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims |
|
|
|
Folks, Here are some updates to the eligibility of the CoCC WG. thanks, Dims ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Gupta, Arun <arun.gupta@...> Date: Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 5:32 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:
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:
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:
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 |
|
|
|
Josh Berkus
On 6/8/22 14:54, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Here are some updates to the eligibility of the CoCC WG.I'm confused by the updated criteria. For example, within TAG Contributor Strategy, we have several people who have direct expertise in CoCC formation. They are not our chairs. Shouldn't the COC-WG be composed of people with subject matter expertise? -- -- Josh Berkus Kubernetes Community Architect OSPO, OCTO |
|
|
|
Hi Josh, good question! we had competing interests (size of WG to ensure it's not too big to do its work vs broad criteria to accommodate folks from various bodies) most of the bodies, you can see that we are asking to send 1 or 2 people who essentially will help the WG interface with the body. We ended up this way because of the unbounded group of maintainers (we don't know how many of them will actually show up! and we wanted to keep the WG of a manageable size). Of course as we get it started the WG chairs (one from TOC and one from WG, which may not be Arun/me) and the WG can figure out how best to do their work once they are constituted (depending on who shows up and how many of them!). I totally agree that we need to engage all the subject matter experts. A few things we talked about that are in our notes and probably not in this email are around things like a public github repo etc (and use community processes like issues/prs that anyone can propose items) as well in addition to the work folks put in directly as part of the WG. Also looking at options for anonymous feedback as well. I'll let Arun write more if I missed stuff. thanks, Dims On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 6:47 PM Josh Berkus <jberkus@...> wrote: On 6/8/22 14:54, Davanum Srinivas wrote: --
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims |
|
|
|
Josh Berkus
On 6/9/22 03:28, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
most of the bodies, you can see that we are asking to send 1 or 2 people who essentially will help the WG interface with the body. We ended up this way because of the unbounded group of maintainers (we don't know how many of them will actually show up! and we wanted to keep the WG of a manageable size). Of course as we get it started the WG chairs (one from TOC and one from WG, which may not be Arun/me) and the WG can figure out how best to do their work once they are constituted (depending on who shows up and how many of them!).That was what I assumed when each group was asked to appoint someone. In TAG-CS, we were already discussing who we would nominate. However, TAG chairs and core maintainers are the most overcommitted people we have in the ecosystem. If this WG is going to be successful in designing a new CoCC system for a very complicated situation, it can't be primarily made up of people who are already oversubscribed. Beyond that, we had an excellent discussion and intro session at KubeCon with Joanna Lee. That session led attendees to expect that they would be invited to participate further in CoC process discussions in the CNCF. Most of the attendees in that session would be excluded from participation under this criteria. I guess what I'm getting at is: why is this a closed group with membership restrictions? That's not how we run any of our TAGs. What's the reason to not make the group open to any committed community member who's willing to do the hard work required? -- -- Josh Berkus Kubernetes Community Architect OSPO, OCTO |
|
|
|
On 09/06/22 11:29 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 6/9/22 03:28, Davanum Srinivas wrote:+1That was what I assumed when each group was asked to appoint someone. In TAG-CS, we were already discussing who we would nominate. |
|
|
|
Stephen Augustus (augustus)
+1.
If we’re saying that one of the goals is to ensure a minimum participation bound from each of these representative groups, I would maybe suggest:
On the other clarifications to eligibility…
TAG reps
From the ContribStrat charter: This charter describes the operations of the CNCF Technical Advisory Group (TAG) Contributor Strategy. This TAG is responsible for contributor experience, sustainability, governance, and openness guidance to help CNCF community groups and projects with their own contributor strategies for a healthy project.
I mention that to say, it could be useful to instead suggest a minimal representative group from all TAGs, and ask TAG ContribStrat to provide guidance/help coordinate with other TAGs who that group might be.
Kubernetes CoC Committee
Most of the emeritus members of K8s CoCC are still involved in some way/shape/form with the CNCF community. I’m not sure I understand the value in restricting to active members, especially given the thoughtfulness and precision that is required to effectively serve on that committee for the Kubernetes community.
Again, I feel this is a selection that can and should be deferred to the group.
Finally, given that: 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))
I see no need for the co-chairs of this WG to be representatives of the GB and the TOC. The outcomes of these discussions will naturally route to these bodies as resolutions/proposals.
Delegate the responsibility to the representative groups to select their delegates. Then have those delegates select their co-chairs.
Precedence examples:
---
Head of Open Source
Open Source Program Office questions? Reach us at ospo@....
My working hours may not be your working hours.
On 6/9/22, 15:00, "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...> wrote: On 09/06/22 11:29 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>On 6/9/22 03:28, Davanum Srinivas wrote: >> >>most of the bodies, you can see that we are asking to send 1 or 2 >>people who essentially will help the WG interface with the body. We >>ended up this way because of the unbounded group of maintainers (we >>don't know how many of them will actually show up! and we wanted to >>keep the WG of a manageable size). Of course as we get it started >>the WG chairs (one from TOC and one from WG, which may not be >>Arun/me) and the WG can figure out how best to do their work once >>they are constituted (depending on who shows up and how many of >>them!). > >That was what I assumed when each group was asked to appoint someone. >In TAG-CS, we were already discussing who we would nominate. > >However, TAG chairs and core maintainers are the most overcommitted >people we have in the ecosystem. If this WG is going to be successful >in designing a new CoCC system for a very complicated situation, it >can't be primarily made up of people who are already oversubscribed. > >Beyond that, we had an excellent discussion and intro session at >KubeCon with Joanna Lee. That session led attendees to expect that >they would be invited to participate further in CoC process >discussions in the CNCF. Most of the attendees in that session would >be excluded from participation under this criteria. > >I guess what I'm getting at is: why is this a closed group with >membership restrictions? That's not how we run any of our TAGs. >What's the reason to not make the group open to any committed >community member who's willing to do the hard work required? > >-- >-- Josh Berkus > Kubernetes Community Architect > OSPO, OCTO
+1
|
|
|
|
Karena Angell
+1 to Stephen and Josh
Dims - could you please clarify what 'External Advisors' means and how they are selected? |
|
|
|
Karena Angell
Also, as follow-up questions since the eligibility requirements seem quite restrictive:
|
|
|
|
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 On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 5:14 PM Karena Angell <kangell@...> wrote: +1 to Stephen and Josh --
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims |
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
celeste.e.horgan@...
As this committee is currently structured, I do not feel that my participation in it would be productive.
Regards Celeste Horgan
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
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.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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:
|
|
|
|
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,
From:
cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Arun Gupta via lists.cncf.io <arun.gupta=gmail.com@...> 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:
--
|
|
|
|
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@...> 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:
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:
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 |
|
|