Update last Community Meeting


Koerbaecher Max
 

Hello everyone!

I want to give you some updates from our last community meeting.
We are still in the storming and forming phase, receiving significant input and recommendations and slowly setting down our initial guardrails.

Chairs & Tech Leads
As any good WG we require some people who are willing and able to take the servant leadership role. We aligned in our meeting that we shouldn't rush on this, as most of the people within the group are new and don't know each other. We will open up a nomination period in around 2 weeks - I think a reasonable target would be the 1st of July.

Sub-Projects
We are currently trying to gather community input and enrich the initial ideas for the sub-projects we have outlined. I believe this is required to prioritize, shape and plan the work that needs to be done. You can find the collection at a public Miro board (https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVOwMJ6nw=/?share_link_id=688986803496), this will be later migrated to GitHub issues on a project board. 

Way of working
We discussed the best way to set up our way of working. It should be asynchronously and persistent. The current idea is as follows:
GitHub Discussions are used to discuss topics from setting up new projects, new ideas etc.
GitHub Issues & Project Board will be used to manage actual work items and track the progress.
Mailing list & Slack are for the communication, pointing to current discussions, work items, PRs and so on.

Please find the meeting notes here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TkmMyXJABC66NfYmivnh7z8Y_vpq9f9foaOuDVQS_Lo

Best
Max


Liquid Reply GmbH
Sitz/Registered Office: Gütersloh
Handelsregister/Register of Companies: Amtsgericht Gütersloh, HRB 11915
Geschäftsführer/Managing Directors: Dr. Thomas Hartmann, Tomislav Zorc


Marlow Weston
 

I have a request we move from MIRO to github sooner than later.  Miro is really hard to follow if you don't have the correct monitor.

Thank you,
--Marlow


"Inspiration exists but it has to find you working."
--Pablo Picasso



On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 10:53 AM Koerbaecher Max <m.koerbaecher@...> wrote:
Hello everyone!

I want to give you some updates from our last community meeting.
We are still in the storming and forming phase, receiving significant input and recommendations and slowly setting down our initial guardrails.

Chairs & Tech Leads
As any good WG we require some people who are willing and able to take the servant leadership role. We aligned in our meeting that we shouldn't rush on this, as most of the people within the group are new and don't know each other. We will open up a nomination period in around 2 weeks - I think a reasonable target would be the 1st of July.

Sub-Projects
We are currently trying to gather community input and enrich the initial ideas for the sub-projects we have outlined. I believe this is required to prioritize, shape and plan the work that needs to be done. You can find the collection at a public Miro board (https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVOwMJ6nw=/?share_link_id=688986803496), this will be later migrated to GitHub issues on a project board. 

Way of working
We discussed the best way to set up our way of working. It should be asynchronously and persistent. The current idea is as follows:
GitHub Discussions are used to discuss topics from setting up new projects, new ideas etc.
GitHub Issues & Project Board will be used to manage actual work items and track the progress.
Mailing list & Slack are for the communication, pointing to current discussions, work items, PRs and so on.


Best
Max


Liquid Reply GmbH
Sitz/Registered Office: Gütersloh
Handelsregister/Register of Companies: Amtsgericht Gütersloh, HRB 11915
Geschäftsführer/Managing Directors: Dr. Thomas Hartmann, Tomislav Zorc


Scott Rigby
 

Hi everyone,

Apologies for delayed reply. For those who weren't at the meeting a few weeks ago, I had to dial in due to shoulder surgery, and am only now getting to reply to this.

In last WG meeting, Huamin added a table to the meeting agenda proposing co-chairs and tech leads. In response to this, I suggested that any process for things like this should use the mailing list for nominations, and then be voted on, which everyone agreed with. So Max, thank you for sending this email. However, I want to propose two changes here:

  1. First, let's change expectations about this Friday:
    • While this email says nomination period is reasonable to end July 1st, it feels rushed. I don't recall that there was an agreement on a date, but either way, there have been nearly no replies so far, and thinking on it more perhaps this is not needed right now?
  2. More generally, let's pause on codifying WG governance, and instead focus on achieving WG goals:
    • There has been great momentum for this WG, but not as much was allowed to happen in the past few weeks.
    • If WG members feel blocked on getting things done they believe should be part of this WG, we could revisit the charter without any need for additional governance outside of what is already set up by the TOC.
    • For example, several people have expressed feeling blocked on coordinating and collaborating on tools related to helping environmental sustainability.
      There is some debate on whether environmentally aware tools should/could be incubated by this WG? And either way, what kind of relationship between these would be most beneficial? This was discussed during the formation of the WG, in comments in the charter google doc and the charter PR, through slack, and was raised briefly in the last WG meeting, which CNCF staff also attended. A number of WG members expressed seeing great value in this, yet there is also reasonable question about how it can remain reasonably scoped by the WG. I believe how this are of work should be handled is still an open question.

Can we pause on WG governance for the moment?

I believe so, yes. But let's connect with CNCF staff on this. For those interested in fine print, the Environmental Sustainability WG so far is a bit atypical from other WGs in a few ways. Unlike most Working Groups which are overseen by a TAG, a few are directly under CNCF and so are overseen directly by TOC. In my understanding, these WGs are typically run by CNCF staff, and none of those other WGs have co-chairs or tech leads AFAIK for this reason (https://github.com/orgs/cncf/repositories?q=wg - Chris, Amy, please correct me if that has changed as of last year). The Environmental Sustainability WG was proposed and accepted directly under CNCF too, and so is guided directly by the TOC if I understand correctly (https://github.com/cncf/toc/tree/main/workinggroups). So for now, let's not let the WG get bogged down by additional process, and in the meantime connect with CNCF on governance while we focus on what the WG has already agreed on. I feel confident we'll all get it together as a group 😄

xo, Scott


Koerbaecher Max
 

Hi Scott,

Thank you for bringing this up. Due to the pushing on selecting others for any of these roles, we put this more on hold. Therefore, the 1st July is not the end of the nomination period but was proposed as an earliest staring point to bring up nominations. Giving time to contribute.

As you correctly point out there is some momentum, but this focuses way to much on any kind of processes and discussing approaches, rather than to get things started. A governance is need at some point, therefore we created it, but it is not urgently required IMO.
Also, yet I’m missing contribution, and without that I would be afraid to nominate and vote for anyone, whom I have never seen/heard. And I don’t want to take me here as the reference, but just take our protocols and Github repo as reference.

What I don’t understand is if someone points out to be blocked. Currently we are standing on a green field, the only thing that limits anyone is the own imagination. With a famous slogan: Just do it! 

Initially the WG was proposed as TAG, but due to the process we start as WG, what is fine. What this mainly takes out of our responsibilities is the oversight of other projects. Hope that was clarified within the last meeting. 
Again, I really don’t see an issue not to have the governance finalized. Or we merge it and rework as we go, I also don’t see issue in that. Because there is nothing blocking or hard rails written.

The only thing I’m right now waiting, is that some people start organizing them and propose a work item, a project or initiative. We have opened after our last meeting a couple of discussions: https://github.com/cncf/wg-env-sustainability/discussions and invited everyone to get active. 

Looking forward to see you on GH and Slack!

Best
Max


Am 28.06.2022 um 00:56 schrieb Scott Rigby <scott@...>:

Hi everyone,

Apologies for delayed reply. For those who weren't at the meeting a few weeks ago, I had to dial in due to shoulder surgery, and am only now getting to reply to this.

In last WG meeting, Huamin added a table to the meeting agenda proposing co-chairs and tech leads. In response to this, I suggested that any process for things like this should use the mailing list for nominations, and then be voted on, which everyone agreed with. So Max, thank you for sending this email. However, I want to propose two changes here:

  1. First, let's change expectations about this Friday:
    • While this email says nomination period is reasonable to end July 1st, it feels rushed. I don't recall that there was an agreement on a date, but either way, there have been nearly no replies so far, and thinking on it more perhaps this is not needed right now?
  2. More generally, let's pause on codifying WG governance, and instead focus on achieving WG goals:
    • There has been great momentum for this WG, but not as much was allowed to happen in the past few weeks.
    • If WG members feel blocked on getting things done they believe should be part of this WG, we could revisit the charter without any need for additional governance outside of what is already set up by the TOC.
    • For example, several people have expressed feeling blocked on coordinating and collaborating on tools related to helping environmental sustainability.
      There is some debate on whether environmentally aware tools should/could be incubated by this WG? And either way, what kind of relationship between these would be most beneficial? This was discussed during the formation of the WG, in comments in the charter google doc and the charter PR, through slack, and was raised briefly in the last WG meeting, which CNCF staff also attended. A number of WG members expressed seeing great value in this, yet there is also reasonable question about how it can remain reasonably scoped by the WG. I believe how this are of work should be handled is still an open question.

Can we pause on WG governance for the moment?

I believe so, yes. But let's connect with CNCF staff on this. For those interested in fine print, the Environmental Sustainability WG so far is a bit atypical from other WGs in a few ways. Unlike most Working Groups which are overseen by a TAG, a few are directly under CNCF and so are overseen directly by TOC. In my understanding, these WGs are typically run by CNCF staff, and none of those other WGs have co-chairs or tech leads AFAIK for this reason (https://github.com/orgs/cncf/repositories?q=wg - Chris, Amy, please correct me if that has changed as of last year). The Environmental Sustainability WG was proposed and accepted directly under CNCF too, and so is guided directly by the TOC if I understand correctly (https://github.com/cncf/toc/tree/main/workinggroups). So for now, let's not let the WG get bogged down by additional process, and in the meantime connect with CNCF on governance while we focus on what the WG has already agreed on. I feel confident we'll all get it together as a group 😄

xo, Scott




Liquid Reply GmbH
Sitz/Registered Office: Gütersloh
Handelsregister/Register of Companies: Amtsgericht Gütersloh, HRB 11915
Geschäftsführer/Managing Directors: Dr. Thomas Hartmann, Tomislav Zorc