[ANNOUNCE] Innaugural Kubernetes Governance meeting - Notes and conclusions

[Brendan Burns]

Hello Kubernetes developers,

Today we had our first Kubernetes Governance special meeting. 

Here are the take-aways:

Goals:

The primary goal is to address the clear data from the community survey that indicates that a majority of community members are unsure

how decisions are made.

Constitutional Committee:

We decided upon five people to act as the "constitutional comittee" which will approve the actual governance model and then disband.

These five people are

   * Joe Beda

   * Brendan Burns

   * Clayton Coleman

   * Brian Grant

   * Tim Hokin

Documents to write:

This committee will write and ratify three documents:

   * An update/revised version of https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/286 which attempts to capture the current state of decision making.

   * A definition different levels of decisions: e.g. "SIG-level" versus "project level", and how decisions are to be classified into these buckets.

   * A definition of how each level of decision is made

Ratification Plan:

The plan is for the constitutional committee to meet together over approx 3 days in early April and draft out each of these three documents.

We will then take these documents back to the community on approx. April 17 for one week of public commentary, followed by one week of 

revisions to address the comments, followed by a ratification vote by the committee two weeks following the initial public release of the documents.

Details:

Video of the complete meeting can be found here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=ltRKXLl0RaE

Complete Notes (thanks to Jason DuMars!) can be found here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TBs00AgIEd2bXMGIyDbZlZodSkVkozHLw8eY5jeg0oA/edit

Please let us know if there are any questions, comments or other feedback.

Many thanks, I know this has been a long road (with more miles to go) but ultimately I think it will produce a stronger community for the effort.

--brendan

[Quinton Hoole]

Thanks for getting the ball rolling on this guys. Most appreciated. 

One quick comment. The Constitutional Committee as proposed is extremely homogenous, being comprised entirely of long-term Kubernetes technical leaders (in fact all approximately founders), and all but one with significant time at Google. This in addition to being the same nationality, gender, etc.  I wonder whether it would be beneficial to inject some diversity.  One or more relatively newer community members, and/or members with a majority of recent experience on projects outside Google and Kubernetes, to help to throw some new light on old topics would be good IMO.  I'm a little concerned about the potential for tunnel vision otherwise.

To be clear, I have no concerns about the individual proposed committee members at all, just about the relative lack of diversity within the group.

Q

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/6e7c8471-e623-4346-9025-649a1cae96f1%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[de...@redhat.com]

It seems unreasonable that the committee is going to ratify its own governance doc.  Since the SIGs are being governed, establishing the "consent of the governed" requires the SIGs (leads as representatives perhaps?) to ratify the documents.

[Clayton Coleman]

On Mar 21, 2017, at 2:42 AM, Quinton Hoole <qui...@hoole.biz> wrote:

Thanks for getting the ball rolling on this guys. Most appreciated. 

One quick comment. The Constitutional Committee as proposed is extremely homogenous, being comprised entirely of long-term Kubernetes technical leaders (in fact all approximately founders), and all but one with significant time at Google. This in addition to being the same nationality, gender, etc.  I wonder whether it would be beneficial to inject some diversity.  One or more relatively newer community members, and/or members with a majority of recent experience on projects outside Google and Kubernetes, to help to throw some new light on old topics would be good IMO.  I'm a little concerned about the potential for tunnel vision otherwise.

To be clear, I have no concerns about the individual proposed committee members at all, just about the relative lack of diversity within the group.

Another phrase used was "bootstrapper" committee.  I don't think the list is intended to reflect the audience that we consider representative of Kubernetes, but it is the list that represents a minimum viable group to ensure that a process exists to include that diverse audience.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kuberne...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAL5aO5McFwL3tPY1wwaFQ65fObRvPShJp2QrXN9YF2vF6M2avA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jason Singer DuMars]

Hi,

As the facilitator, I want to address a couple of the concerns raised thus far.  First and foremost, the assembled group numbered over 20 people and represented a reasonable cross-section of contributors, SIG participants, and leaders.  Everyone was cognizant of the painful circular dependencies around bootstrapping a decision-making process, so great care was taken to ensure the original approving body would prioritize its own reconstruction.  Also, given the sensitivity to a Google-dominated process, the bootstrap approvers were pared down to 5 with no dominant corporate representation.  The goals of the meeting were to lay the groundwork for process and hierarchy, not establish it other than what was minimally necessary.  Transparency and visibility are two critical components to a healthy and thriving community project, and I believe the assembled group did a great job with this under challenging circumstances.  One thing was indisputable in this meeting: everyone wants to see Kubernetes succeed and provide the best end-user and contributor experience possible.  And at our current scale, that becomes more challenging every release.  

All my best,

Jason

[Bob Wise]

First of all, my deepest regards for the Google team, who have put so much energy into this project. We should acknowledge that it is very hard to release more control, even when it is the right strategic move, and they are doing it.

I have been one of the more outspoken advocates of wider corporate diversity on the project, even at the expense of short-term progress, and I fully support this plan.

I believe we are on a productive path here. We had a discussion around the corporate diversity topic, and everyone in the meeting appeared to be on board with this approach.  We do need a way to bootstrap our way to some significant project changes. I have an enormous regard for the the Five, and I'll remind everyone they are looking for feedback leading up to to the next step.

An area we need work..."Diversity" in the context above it is mostly corporate diversity, which is necessary but not sufficient. It is not without irony that I use the word "diversity" talking about five white guys making decisions.

Five: Please take this as feedback while you work out next steps... we need to take concrete steps go beyond corporate diversity to actual diversity our governance. If you were inclined to vote any additional members into your working group in the short run the move here seems relatively clear.  Perhaps you could even combine this with Quinton's suggestion.

-Bob

[Quinton Hoole]

OK, I've now watched the whole video, and read all the responses to this thread, and am more concerned than I originally was when I raised the issue around lack of diversity in the group.  I would like to make a few observations and a concrete suggestion:

Observations:

1. It has been repeatedly shown in large numbers of rigorous studies that problem-solving groups which incorporate members from disciplines and backgrounds other than the immediate problem area dramatically outperform those that do not (I have not cited references here, but they're very easy to find - let me know if you dispute this assertion).
2. The starting point for selecting the Constitutional Committee was the top level OWNERS/approvers list, which is already an exceptionally non-diverse list, arrived at through a detailed filtering process resulting in 8 people:
1. all but one of those people are current or ex Googlers, 
2. all have been involved in the project since very early on, and 
3. all have, for the most part, significantly shaped the current governance model
   
3. We all seem to agree that this model needs significant improvement, and that this is absolutely critical to the ongoing success of the project.
   
4. From the above list were removed the only non-male, the only non U.S. citizen, and one other, further reducing diversity.  
5. These also happen to be the three names on the list which have also had the least to do with creating the current governance model.

So in summary, at the risk of being over-dramatic, I think we're setting ourselves up for failure, or in the best case a significantly non-optimal outcome.

My (strong) suggestion:

That we explicitly co-opt one or two people who, by design, do not fulfill the filter criteria for the top level OWNERS/approvers list, and who are explicitly asked to join the group to address it's lack of diversity, the aim being to improve the outcome of this problem solving exercise.  To be clear, I'm not referring here to specific legalistic definitions of diversity like corporate affiliation, gender or nationality, but simply people who do not have their heads as deep in the current problems and existing solutions as the existing group, and can add the outside perspective necessary to achieve outcome of observation 1 above.  These one or two co-opted members could either augment or replace current members.  I'll leave that up to you.

Hope this helps...

Q

 

PS: It goes without saying that were it not for the fact that I'm a white male ex-Googler, multi-year Kubernetes contributor, I would volunteer to help on that committee.  But given that I'm not, what I can help with is finding and co-opting one or two suitable candidates. Let me know if you'd like me to do that.

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/0ce95586-12cb-4526-a3b3-57b8926c7c39%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Quinton Hoole
qui...@hoole.biz

[Tim Hockin]

One topic that came up in the call that was declined, but could be
revisited, was to nominate 2 additional people for this initial group.
I move to reopen that topic. 7 is not significantly more complicated
than 5.

Concretely, (and assuming approval), I propose we use a streamlined process:

1) The dev-community sends nominations to Sarah Novotny, with an eye
towards candidates who do not fit the same mold, between now and EOD
Pacific Time, April 24 (this Friday). Nominate as many people as you
see fit one vote per candidate per nominator.

2) Sarah will publish the list of nominees Friday AM Pacific Time, and
continue to accept more nominations until EOD.

3) Sarah and the proposed 5 will select the best candidates with the
most nominations, and invite them to join the committee.

4) We will publish the final list of 7 as soon as we have it.

Can I get an ACK/NAK from the initial 5, in particular?

Tim'

>> email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to kuberne...@googlegroups.com.

>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/0ce95586-12cb-4526-a3b3-57b8926c7c39%40googlegroups.com.
>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Quinton Hoole
> qui...@hoole.biz
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

> email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to kuberne...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAL5aO5PLhO9F2pSG7ztfn2KQsfX7KY9gL%3DzakOv_cg9jbo7eTQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Clayton Coleman]

ACK (as the only non ex-googler) :)

[Quinton Hoole]

That sounds very sensible.  

Q

>> email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/0ce95586-12cb-4526-a3b3-57b8926c7c39%40googlegroups.com.
>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Quinton Hoole
> qui...@hoole.biz
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

> email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAL5aO5PLhO9F2pSG7ztfn2KQsfX7KY9gL%3DzakOv_cg9jbo7eTQ%40mail.gmail.com.

>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAO_RewYc9thRENbC%2BH2BuKprsk5-%2BcRH7mYFu4sWafPm-eMN_A%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Quinton Hoole
qui...@hoole.biz

[Clayton Coleman]

ACK (as the only non ex-googler) :)

>> email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/0ce95586-12cb-4526-a3b3-57b8926c7c39%40googlegroups.com.
>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Quinton Hoole
> qui...@hoole.biz
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

> email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

[Bob Wise]

I nominate Sarah for inclusion, so I'm not sure if having her manage the nominations seems awkward at that point. Hopefully not. Quinton has already volunteered, and I will as well if there is any need for coordination assistance. 

In any case, if her membership were to be accepted by the five, the second person would of necessity be a non-googler to keep the agreed-to principle of corporate diversity intact.

-Bob

[Tim Hockin]

We don't have to publish nominations, but I will.

I nominate that we consider: Michelle Noorali, Brandon Phillips, Caleb
Miles, Justin Santa Barbara, Kelsey Hightower.

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/d210db6c-e0c5-4ab0-93d5-1ebd828be9ed%40googlegroups.com.

[Tim Hockin]

I assumed Sarah is involved regardless, so I didn't consider her as a
nomination. But I have no problem with it.

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Bob Wise <b...@bobsplanet.com> wrote:
>

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/d210db6c-e0c5-4ab0-93d5-1ebd828be9ed%40googlegroups.com.

[Brian Grant]

ACK

>>> email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/0ce95586-12cb-4526-a3b3-57b8926c7c39%40googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Quinton Hoole
>> qui...@hoole.biz
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

>> email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

[Chen Goldberg]

We can also move to 9 participants. 

I understand this will make it harder to schedule f2f but it will ensure the team is a better representation of the community.

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Bob Wise <b...@bobsplanet.com> wrote:

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/d210db6c-e0c5-4ab0-93d5-1ebd828be9ed%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Thanks,

Chen.

[Tim Hockin]

As someone dealing with scheduling, I dread 9, but I'd be OK with it.
I want to avoid any perception of illegitimacy, for sure - other
voices?

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 1:14 PM, 'Chen Goldberg' via Kubernetes
developer/contributor discussion <kuberne...@googlegroups.com>
wrote:

>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/d210db6c-e0c5-4ab0-93d5-1ebd828be9ed%40googlegroups.com.
>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Chen.
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to kuberne...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CANhi8oBR5tiNXH2e93Hw%3DxdkiAady%3DNNOFFR32p1s9STdQKL_g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alexis Richardson]

Can I just say, as someone else dealing with scheduling, that 9 is hard.

5 or 7 is a good number IMO.  If this group aims to self-destruct after electing a longer term gang, I see no need for more, and 5 would be plenty.

I'd like to nominate Jess Frazelle and Anne Currie.  You may not all know Anne but she's been amazing in some diversity-stuff that I have been involved with, and is a real software person who has done things with k8s & more.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAO_RewbngFfw%3DkKdRgq-RqUZ4qSD%3D_D9%3DPZQG0%2BMi%3Dcf0i4wmQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Davanum Srinivas]

Will setting a quorum (min number of participants for a meeting) help
if scheduling is a concern?

-- Dims

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 4:26 PM, 'Tim Hockin' via Kubernetes

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAO_RewbngFfw%3DkKdRgq-RqUZ4qSD%3D_D9%3DPZQG0%2BMi%3Dcf0i4wmQ%40mail.gmail.com.

> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--

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

[Alexis Richardson]

Quorums/Quora...

If I may abuse Douglas Adams: I love the whooshing noise they make as they go by.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CANw6fcH7HBQcX4G6Ad3KkpF9OFFmOO7k%3DmtL_4ELfq2YpOp2gg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Joe Beda]

I'd love to have Jess involved if she is up for it.  She has some long experience in terms of maintaining OSS stuff and has some great perspective here.

Joe

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAOSi4U4r7YABJcWVqTfCLumrj9y1ijjb5P_jnB4gzdR%3DHVKHsQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tim Hockin]

We're hoping to do a multi-day face-to-face to bootstrap, so we need
full attendance, not quorum.

[Tim Hockin]

We don't need to second nominations. Just send nominations VERY
CLEARLY ("I'd love to have" is not clearly a nomination, IMO) to Sarah
- privately or on this thread.

:)

[Michail Kargakis]

We can also loop in somebody from the Go team. Steve Francia helped out with the community survey, right?

>>> developer/contributor discussion <kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com>

>>> >> email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> >> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

>>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> >>
>>> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/d210db6c-e0c5-4ab0-93d5-1ebd828be9ed%40googlegroups.com.
>>> >>
>>> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Chen.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> > Groups
>>> > "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> > an

>>> > email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> > To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

>>> > To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> >
>>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CANhi8oBR5tiNXH2e93Hw%3DxdkiAady%3DNNOFFR32p1s9STdQKL_g%40mail.gmail.com.
>>> >
>>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

>>> email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAO_RewbngFfw%3DkKdRgq-RqUZ4qSD%3D_D9%3DPZQG0%2BMi%3Dcf0i4wmQ%40mail.gmail.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

>> email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAOSi4U4r7YABJcWVqTfCLumrj9y1ijjb5P_jnB4gzdR%3DHVKHsQ%40mail.gmail.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAO_RewYjpmrWu8-%3Dyd3s1K%3DZqrTt%3D2KN%2Ba-p1PvffQdpgLy4Tg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tim Hockin]

I think it's a little awkward to involve people who are not part of
our community, but I wouldn't say they CAN'T be nominated.

>> >> developer/contributor discussion <kuberne...@googlegroups.com>

>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> As someone dealing with scheduling, I dread 9, but I'd be OK with it.
>> >>> I want to avoid any perception of illegitimacy, for sure - other
>> >>> voices?
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 1:14 PM, 'Chen Goldberg' via Kubernetes

>> >>> developer/contributor discussion <kuberne...@googlegroups.com>

>> >>> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/d210db6c-e0c5-4ab0-93d5-1ebd828be9ed%40googlegroups.com.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > --
>> >>> > Thanks,
>> >>> > Chen.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > --
>> >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> >>> > Groups
>> >>> > "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
>> >>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> >>> > send
>> >>> > an

>> >>> > email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.
>> >>> > To post to this group, send email to
>> >>> > kuberne...@googlegroups.com.
>> >>> > To view this discussion on the web visit
>> >>> >
>> >>> >

>> >>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CANhi8oBR5tiNXH2e93Hw%3DxdkiAady%3DNNOFFR32p1s9STdQKL_g%40mail.gmail.com.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> >>> Groups
>> >>> "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
>> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> >>> an

>> >>> email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.
>> >>> To post to this group, send email to kuberne...@googlegroups.com.
>> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> >>>

>> >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAO_RewbngFfw%3DkKdRgq-RqUZ4qSD%3D_D9%3DPZQG0%2BMi%3Dcf0i4wmQ%40mail.gmail.com.
>> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> >> Groups
>> >> "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
>> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> >> an

>> >> email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> To post to this group, send email to kuberne...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> >>

>> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAOSi4U4r7YABJcWVqTfCLumrj9y1ijjb5P_jnB4gzdR%3DHVKHsQ%40mail.gmail.com.
>> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

>> email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to kuberne...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit

[Bob Wise]

+1 on staying within the kubernetes community.

-Bob

>> >> developer/contributor discussion <kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com>

>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> As someone dealing with scheduling, I dread 9, but I'd be OK with it.
>> >>> I want to avoid any perception of illegitimacy, for sure - other
>> >>> voices?
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 1:14 PM, 'Chen Goldberg' via Kubernetes

>> >>> developer/contributor discussion <kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com>

>> >>> >> email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

>> >>> >> To post to this group, send email to

>> >>> >> kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

>> >>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/d210db6c-e0c5-4ab0-93d5-1ebd828be9ed%40googlegroups.com.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > --
>> >>> > Thanks,
>> >>> > Chen.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > --
>> >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> >>> > Groups
>> >>> > "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
>> >>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> >>> > send
>> >>> > an

>> >>> > email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

>> >>> > To post to this group, send email to

>> >>> > kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

>> >>> > To view this discussion on the web visit
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CANhi8oBR5tiNXH2e93Hw%3DxdkiAady%3DNNOFFR32p1s9STdQKL_g%40mail.gmail.com.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> >>> Groups
>> >>> "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
>> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> >>> an

>> >>> email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> >>> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

>> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> >>>
>> >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAO_RewbngFfw%3DkKdRgq-RqUZ4qSD%3D_D9%3DPZQG0%2BMi%3Dcf0i4wmQ%40mail.gmail.com.
>> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> >> Groups
>> >> "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
>> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> >> an

>> >> email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> >> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> >>
>> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAOSi4U4r7YABJcWVqTfCLumrj9y1ijjb5P_jnB4gzdR%3DHVKHsQ%40mail.gmail.com.
>> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

>> email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

[Tim Hockin]

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Bob Wise <b...@bobsplanet.com> wrote:
> +1 on staying within the kubernetes community.

It's not like we have a shortage of excellent community members, at
least SOME of which must be willing to fall on this grenade :)

> -Bob
>
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Tim Hockin <tho...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think it's a little awkward to involve people who are not part of
>> our community, but I wouldn't say they CAN'T be nominated.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Michail Kargakis <mkar...@redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>> > We can also loop in somebody from the Go team. Steve Francia helped out
>> > with
>> > the community survey, right?
>> >
>> > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 4:48 PM, 'Tim Hockin' via Kubernetes

>> > developer/contributor discussion <kuberne...@googlegroups.com>

>> >> >> developer/contributor discussion <kuberne...@googlegroups.com>

>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> As someone dealing with scheduling, I dread 9, but I'd be OK with
>> >> >>> it.
>> >> >>> I want to avoid any perception of illegitimacy, for sure - other
>> >> >>> voices?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 1:14 PM, 'Chen Goldberg' via Kubernetes

>> >> >>> developer/contributor discussion <kuberne...@googlegroups.com>

>> >> >>> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/d210db6c-e0c5-4ab0-93d5-1ebd828be9ed%40googlegroups.com.
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > --
>> >> >>> > Thanks,
>> >> >>> > Chen.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > --
>> >> >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>> >> >>> > Google
>> >> >>> > Groups
>> >> >>> > "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
>> >> >>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> >> >>> > send
>> >> >>> > an

>> >> >>> > email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> >>> > To post to this group, send email to
>> >> >>> > kuberne...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> >>> > To view this discussion on the web visit
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >

>> >> >>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CANhi8oBR5tiNXH2e93Hw%3DxdkiAady%3DNNOFFR32p1s9STdQKL_g%40mail.gmail.com.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> --
>> >> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> >> >>> Groups
>> >> >>> "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
>> >> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> >> >>> send
>> >> >>> an

>> >> >>> email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> >>> To post to this group, send email to
>> >> >>> kuberne...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>

>> >> >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAO_RewbngFfw%3DkKdRgq-RqUZ4qSD%3D_D9%3DPZQG0%2BMi%3Dcf0i4wmQ%40mail.gmail.com.
>> >> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> >> >> Groups
>> >> >> "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
>> >> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> >> >> send
>> >> >> an

>> >> >> email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> >> To post to this group, send email to
>> >> >> kuberne...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> >> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> >> >>
>> >> >>

>> >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAOSi4U4r7YABJcWVqTfCLumrj9y1ijjb5P_jnB4gzdR%3DHVKHsQ%40mail.gmail.com.
>> >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> >> Groups
>> >> "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
>> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> >> an

>> >> email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> To post to this group, send email to kuberne...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> >>

[Ihor Dvoretskyi]

I would second the proposal to stay with 7 people max. 9 and more will be good to expand the established community, but for now - it's too much, IMO.

Also, I'm surprised that nobody has nominated Sarah, let me nominate her :)

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kubernetes-governance" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-gover...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kubernetes...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-governance/CAO_RewYzT1RaDod6%2B2bnN-jrCvKDFuU3%2Bp0GR6GAtQH5ULghKg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Brendan Burns]

ACK that I'm ok with moving to 7...

[caleb...@coreos.com]

ACK

I propose that Sarah (or another graciously accepting community member) serve as a dedicated facilitator for the duration of discussions. If Sarah is unwilling or unavailable I propose Jason Singer DuMars. I would also suggest that Brandon and I could probably share a slot :-)

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-governance+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Joe Beda]

Explicit ACK from me. 7 sounds good. 

Joe

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-gover...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to kubernetes...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-governance/CAO_RewYzT1RaDod6%2B2bnN-jrCvKDFuU3%2Bp0GR6GAtQH5ULghKg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kubernetes-governance" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-gover...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to kubernetes...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-governance/fe9f491c-1916-40ca-a674-dc8d3c6587b3%40googlegroups.com.

[Tim Hockin]

OK, That's 5 ACKs. The process is officially in flight (though
previous nominations are fine :)

To recap:

1) Sends your nominations to Sarah Novotny (sarahn...@google.com)
between now and EOD Pacific Time, April 24 (this Friday), with an eye
towards diversity of experience and employment. Nominate as many

people as you see fit one vote per candidate per nominator.

2) Sarah will publish the list of nominees Friday AM Pacific Time, and
continue to accept more nominations until EOD.

3) Sarah and the initially proposed 5 will consider the candidates and
select 2, considering the diversity objectives and number of
nominations, and invite them to join the committee. We will continue
until 2 accept.

4) We will publish the final list as soon as we have it.

[Sebastien Goasguen]

> 3) Sarah and the initially proposed 5 will consider the candidates and
> select 2,

That sounds a bit strange. Why not take in the two nominees with the most nominations ? Or hold a real vote on this mailing list.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAO_Rewa7dh1Eshs3ZkDL%3DmUun40EM0asZc%2Bnbd9aBX%3D%3DSsBKCQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Clayton Coleman]

Making this a popularity contest in order to ensure diverse opinions
is also a bit wierd.

[Jason Singer DuMars]

Caleb, thanks for the nod.   I agree that facilitation is crucial, and I'd be more than happy to fill that role if that's how things work out.  I have a strong background in scaled Agile, process design and organizational management, so I can contribute in other ways as well.

[Saad Ali]

"Sends your nominations to Sarah Novotny (sarahn...@google.com) between now and EOD Pacific Time, April 24 (this Friday)"

That should be March 24.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/d80f3345-b087-40ed-b7ab-4fa880af9b41%40googlegroups.com.

[Brendan Burns]

It's not a popularity contest is it? the 5 of us are going to vote on the two to add. I mean I suppose that's a popularity contest of sorts, but I think we have enough experience and judgement to judge on merits.

--brendan

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kubernetes-governance" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-gover...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to kubernetes...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-governance/d80f3345-b087-40ed-b7ab-4fa880af9b41%40googlegroups.com.

[Tim Hockin]

I'm about 4 hours behind schedule. The current list of nominees, in
no particular order is:

Sarah Novotny
Michelle Noorali
Bob Wise
Kelsey Hightower
anne currie
Jessie Frazelle
Brandon Phillips
Caleb Miles
Justin Santa Barabara
Steve Francia
Jason Singer Dumars
Kris Nova
Liz Rice
Doug Davis
Wojciech Tyczynski

If you have anyone else you want to be considered, please send them to
Sarah ASAP.

[Jessica Frazelle]

So about 45 people brought this thread up to me, wondering my thoughts and
honestly I had not even read it until just now, mostly because like I told them
"I think project governance is just open source political bullshit" and also
because ETOOMANYMAILINGLISTS

I am going to be honest with my opinions on
this, not to be mean, but because I care and I know you all actually want this
to be "real project governance" even tho I know I am overwhelmingly cynical
with my thoughts on if that is possible. If I didn't care I would have just
watched this fire burn from afar with some kinder eggs ;)

I think this thread started off great, but of course it was doomed in the way 

all project governance is doomed to political bike sheds. I've honestly never 

seen it done well but I've seen it crash and burn multiple times and have 

witnessed the pain of friends I know who are Linux subsystem maintainers.

I think Quentin brought
up a good point about diversity _but_ (and I say this as _only_ my opinion), I
(as a woman) would not want to be "the token diversity candidate." And to be
honest that is what this is shaping up to be. I know you all have the best
intentions so obviously it is not meant as that but if you have "the five"
(which lol I just learned this) and then "the diversity candidates" that is
quite literally what that is.

I agree with Chen that there should be nine so
that it is not that, although honestly at this point I don't know if there is a
way to save it from those people feeling like they were only chosen because of
who they are and not their contributions.

But I digress. I also think it is
really making so much more pain for ourselves having this "meta governance
planning committee" rather than just Doing The Damn Thing and getting it over
with, but I won't even dive down that rabbit hole.

If you want this to work and not be some power grabbing bike shed, I think we 

should learn from the fantastic failures. I am more than willing to see if my friend 

who is the maintainer for the graphics subsystem of Linux would give his opinion 

because he is "one of the good ones." My personal ideal scenario that could work

would be sig leads are the equivalent of linux subsystem maintainers, they do their

own thing and every so often "pull" Linus who in this case is the governance people

who are actually nice. The governance "squad" then determines if the sigs work is

in line with the "global vision" and points then kindly in the right direction if not.

There might even be a kind of "skip level manager" type thing where sig members 

could escalate to the squad if they had a problem with the sig lead. But really

the squad should just stay out of it and just have the goal of keeping "the vision."

That's all, and I hope I didn't offend I just have seen this done poorly so many 

times.

Jess

>>>>>> an email to kubernetes-governance+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-governance/CAO_RewYzT1RaDod6%2B2bnN-jrCvKDFuU3%2Bp0GR6GAtQH5ULghKg%40mail.gmail.com.
>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "kubernetes-governance" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

>>> email to kubernetes-governance+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Tim Hockin]

On Mar 28, 2017 5:48 AM, "'Jessica Frazelle' via Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" <kuberne...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

So about 45 people brought this thread up to me, wondering my thoughts and
honestly I had not even read it until just now, mostly because like I told them
"I think project governance is just open source political bullshit" and also
because ETOOMANYMAILINGLISTS

I am going to be honest with my opinions on
this, not to be mean, but because I care and I know you all actually want this
to be "real project governance" even tho I know I am overwhelmingly cynical
with my thoughts on if that is possible. If I didn't care I would have just
watched this fire burn from afar with some kinder eggs ;)

No offense taken.  With a project as large and as widely app spoke sorted as this, I just want the process for dispute to be clearly laid out and transparent.

I think this thread started off great, but of course it was doomed in the way 

all project governance is doomed to political bike sheds. I've honestly never 

seen it done well but I've seen it crash and burn multiple times and have 

witnessed the pain of friends I know who are Linux subsystem maintainers.

I think Quentin brought
up a good point about diversity _but_ (and I say this as _only_ my opinion), I
(as a woman) would not want to be "the token diversity candidate." And to be
honest that is what this is shaping up to be. I know you all have the best
intentions so obviously it is not meant as that but if you have "the five"
(which lol I just learned this) and then "the diversity candidates" that is
quite literally what that is.

I thought about that, which is why we specifically asked for people who are diverse in corporate presence and experience.  Gender or ethnicity matters, but far less (IMO) than actual potential value.  For example, your own personal experiences are exactly what I wanted.  I have not done this before.

I want diversity of people - who were not part of the original leadership of this project, who bring a different view and experience, and who have felt pain in this project.  I have never had to worry about what happens​ if a PR meets resistance because I have always been an org owner.

I agree with Chen that there should be nine so
that it is not that, although honestly at this point I don't know if there is a
way to save it from those people feeling like they were only chosen because of
who they are and not their contributions.

But I digress. I also think it is
really making so much more pain for ourselves having this "meta governance
planning committee" rather than just Doing The Damn Thing and getting it over
with, but I won't even dive down that rabbit hole.

I am afraid that, to complete Just Doing It, one would have to get this group of people to nod their heads in sync, which is approximately what we are working on.

If you want this to work and not be some power grabbing bike shed, I think we 

should learn from the fantastic failures. I am more than willing to see if my friend 

who is the maintainer for the graphics subsystem of Linux would give his opinion 

because he is "one of the good ones." My personal ideal scenario that could work

would be sig leads are the equivalent of linux subsystem maintainers, they do their

own thing and every so often "pull" Linus who in this case is the governance people

who are actually nice. The governance "squad" then determines if the sigs work is

in line with the "global vision" and points then kindly in the right direction if not.

There might even be a kind of "skip level manager" type thing where sig members 

could escalate to the squad if they had a problem with the sig lead. But really

the squad should just stay out of it and just have the goal of keeping "the vision."

I think this is great feedback.  Simpler is better.

>>>>>> an email to kubernetes-governance+unsubscri...@googlegroups.com.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-governance/CAO_RewYzT1RaDod6%2B2bnN-jrCvKDFuU3%2Bp0GR6GAtQH5ULghKg%40mail.gmail.com.
>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "kubernetes-governance" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

>>> email to kubernetes-governance+unsubscri...@googlegroups.com.

>>> To post to this group, send email to
>>> kubernetes...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit

>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-governance/fe9f491c-1916-40ca-a674-dc8d3c6587b3%40googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/4c6005ad-ee4d-4b75-97ce-f808a19c0589%40googlegroups.com.

[Brendan Burns]

Hey Jess,

Thanks for the feedback. Here are my thoughts:

9 is too many, we've been dragging our feet on this effectively forever, it's already a bad problem and it's going to get worse. We need to start getting closure now before the fissure gets any more pronounced. The 5 (now 7) that we're going to use will be temporary, so I'd err on the side of speed rather than the perfect number of people in order to get things sorted quickly-ish.

I think that the general proposal for governance that you suggested is basically exactly what I had in mind.

That's why the outcomes that we will produce are:

1) A document that captures where we are, we have survey data that indicates people don't know how decisions are currently made. Hopefully this doc will help with that.

2) A document that describes "sig-level" vs "project level" decisions, and a rubric for determining how we figure out which decision fits at which level. I expect that there will be high autonomy for sig level decision making (e.g. I want to ignore all that stuff) but we need a way of pulling things up to the project [e.g. repo refactoring is very cross cutting] or pushing things down on sigs [e.g. test flake fixdes]) when necessary

3) A document that describes how sig-level or project level decisions are made.

With these things, I think we will achieve what you are hoping for.  I have no doubt that it will be better than what we have now.

Anyway, I hope you continue to help us along the way, rather than just watching us burn :)

Best

--brendan

>>>>>> an email to kubernetes-gover...@googlegroups.com.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-governance/CAO_RewYzT1RaDod6%2B2bnN-jrCvKDFuU3%2Bp0GR6GAtQH5ULghKg%40mail.gmail.com.
>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "kubernetes-governance" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

>>> email to kubernetes-gover...@googlegroups.com.

>>> To post to this group, send email to
>>> kubernetes...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit

>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-governance/fe9f491c-1916-40ca-a674-dc8d3c6587b3%40googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kuberne...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/4c6005ad-ee4d-4b75-97ce-f808a19c0589%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kubernetes-governance" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-gover...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to kubernetes...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-governance/CAO_RewYwzRNgv-bSw5N25b1-BkF8Sqb--jqk93%2BOtTNB1H9fgw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bob Wise]

Jess,

Really helpful comments. As much as I agree that tokenism sucks (and that is not what I'm advocating!), I will continue to work for doing better on diversity that really matters. I'm really not sure how to manage the perception in the short run that it looks like tokenism but that is not my goal. I think we agree entirely on the outcome, I'll take any coaching I can get on how to move us toward that.

I think the perspective of a very senior, highly regarded Google engineer is skewed when it comes to the project experience, and I worry about the Seven having enough of the alternate perspective. I'll also point again to Quinton's excellent comments in this regard.

Since my comments above (and similar ones in the past) may have been interpreted as critical, the Google team (present and former) should know how much I hold up to our customers Google's hiring practices, standards for excellence, project practices, SRE approaches, etc. as something most of the rest of us should be striving towards. The example is inspirational.

For many people that want to participate in the project, the Seven (and their peers) are Giant Brained Aliens. Anything we can do to help bridge that gap is going to help with adoption.

Much of my professional work revolves around bridging the ways of the GBAs to the humans, so I'm passionate about the topic. :-)

-Bob

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Brendan Burns <brendan...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey Jess,

Thanks for the feedback. Here are my thoughts:

9 is too many, we've been dragging our feet on this effectively forever, it's already a bad problem and it's going to get worse. We need to start getting closure now before the fissure gets any more pronounced. The 5 (now 7) that we're going to use will be temporary, so I'd err on the side of speed rather than the perfect number of people in order to get things sorted quickly-ish.

I think that the general proposal for governance that you suggested is basically exactly what I had in mind.

That's why the outcomes that we will produce are:

1) A document that captures where we are, we have survey data that indicates people don't know how decisions are currently made. Hopefully this doc will help with that.

2) A document that describes "sig-level" vs "project level" decisions, and a rubric for determining how we figure out which decision fits at which level. I expect that there will be high autonomy for sig level decision making (e.g. I want to ignore all that stuff) but we need a way of pulling things up to the project [e.g. repo refactoring is very cross cutting] or pushing things down on sigs [e.g. test flake fixdes]) when necessary

3) A document that describes how sig-level or project level decisions are made.

With these things, I think we will achieve what you are hoping for.  I have no doubt that it will be better than what we have now.

Anyway, I hope you continue to help us along the way, rather than just watching us burn :)

Best

--brendan

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:02 AM 'Tim Hockin' via kubernetes-governance <kubernetes-governance@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>>>>>> an email to kubernetes-governance+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-governance/CAO_RewYzT1RaDod6%2B2bnN-jrCvKDFuU3%2Bp0GR6GAtQH5ULghKg%40mail.gmail.com.
>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "kubernetes-governance" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

>>> email to kubernetes-governance+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>>> To post to this group, send email to
>>> kubernetes...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit

>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-governance/fe9f491c-1916-40ca-a674-dc8d3c6587b3%40googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/4c6005ad-ee4d-4b75-97ce-f808a19c0589%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kubernetes-governance" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-governance+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-governance@googlegroups.com.

[Jessica Frazelle]

I understand the argument that having nine will just add more opinions
and more time.

I would however like to withdraw myself as one of the nominated mostly
because my opinions on these matters are far too cynical to be
productive. The offer still stands, however, to put you in touch with
people _outside_ k8s that I think will give you a very interesting
perspective on how _not_ to do this.

>>>> >>>>>> an email to kubernetes-gover...@googlegroups.com.

>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to
>>>> >>>>>> kubernetes...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-governance/CAO_RewYzT1RaDod6%2B2bnN-jrCvKDFuU3%2Bp0GR6GAtQH5ULghKg%40mail.gmail.com.
>>>> >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> --
>>>> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> >>> Groups
>>>> >>> "kubernetes-governance" group.
>>>> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>>> >>> send an

>>>> >>> email to kubernetes-gover...@googlegroups.com.

>>>> >>> To post to this group, send email to
>>>> >>> kubernetes...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-governance/fe9f491c-1916-40ca-a674-dc8d3c6587b3%40googlegroups.com.
>>>> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

>>> email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to kuberne...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit

>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/4c6005ad-ee4d-4b75-97ce-f808a19c0589%40googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>>
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "kubernetes-governance" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

>>> email to kubernetes-gover...@googlegroups.com.

>>> To post to this group, send email to
>>> kubernetes...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit

[Brian Grant]

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Jessica Frazelle <jess...@google.com> wrote:

I understand the argument that having nine will just add more opinions
and more time.

I would however like to withdraw myself as one of the nominated mostly
because my opinions on these matters are far too cynical to be
productive. The offer still stands, however, to put you in touch with
people _outside_ k8s that I think will give you a very interesting
perspective on how _not_ to do this.

That would be great. One doesn't need to be a member of the 5/7/9 in order to inform the decisions.

Thanks.

 

>>>> >>>>>> an email to kubernetes-governance+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to
>>>> >>>>>> kubernetes...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-governance/CAO_RewYzT1RaDod6%2B2bnN-jrCvKDFuU3%2Bp0GR6GAtQH5ULghKg%40mail.gmail.com.
>>>> >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> --
>>>> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> >>> Groups
>>>> >>> "kubernetes-governance" group.
>>>> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>>> >>> send an

>>>> >>> email to kubernetes-governance+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>>>> >>> To post to this group, send email to
>>>> >>> kubernetes...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-governance/fe9f491c-1916-40ca-a674-dc8d3c6587b3%40googlegroups.com.
>>>> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

>>> email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/4c6005ad-ee4d-4b75-97ce-f808a19c0589%40googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>>
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "kubernetes-governance" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

>>> email to kubernetes-governance+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>>> To post to this group, send email to

>>> kubernetes-governance@googlegroups.com.

[Brendan Burns]

Agree, I would love to have a list of people to consult with (and I welcome your cynical opinions :) even if they aren't/don't want to be part of the initial committee.

Thanks!
--brendan

[Tim Hockin]

I accept the offer.  

>>>> >>>>>> an email to kubernetes-governance+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to
>>>> >>>>>> kubernetes...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-governance/CAO_RewYzT1RaDod6%2B2bnN-jrCvKDFuU3%2Bp0GR6GAtQH5ULghKg%40mail.gmail.com.
>>>> >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> --
>>>> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> >>> Groups
>>>> >>> "kubernetes-governance" group.
>>>> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>>> >>> send an

>>>> >>> email to kubernetes-governance+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>>>> >>> To post to this group, send email to
>>>> >>> kubernetes...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-governance/fe9f491c-1916-40ca-a674-dc8d3c6587b3%40googlegroups.com.
>>>> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

>>> email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/4c6005ad-ee4d-4b75-97ce-f808a19c0589%40googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>>
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "kubernetes-governance" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

>>> email to kubernetes-governance+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>>> To post to this group, send email to

>>> kubernetes-governance@googlegroups.com.

[Brendan Burns]

Quick follow up here:

We (the original 5) are working to announce the additional 2 community members on the constitutional committee by the end of the day on Friday, possibly earlier.

Thanks!

--brendan

I accept the offer.  

>>>> >>>>&

[Jessica Frazelle]

I'm going to verify with the people I have in mind to give advice that
it's okay for me to volunteer their services :P then I will give a
list just to the "ze five" so that I don't expose them to too much
haha

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Brendan Burns

[Joe Beda]

Jess -- 

I want to take a second to really thank you for stepping up and sharing your candid thoughts.

More than anything else, Kubernetes is this community and we can't be successful unless we have open and honest discussions.  I know that this often comes across as "just politics" and, to some degree, your cynicism is warranted.  Whatever comes out of this process will be imperfect -- that is just the nature of human endeavor.  

But we need to try and build the community we all want for the long term health of the project.  Thank you for being a part of that process.

Joe

[Jessica Frazelle]

Np! I actually forgot the most important thing. Regardless of what model you decide on, you need a process to iterate and change the model if necessary. The problem with most governance is the ones within power obviously don't want change because that means they might lose some of that. This leads to broken models and communities, where the only thing you can do is wait for someone to retire (or something darker) to change the system.

[Tim Hockin]

Hi everyone,

I'm happy to announce that Brandon Phillips and Sarah Novotny have
agreed to join us on this effort. We will be arranging our next steps
soon, and will post more info when we have it.

Tim

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to kuberne...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/33bc929f-18fb-4de6-8ac3-8c71ac3e1be8%40googlegroups.com.

[Ihor Dvoretskyi]

Congratulations!

[Brandon Philips]

Tim- Sorry for the quietness on this thread, KubeCon and such. I am excited to get this underway and out of our way. 

Clayton- Has the "what we have now" document started?

There is a bit of cynicism on this thread about the point of this all. My hope for the outcome is we continue to keep the spirit of Kubernetes's consensus building process while creating clear conclusions. 

For example, I have helped create a couple of global community processes including Incubator and Security Release Process. These processes largely are working OK and I think were built in the "kube way" meaning:

- both were built through consensus and over communication

- both were reviewed by internal AND external experts

- both have been updated as problems have been found again through rough consensus

What isn't great is that there are some decisions both of these things need help with to make them sustainable:

- both need criteria for inclusion e.g. how to get advanced security disclosure to vendors OR the threshold for becoming a Kube umbrella project

- both need criteria for team additions/removals (it isn't code commits!)

- both need ways of better recognizing people doing the hard work

With both of these processes I have pulled in the usual suspects and we just make it happen: thanks Brian Grant, Jess Frazelle, Sarah Novotny, Caleb Miles, and others! But, if we are going to continue to make this successful we need to ensure we continue to expand the voices and people making stuff happen and ensure that not everything must be created through sheer force of will.

Why? Well, selfishly I am getting overloaded owning a number of things. Secondly, diversity of opinions and organization will only happen if we start to figure out how to onboard people who aren't the usual suspects.

I know we can sort this stuff out and help our community grow. Lets do this!

Cheers,

Brandon

P.S. Tim, My last name is Philips; this has caused confusion in the past, paritcularly for Elsie and I: https://twitter.com/BrandonPhilips/status/849423944285396992

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAO_RewbeU%3DNgVgsxc7Sy3GhX0E4yXaaNV8gf5UGpshz%3DiORDig%40mail.gmail.com.

[Brian Grant]

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Brandon Philips <brandon...@coreos.com> wrote:

Tim- Sorry for the quietness on this thread, KubeCon and such. I am excited to get this underway and out of our way. 

Clayton- Has the "what we have now" document started?

There is a bit of cynicism on this thread about the point of this all. My hope for the outcome is we continue to keep the spirit of Kubernetes's consensus building process while creating clear conclusions. 

For example, I have helped create a couple of global community processes including Incubator and Security Release Process. These processes largely are working OK and I think were built in the "kube way" meaning:

- both were built through consensus and over communication

- both were reviewed by internal AND external experts

- both have been updated as problems have been found again through rough consensus

What isn't great is that there are some decisions both of these things need help with to make them sustainable:

- both need criteria for inclusion e.g. how to get advanced security disclosure to vendors OR the threshold for becoming a Kube umbrella project

- both need criteria for team additions/removals (it isn't code commits!)

- both need ways of better recognizing people doing the hard work

With both of these processes I have pulled in the usual suspects and we just make it happen: thanks Brian Grant, Jess Frazelle, Sarah Novotny, Caleb Miles, and others! But, if we are going to continue to make this successful we need to ensure we continue to expand the voices and people making stuff happen and ensure that not everything must be created through sheer force of will.

Why? Well, selfishly I am getting overloaded owning a number of things. Secondly, diversity of opinions and organization will only happen if we start to figure out how to onboard people who aren't the usual suspects.

I know we can sort this stuff out and help our community grow. Lets do this!

+1 to all of that (including the part about being overloaded). I'm thrilled to have your help and looking forward to making it easier for more people to be more deeply involved.

 

Cheers,

Brandon

P.S. Tim, My last name is Philips; this has caused confusion in the past, paritcularly for Elsie and I: https://twitter.com/BrandonPhilips/status/849423944285396992

> email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/33bc929f-18fb-4de6-8ac3-8c71ac3e1be8%40googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

[Jessica Frazelle]

On Apr 5, 2017 10:29, "Brandon Philips" <brandon...@coreos.com> wrote:

Tim- Sorry for the quietness on this thread, KubeCon and such. I am excited to get this underway and out of our way. 

Clayton- Has the "what we have now" document started?

There is a bit of cynicism on this thread about the point of this all. My hope for the outcome is we continue to keep the spirit of Kubernetes's consensus building process while creating clear conclusions. 

For example, I have helped create a couple of global community processes including Incubator and Security Release Process. These processes largely are working OK and I think were built in the "kube way" meaning:

- both were built through consensus and over communication

- both were reviewed by internal AND external experts

- both have been updated as problems have been found again through rough consensus

What isn't great is that there are some decisions both of these things need help with to make them sustainable:

- both need criteria for inclusion e.g. how to get advanced security disclosure to vendors OR the threshold for becoming a Kube umbrella project

- both need criteria for team additions/removals (it isn't code commits!)

- both need ways of better recognizing people doing the hard work

With both of these processes I have pulled in the usual suspects and we just make it happen: thanks Brian Grant, Jess Frazelle, Sarah Novotny, Caleb Miles, and others! But, if we are going to continue to make this successful we need to ensure we continue to expand the voices and people making stuff happen and ensure that not everything must be created through sheer force of will.

Why? Well, selfishly I am getting overloaded owning a number of things. Secondly, diversity of opinions and organization will only happen if we start to figure out how to onboard people who aren't the usual suspects.

I agree completely. Also people should never feel like they cannot express their opinions on things such as these. Even if you have never participated or dealt with governance in the past or you just don't feel like you should reply, your voice and ideas always have a place here.

As a member of the Kubernetes community, this effects you. And as someone who has never seen governance work well in the past, I think it's a clear sign that we DO in fact need a new outlook and varying opinions such as yours.

Maybe the next time something like this comes up we can try and add people who haven't participated in something like this yet to get a new generation of the "usual suspects" to carry these things forward in the future.

Very glad Brandon PHILIPS and Sarah have offered to help since I know their experiences can help here :)

I know we can sort this stuff out and help our community grow. Lets do this!

Cheers,

Brandon

P.S. Tim, My last name is Philips; this has caused confusion in the past, paritcularly for Elsie and I: https://twitter.com/BrandonPhilips/status/849423944285396992

> email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/33bc929f-18fb-4de6-8ac3-8c71ac3e1be8%40googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

[caleb...@coreos.com]

I've left a comment on the governance umbrella issue with my thoughts from looking at other governance models for OSS communities; maybe they'll be helpful for folks.  

On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 12:38:35 PM UTC-7, Brian Grant wrote:

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Brandon Philips <brandon...@coreos.com> wrote:

Tim- Sorry for the quietness on this thread, KubeCon and such. I am excited to get this underway and out of our way. 

Clayton- Has the "what we have now" document started?

There is a bit of cynicism on this thread about the point of this all. My hope for the outcome is we continue to keep the spirit of Kubernetes's consensus building process while creating clear conclusions. 

For example, I have helped create a couple of global community processes including Incubator and Security Release Process. These processes largely are working OK and I think were built in the "kube way" meaning:

- both were built through consensus and over communication

- both were reviewed by internal AND external experts

- both have been updated as problems have been found again through rough consensus

What isn't great is that there are some decisions both of these things need help with to make them sustainable:

- both need criteria for inclusion e.g. how to get advanced security disclosure to vendors OR the threshold for becoming a Kube umbrella project

- both need criteria for team additions/removals (it isn't code commits!)

- both need ways of better recognizing people doing the hard work

With both of these processes I have pulled in the usual suspects and we just make it happen: thanks Brian Grant, Jess Frazelle, Sarah Novotny, Caleb Miles, and others! But, if we are going to continue to make this successful we need to ensure we continue to expand the voices and people making stuff happen and ensure that not everything must be created through sheer force of will.

Why? Well, selfishly I am getting overloaded owning a number of things. Secondly, diversity of opinions and organization will only happen if we start to figure out how to onboard people who aren't the usual suspects.

I know we can sort this stuff out and help our community grow. Lets do this!

+1 to all of that (including the part about being overloaded). I'm thrilled to have your help and looking forward to making it easier for more people to be more deeply involved.

 

Cheers,

Brandon

P.S. Tim, My last name is Philips; this has caused confusion in the past, paritcularly for Elsie and I: https://twitter.com/BrandonPhilips/status/849423944285396992

>>> >>>> >>>> wrote:<br class="m_264901953891

[Brian Grant]

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:36 PM, <caleb...@coreos.com> wrote:

I've left a comment on the governance umbrella issue with my thoughts from looking at other governance models for OSS communities; maybe they'll be helpful for folks.  

Thank you!

Looking at this now.

[Jessica Frazelle]

I like the questions and answers!!! Thanks for taking the time to do this!

[Brandon Philips]

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 9:49 PM Brendan Burns <brendan...@gmail.com> wrote:

We will then take these documents back to the community on approx. April 17 for one week of public commentary, followed by one week of 

revisions to address the comments, followed by a ratification vote by the committee two weeks following the initial public release of the documents.

Quick update:

The bootstrap team won't be able to meet the original April 17th date (today, eek!).

We have put together a series of full-day face-to-face meetings at the end of this month and early May to get these docs built and ready for review ASAP. 

So, we expect to have docs to share by Monday May 15th.

Brandon