Updates : Governance & CNCF

Identify the following before beginning your session. Do not move forward until these are decided / assigned:

  • Session Topic: Updates : Governance & CNCF
  • Topic Facilitator(s): Brian Grant, Google & Brandon Philips, CoreOS
  • Note-taker(s) (Collaborating on this doc): Jason Singer DuMars, Nilay Yener
  • Person responsible for converting to Markdown & uploading to Github: nyener@

Session Notes


BGrant: Please do not rathole on minutiae, but please comment on the governance documents, we need to understand that this formalizes the escalation path B Philips: Steering committee is focused on watching the details

Q: Vertical is vertical in the diagram? A: Bgrant: we need to understand how cross-cutting decisions are made and organized

Q: Aaron C: Escalation should be clearly defined A: BGrant: We want each SIG to have a formal charter for responsibility and authority + scope

Q: Aparna: Definition of what a SIG is? A: Def of what a SIG can cover and what it is, steering committee oversees new SIGs, need to resolve overlap BGrant: Every identifiable part of the project needs a SIG owner

Q: Criteria for level of activity? A: Yes

Q: ETune: is the steering committee deciding what a Kubernetes component is A: yes, but not the bootstrap

Q: What is the responsibilities of SIG to communicate with other SIGs? A: This is a very large item of discussion and out of scope

Q: R Hirschfeld: How do we handle cross-cutting concerns? i.e. Operations / tie-breaking authority in the steering committee? A: Working groups, SIGs etc can do it, but we need to figure that out / yes, e.g. the supreme court Please read the docs Q: Examples of working groups? Would snapshots be one? A: jobs, internationalization ETune: it’s a mailing list + sharing the activities

Bgrant: the eligibility for voting is wrong, we know it, and part of this is increasing inclusivity Comments until 615, in place by 81 ~ need to build tools and mechanisms for voting, need help with this

Need help with this process, this is a big hurdle for CNCF graduation BGrant is on the CNCF technical oversight committee, meetings Tuesdays 8am PST

Steering Committee Nominations - get notified : https://goo.gl/bQBQMu

Q: Aparna: CNCF has been offering training, governing board meeting wanted to mention “CNCF has no ambition to interfere with the community, CNCF is willing to devote as much as possible” A:

Q: Same guidelines as the Linux foundation? A: 2 Kubernetes seats, one the first year

Q: Aaron C: CNCF doesn’t define the how but what? A: There are some bars, but not that many requirements. Can be discovered on the site and in the charter. V 1.0 of the graduation criteria is out. CoC needs to be re-written.

Election by 813

Q: Aaron C: How do we formalize for 1.8? A: Bootstrap committee and SIGs until the full committee is formed, Not a clear definition of feature size, and that needs to evolve, need people to chip in Lazy consensus worked for 1.6 decision making, so we should continue that for now Decide here that 1.8 is stabilization, finishing things, need to get everything GA this year

Q: Do we skip features lined up for 1.8 and move to 1.9? A: The stabilization work will help this

Q: Where do we handle this today? Steering committee needs to intervene when necessary Resource gaps need to be addressed Aaron C: First thing a SIG needs to do is formalize what a SIG owns Need to create a charter template ASAP then give SIGs time to come up with charter All project pieces need to be categorized as owned by some SIG


Key Takeaways / Analysis of Situation

Recommendations & Decisions Moving Forward (High-Level)

Specific Action Items (& Owners)

Link to original doc