►
From YouTube: CNCF SIG Contributor Strategy Governance WG 2020-12-08
Description
CNCF SIG Contributor Strategy Governance WG 2020-12-08
B
D
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
So
now
that
we're
past
kubecon,
we
should
really
go
back
to
finishing
up
all
of
the
paperwork
for
projects,
particularly
because
we
now
have
a.
We
are
about
to
have
a
publication
avenue
which
we'll
discuss
in
the
next
thing.
So
there
is
a
whole
list
of
things
that
we
said
that
we
should
probably
have
some.
G
B
So
some
of
those
are
done.
Some
of
those
are
not
done,
even
if
somebody
already
put
there
if
you
have
an
impulse
to
write
one
of
those,
even
if
somebody
put
their
name
next
to
it,
feel
free
to
ping
them
and
say
hey.
Are
you
actually
working
on
this,
because
some
of
those
names
got
put
next
to
those
items
like
months
ago
and
people's
lives
have
changed.
B
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
D
B
That,
okay,
for
more
of
this
we've,
been
working
on
templates
for
projects
again,
we've
got
a
basic
maintainer
circle:
governance
structure,
basic
steering
committee,
election
governance
structure.
Up
there
to
do
on
governance
structures
is
governance
by
subproject
I'll
throw
it
again.
I
think
I
threw
this
out
last
meeting
though,
and
the
answer
was
no,
whether
or
not
anybody
has
a
good
example
for
this
because
well,
I
can
definitely
come
up
with
a
synthetic
template
for
the
structure.
I
would
rather
base
it
off
something
that
is
actually
being
used.
B
The
couple
of
projects
that
I
know
that
are
effectively
governanced
by
subprojects
also
have
a
bunch
of
weird
complications
and,
as
a
result,
do
not
make
for
good
template
material
the.
So
if
anybody
knows
somebody
who
is
doing
governance
by
sub
projects
where
it
is
structurally
simple
simple,
it
would
be
good,
otherwise
I'll
keep
clicking
through
vicky's
archive
and
see.
If
I
actually
come
across
something.
H
F
So
again,
this
so
is
not
it's
not
technically
the
preferred
way
of
doing
things
so
cncf
both
encourage
projects
to
use
either
way,
but
from
our
experience
of
running
front
end
the
foundation
for
like
five
years.
Most
of
our
projects
are
using
dco.
Now
also,
as
far
as
I
remember,
we
have
samsung
defined
in
cncf
charter
and
so
give
me
a
minute,
I'm
gonna.
I
can
try
to
find
something.
B
C
I
mean
definitely,
I
think
it's
definitely
worth
putting
something
out
there,
because
I
think
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
people
don't
understand
the
difference
between
the
two
and
if
we
have
a
preference
for
one
we
should.
We
should
state
that
if
there
are
certain
conditions,
like
you
know,
if
you've
always
used
the
cla
in
the
past
for
the
project,
maybe
you
should
continue
to
use
one,
and
I
think
some
of
that
would
be
helpful
for
people,
because
there
are
a
lot
of
people
who
really
don't
know
what
a
bco
is.
C
B
So
before
we
even
go
to
the
templates,
that's
actually
something
that
is
in
our
to-do
list
of
advisory
documents,
which
is
you
know,
you're
required
to
adopt
the
cncfip
policy.
What
does
that
materially
look
like,
and
I
think
that
would
be
the
appropriate
place
to
get
into
discussion
of?
What's
a
dco
versus
a
cla?
Why
would
you
need
to
adopt
either
one
so
yeah,
probably
before
a
template?
We
need
to
do
that.
F
D
C
B
As
in
because
elsewhere
we
have
doc
cncf's
documentation,
saying
that
apache
2.0
is
preferred,
but
not
required,
and
here
it
says
that
apache
2.0
is
required
unless
you
get
dispensation
from
the
governing
board.
So
that's
kind
of
conflicting
advice
from
the
cncf
and
one
of
those
things
that
we
need
to
get
clarification
on.
B
B
F
It
would
be
great
to
find
it
and
clarify
again
what
is
defined
in
the
charter
is
basically
the
the
real
source
of
truth
of
what
we're
doing
here.
Okay,
so
if
there's
anything
that
is
kind
of
mismatching,
the
words
that
are
defining
each
other,
so
the
the
different
body
is
to
be
updated,
so
it
would
be
great
yeah.
It
would
be
great
to
find.
B
Okay,
yeah,
and
I
mean
the
other
thing-
is
that's
also
nowhere
in
the
so
you
want
to
join
the
cncf
stuff
like,
like
I
mean
literally
what
I
just
read
in
the
foundation
repo.
That
is
the
only
place
that
is
so.
It
would
be
important
for
us
to
add
that
to
like
the
paperwork
checklist
to
say,
hey
are
you
apache
2.0?
If
you're
not
apache
2.0,
can
you
become
apache
2.0?
If
you
can't
become
apache,
2.0
you're
going
to
need
to
apply
to
the
governing
board
to
be
under
a
different
license?
B
B
F
I'm
not
sure,
let
me
let
me
recheck
that,
but
basically
we
do
not
recommend
cla
as
a
as
a
primary.
It's
a
primary
way
of
providing
eternity
to
your
mitzvah.
We
had
a
different
request
from
from
the
different
projects
who
were
asking
us
like.
How
can
I
sign
up?
How
can
I
bootstrap
the
cla
and
the
cla
system,
but
essentially
most
of
them
did
not
need
them
and
they
ended
up
with
just
using
dco.
So
dco
is
a
good
alternative
and
it's
way
simpler
to
use
it.
Okay,.
B
Yes,
and
and
does
not
require
constant
troubleshooting
by
the
cncf
staff,
when
people's
auto
signatures
on
github
are
not
accepted,
the
so
okay,
and
that
would
be
important
thing
to
collect
okay,
so
it
sounds
like
overall.
The
big
question
is
it
sounds
like
we
want
to
get
all
this
in
place,
both
with
the
ip
document
and
templatize.
The
dco
example
we're
not
going
to
templatize
the
cla
example,
because.
B
B
B
G
I
am
thinking
that
we
should
continue
the
badging
stuff
and
really
create
taxonomies
from
the
badging
so
that
we
can
start
to
make
some
sense
of
things
and
not
have
people
run
around
in
circles,
because
I
think
there
is
multiple
ways
of
running
a
community
and
I
think
nadia
proved
that
in
research
through
her
book.
So
my
thing
is:
let's
look
at
and
do
an
in-depth
dive
into
like
what
it
would
look
like
to
have
taxonomies
for
our
communities
here
like
could
we
take
nadia's?
G
G
This
is
really
more
of
a
discussion
topic
honestly,
a
much
larger
discussion
topic,
but
I
really
feel
like
this
is
the
glue
that
we
need
to
making
these
conversations
better
instead
of
having
people
just
say:
oh
well,
you
know
not
every
project
wants
to
be
kubernetes
like
this
is
what
they're
trying
to
say,
and
it's
like
the
debate
of.
Oh,
is
this
open
source?
It's
like?
G
And
you
know
I
don't
know
just
things
like
that,
and
I
think
that
badging
would
really
really
really
help
this.
So
I'm
just
kind
of
ready
to
kick
it
in
gear
and
continue
to
work
on
on
the
proposal
that
dims
had
initially
outlined
with
some
of
the
stuff
from
from
openstack
and
kind
of
elevate
that
further
to
see
what
it
would
look
like
for
us
to
explore
that
world.
B
Okay,
we'd
actually
talk
more
about
attaching
the
badges
to
things
that
were
due
diligence
or
entry
requirements.
If
you
follow
me,
yeah
and
the,
although
some
things
like
general
form
of
governance,
wouldn't
be
a
bad
thing
to
have
in
cases
where,
where
it's
sort
of
clearly
defined
right,
because
it's
not
bad
like
if
you're
about
to
start
contributing
to
a
project.
B
G
G
I
feel
like
that's
kind
of
the
like
the
granular
stuff,
that
we
should
really
like
suss
out
and
then,
for
instance,
like
tie
them
to
maturation.
So
does
that
mean
that
when
you
graduate
a
project
here
that
you
have
to
be
a
federation
and
nadia
describes
a
federation
as
as
kubernetes?
So
it's
like?
Does
that
mean
that
every
graduated
process
needs
to
be
a
federation
and
have
that
classification
of
things?
G
G
G
You
see
what
I'm
saying
so
like
that's.
That's
the
like
the
idea
here,
because
it's
just
like
right
now,
they're
just
like.
Oh
that
project
isn't
going
to
like.
You
know,
work
well
in
cncf
and
people
are
like
why
not
and
there's
just
no
real,
like
definitive
reasons
right.
It's
just
a
lot
of
safe
back
and
forth,
but
if
we
could
make
that
statement
like
hey,
unfortunately,
toys
y'all
are
very
open
source.
B
G
So
that's
where
that's
where
the
taxonomies
are
gonna
break
in.
So
it's
just
like
birds
right,
there's,
like
you
know,
tons
of
hummingbirds,
but
then
it's
like
hummingbird
with
the
big
beak
underneath
and
then
hummingbird
with
with
the
with
the
yellow
back
like
that's
exactly
what
this
would
be
like
federation
with
a
steering
committee
federation
with
you
know,
federation
with
a
multi,
multi-company
project
federation.
G
You
know
that's
that
would
be
the
badge,
so
the
badge
would
be
federation,
this
federation
that
and
then
we
would
all
be
star
trek
and
it
would
be
so
much
cooler.
So
that's
my
pitch.
I
don't
know
if
y'all
like
it
or
not.
So
if,
if
you
would
like,
I
would
like
to
continue
this
work.
I'd
also
am
asking
that
too,
because
if
it's
not
necessarily
something
that
would
be
worthwhile,
I
might
not
work
on
it.
So
what
do
you
think?
C
A
mute,
I
don't
have
any
strong
feelings
by
the
way.
I
don't
think
about
this.
I
think
I
think
it's
nice
to
have
the
badging,
but
it's
not
something
that
I'm
particularly
particularly
passionate
about.
It
would
be
worth
cycling
back
with
jim's
I
mean
because
he
you
know
he
kind
of
kicked
all
of
this
off
yeah
no.
G
E
G
It
yep
dennis
is
also
excited
about
it.
I
just
would
like
to
curb
all
the
conversations
that
are
going
on
for
like
the
last
year
about
what
is
isn't
open
source
and
what
is
and
isn't
a
cncf
project,
and
I
really
think
this
would
this
would
tackle
that.
I
genuinely
think
so
because
that
I
also
get
a
lot
of
crap
from
people
who
are
like
pierce.
You
just
want
to
turn
everything
into
kubernetes,
and
that
is
false.
G
I
just
would
like
to
go
on
record
and
say
that
so
so
I
feel
like
that
would
also
prove
a
point
that,
yes,
I
resp
like
we
all.
We
all
respect
all
open
source
here.
It
just
might
not
necessarily
be
a
fit
for
cncf's
principles
and
resources,
and
things
like
that.
So
that's
where
I'm
coming
from
here.
Charles,
thank
goodness
like
you,
your
hair,
is
looking
great.
I
don't
know
what
you're
talking
about
I'm
freaking,
I'm
freaking
cute,
like
I'm
like.
G
G
A
G
G
G
E
A
A
B
Simply
because,
like
everything
else
aside,
the
overhead
is
much
lower,
yeah,
the
so
because,
like
with
dco,
you
can
do
the
thing
where
you
have
agreement
by
implication
right
where
you
just
have
a
bot
say:
hey,
you
know,
unless
if,
since
you
submitted
this
request,
you're
saying
that
you
agree
to
our
dco,
so
if
you
don't
you
better
look
at
it
the,
whereas
you
really
can't
do
that
with
the
cla
with
the
cla,
you
have
to
have
the
whole
sign
off
process,
which
has
has
never
not
been
a
pain
for
kubernetes.
I'll.
C
B
End
user
for
promotion
criteria
that
would
go
into
our
advisories
nobody's
currently
working
on
that
portion
of
the
advisories.
It's
in
a
long
checklist
of
documents
that
we
haven't
finished.
I
never
had
any
objections
to
making
that
definition
clearer.
The
and
the
other
one
is
the
multi-organization
requirement.
B
B
C
Oh,
my
god
that
was
a
disaster.
You
hear
us
for
being
one
of
the
only
people
who
stuck
around
now,
we
actually
did
get
a
couple
of
people
who
stuck
around,
but
oh
my
god.
It
was
a
comedy
of
errors.
They
had
the
wrong
video,
they
couldn't.
They
couldn't
upload
a
new
video,
because
the
drama
doesn't
work
that
way
they
couldn't.
G
Y'all
were
like
you
know
what
we're
gonna
stick
through
it.
So
no
I
liked
it
and
other
people
sat
through
with
you,
so
I
felt
I
felt
like
that
was
like
the
testament
that,
like
people
really
like
you
know,
josh
already
said
that
at
another
meeting
like
that
was
like
a
testament
that,
like
the
content
that
we're
trying
to
serve,
is
relevant
so
yeah.
H
C
Yeah,
I
I
don't
know
I
feel,
like
I
say.
No,
I'm
sorry
go
ahead.
I
was
gonna
say
I
feel
like
we
should
find
some
other
way
to
represent
the
contributor
strategy,
sig
and
or
the
governance
working
group
to
I
don't
know,
do
something.
That's
gonna,
maybe
maybe
help
more
people,
because
I
think
that
you
know
the
q
a
is
great
for
the
few
people
to
show
up
and
ask
and
have
those
specific
questions
yeah.
C
C
C
C
C
Yeah,
I
wouldn't
pitch
it
as
an
intro
to
contribute
strategy
saying
I
would
pitch
it.
As
you
know,
some
something
around
you
know
here
are
the
templates.
Here
are
the
guides,
here's
all
the
things
you
need
and
walk
people
through
the
process.
I'm
not
articulating
myself
very
well,
it's
getting
late,
I'm
getting
sleepy.
I
have
one
more
reading.
D
C
B
B
G
So
that's
why
I've
been
trying
to
advocate
hard
as
hell
to
like
redo
the
maintainer
track
entirely,
because
I
think,
like
new
world
order,
requires
that
and
I'm
just
I
don't
know
if,
like
we,
can
all
band
together
and
talk
to
the
chairs
about
that.
But
I
really
think
it
would
be
best
serve
for
our
maintainers
to
have
contributor
summit
related
content
that
would
they
would
be
served
normally
on
the
maintainer
track,
it's
kind
of
like
what
we
would
serve
at
a
maintainer
circle.
B
C
G
G
Especially
to
have
that
recorded
on
the
internet
forever,
that's
what
I
mean.
I
mean
I'm
not
forever,
but
you
know
what
I
mean
yeah.
I
think
that's
that's
the
value.
In
my
opinion,
it's
like
the
recording
so
like
any
artifact
that
you
would
get
out
of.
It
would
be
more
than
like
a
maintainer
circle.
Artifact.