►
From YouTube: CNCF SIG Contributor Strategy 2020-04-09
Description
CNCF SIG Contributor Strategy 2020-04-09
C
Seumas
never
figured
out
the
bug.
I
ran
into
somebody
else
from
CN
CF.
Who
actually
has
the
same
issue
and
they've
had
the
same
experience.
Do
we
can't
figure
out?
What's
going
on?
Oh
man,
like
I,
said.
The
weird
thing
is
like
I
did
a
search
of
my
entire
file
tree
and
that
string
does
not
exist.
Anyone
because
it's
not
random.
It's
consistently
the
same
string.
It's
like
it's
a
hash
of
my
name
or
something.
C
D
C
E
B
E
B
E
C
D
E
E
That's
sort
of
like
a
it's
pretty
much
a
high
level
of
you
know.
What
can
we
do
for
you
as
a
GB,
rep,
especially
stuff
that
you
were
trying
to
do
before?
We
were
a
thing
that,
like
is
contributor,
focused
that
we
can
either
take
co-owned
owned
whatever
kind
of
thing,
and
then
I
also
went
through
and
combed
your
dock.
As
far
as
like
the
older,
what
maintainer
is
need
dock
I
wanted
to
a
see
if
there
was
an
update
there
and
see.
If
you
looked
at
any
of
the
questions
that
were
on
there.
G
E
F
E
F
G
E
And
then,
while
you,
while
you
pull
that
out
for
context
for
folks
that
are
on
the
line
right
now,
Matt
is
a
GB
rep
I,
don't
want
to
speak
for
him.
You
can
tell
us
what
that
means
in
a
second,
but
the
thing
is
some
of
the
GB
reps.
Take
you
no
problems
and
issues,
and
things
like
that
to
the
Governing
Board
on
behalf
of
maintained,
errs
and
so
matt
has
this
like
really
cool,
already
bird's-eye
view,
so
just
Michelle
Nirali
into
like
kind
of
what
maintainer
czar
looking
for
from
projects.
C
F
E
F
F
So
I'm
going
to
be
perfectly
honest
in
saying
that
it's
very
hard
for
me
to
disentangle
all
all
three
of
those
roles,
so
some
of
my
answers
are
just
going
to
be
colored
by
the
fact
that
I
am
that
I'm
doing
all
you
know
all
those
things
from
the
DB
rep
perspective.
For
those
of
you
that
don't
know
the
CNC
F
essentially
has
a
you
know,
kind
of
a
few
different
branches.
F
If
you
will
there's
the
TOC,
which
is
doing
technical
leadership,
there's
the
staff
which
actually
runs
the
and
and
then
there's
the
governing
board,
which
you
know
you
can
think
of
it
like
a
board
of
directors.
You
know
they're
helping
to
define
budget
and
and
defined
strategy
and
those
those
types
of
things.
F
F
Are
they
not
asking
for
things
because
they
don't
need
anything
or
are
they
not
asking
for
things
because
don't
know
what
they
can
ask
for
or
they
don't
feel
that
if
they
ask
for
something
complicated,
it
would
actually
be
resolved.
So
you
know,
as
it
relates
to
this
group,
or
this
sake,
I
think
there
are
definitely
a
few
common
concerns
that
I
can
definitely
talk
to
that.
I
think
this
thing
could
absolutely
help
with
and
I'm
definitely
happy
to
go
into
those
or
we
can
go
through
specific
questions.
Paris,
whatever
I
think
is
best
I.
E
D
D
E
C
F
F
E
In
some
cases
you
know
obviously
others
have
more,
but
can
we
open
this
word
up
to
include
reviewers
approvers
people
that
are
like
making
changes,
person
things,
but
what
that
makes
sense
in
this
community
meaning
would
that
cause
any
kind
of
confusion
or
and
I'm
also
I'm,
also
interested
in
hearing
from
CN
CF?
Folks
on
that
too?
Just
because
I
know
that
naming
things
is
hard
like.
E
F
You
know,
III
think
that
there's
a
tension
here
in
the
sense
that
I
think
that
one
of
the
reasons
that
CN
CF
has
been
successful
is
that
it
doesn't.
It
doesn't
have
very
strict
requirements
in
terms
of
how
projects
actually
govern
themselves
and
I.
Don't
know
that
we
want
to
change
that,
but
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
this
sake
could
do
is,
to
the
extent
possible,
maybe
recommend
different
different
structures.
F
That
would
that
would
make
it
a
little
simpler
to
you
know
to
have
a
cookie
cutter
experience
if,
if
a
project
wants
right
and
and
I
think
we're
trying
to
do
that
across
different
SIG's
right,
so,
for
example,
it's
obviously
not
the
not
the
provenance
of
this
sig.
But
you
know
we
would
like
six
security
to
have
a
exemplars
security
process.
Right
that
you
know,
a
project
doesn't
have
to
choose
it,
but
it
would
be
recommended
that
they
do
so
so
I.
F
I
actually
have
a
lot
to
say
on
this
topic.
So
but
yes,
sorry
just
before
we
talk
about
that-
which
I
think
is
a
super
important
thing
to
talk
about,
I
just
wanted
to
finish
like
on
me.
What
is
the
maintainer
topic,
which
I
think
also
needs
some
clarification
and
I
think
that
would
be
a
very
helpful
thing
that
this
group
could
tackle.
E
B
A
A
D
A
D
But
you
know
like
having
steering
be
the
only
voices-
maybe
we
can
have
like
voting
officials
or
something
like
that
are
nominated
by
steering
right.
That
may
be
composed
of
sig
chairs.
Technically,
it's
sub
project
owners,
what-have-you
and
and
then
select
a
few
additional
of
them
because
you
see
other
projects
have
maybe
like
some
of
them
have
on.
You
know
upwards
of
20
people
right
and
not
everyone's
gonna
be
steering
member
and
not
everyone's
necessarily
gonna
become
an
owner
for
cake
community
which
I
think
have
been
kind
of
the
requirements
for
for
Tanner
ship
here.
E
I
want
a
sidebar,
the
kubernetes
conversation
though,
and
we
can
take
that
up
with
steering
because
I
think
a
lot
of
us
are
in
agreement
with
you,
Steven
so,
but
I
do
want
to
sidebar
that
for
kubernetes
business,
yeah
no
I
agree
I,
think
that
just
like,
for
instance,
I,
don't
want
to
miss
reviewers
in
the
maintainer
circle
and
I.
Think
reviewers
are
an
important
component
for
us
to
grow
within
the
project
to
become
approvers
and
the
people
that
ultimately
do
maintain
the
project.
E
So
that's
why
I
want
it
to
be
a
little
bit
more
inclusive,
but
I
also
don't
want
to
be
like
that's
not
the
right.
Well,
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
saying
the
right
thing.
I
know,
but
I'm
saying
what
I'm
trying
to
say
is
like
I:
don't
want
to
be
used
this
word
and
be
inclusive
and
then,
when
toç
voting
comes
around
people
think
that
they're
gonna
vote
so
I
guess
that's.
F
We're
already
seeing
that,
because
I
think
we're
I
think
we're
increasingly
seeing
projects
that
have
sub
projects.
This
is
coming
up
with
helm
like
it's
going
to
come
up
with
other
projects.
We
actually
have
this
situation
with
an
envoy
also
think
it's
moot,
because
we
have
sub
projects
so
I
mean
I,
appreciate
that
we
have
this
spreadsheet,
but
I
I
do
think
that
we're
all
in
agreement
that
I
think
this
sake
could
play
a
very
important
part
and
helping
to
better
clarify
this
situation.
F
E
E
Shopping
the
maintainer
definition
just
because
I
already
know
we're
gonna
have
issues
coming
up.
So
let's
continue
that
acing,
knowing
that
a
lot
of
us
are
in
agreement
that
we
need
to
figure
that
part
out
all
right
and
then
so
the
other
areas,
let's
get
into
the
governance
part
because
I
know
I,
know
Josh
wanted
to
get
into
that
and.
F
C
You
know
workflows
different
ways
that
people
can
select
owners
and
maintain
errs
across
different
projects.
The
you
know,
suggestions
on
how
to
hold
transparent
decision-making
meetings.
All
of
the
things
that
you
sort
of
need
for
successful,
open
community
project
governance
and
particularly
like
the
whole
reason
I
got
into
this
begin
with
is
we
have
quite
a
number
of
projects
within
the
çf
that
started
in
a
single
company.
They
want
to
make
them
multi
company
public
projects,
but
they're
not
really
sure
how
to
proceed.
C
F
Yeah
I
think,
from
my
perspective,
there's
a
couple
of
different
parts
of
this
I
think
we
really
do
have
to
dig
in
on
to
this
portion
of
the
graduation
requirement.
It's
a
it's
a
contentious
point.
It
comes
up
again
and
again
and
again
we're
seeing
this
right
now,
with
both
Nats
and
GRP,
see
both
both
come
to
mind
and
I.
Think
from
from
a
foundation
perspective,
I
think
the
you
know
this
is
obviously
partly.
F
This
is
partly
a
decision
that
the
TOC
is
going
to
have
to
make,
but
I
think
this
sig
will
play
a
huge
part
and
actually
helping
to
shape
that
conversation,
so
that
would
actually
be
one
of
my
highest
priority
things
to
help
with
is
to
try
to
drive
some
consensus
around
how
all
we
want
to
handle
the
maintainer
diversity
requirement
and
and
by
maintainer
diversity,
I'm.
Obviously
talking
about
multi
organization
or
multi
company
I
think
that's
part,
one
and
I
think
that's
probably
the
most
urgent,
because
that
is
causing
some
consternation
right
now.
I
think.
F
The
second
part
is
that,
as
part
of
the
incubation
requirements,
and
especially
as
part
of
the
graduation
requirements,
there's
this
nebulous
requirement
of
a
quote
healthy
community
right,
and
that
is
fully
subjective
and
I.
Think
like
we're
asking
sakes
to
do
technology
reviews,
I
really
would
love
this
sake
to
whenever
any
project
goes
up
for
either
incubation
or
graduation,
I
love
it
to
do
a
community
health
assessment
right
and
having
some
rigor
around
that
rubric,
it
will
be
very
helpful
because
this
is
so
so
subjective
and
I.
F
It
frustrates
me
when
we
put
up
these
slides
and
it's
like
I
have
so
many
darker
downloads
or
github
stars
or
whatever
like
these
are
not
like.
These
are
not
real
real
metrics.
So
so
it's
like
this
group
helping
with
that
rubric
like
super
super
useful
and
then
just
last
thing.
That
I
would
say
is
part.
Three
is
I.
Think
a
lot
of
maintainer
of
projects
want
to
increase
their
community
health
right.
It's
like
they
want
more
maintainer,
but
they
don't
know
what
to
do
so.
Part
three
is
which
is
some
sense.
F
The
hardest
part
is
through
maintainer
circle.
Ma
we've
talked
in
other
calls
about
like
job
boards,
and
you
know
there's
lots
of
things
they
can
do
from
a
sig
perspective.
To
me,
part
three
is:
how
do
we
help
people
get
get
more
maintainer,
so
I
think
those
are
the
three
things
probably
in
priority
order
that
are.
That
would
be
the
most
important
to
me
for.
C
However,
Red
Hat
has
internally
a
community
health
measurement
thing,
so
one
of
the
other
things
that
I
can
actually
do
right
away
is
put
our
thing
in
the
repo
so
that,
yes,
somebody
can
get
to
measuring
the
other
parts
of
community
health.
You
know
how
do
you
measure
it?
How
do
you
improve
the
various
dimensions
before
I
can
get
to
it?
They
could
actually
have
that
as
contributing
material.
C
D
So
my
this
kind
of
leans
into
my
suggestion
of
having
the
I
mean
some
of
the
stuff
that
we,
some
of
the
stuff
we're
gonna,
want
to
keep
in
cig,
contributor
strategy
or
repo,
but
there's
also
the
contribute,
repo,
that's
probably
more
visible.
So
I
was
thinking
of
like
a
what
does
a
community
repo
look
like
like
kubernetes
community
repo
look
like
in
CN
CF
land.
D
E
C
E
F
H
D
Think
it's
I
think
I
think
as
long
as
the
provenance
of
these
resources
is
clear
and
that
we're
saying
that
this
is
not
our
guidance
necessarily
if
we
have
if
we
have
a
doc.
That
says
like
this
is
our
guidance
for
community
health
assessments
and
and
and
governance
models,
and
all
that
stuff
that
is
born
from
these
documents
that
are
clearly
linked
out
to
where
they
come
from.
I.
C
E
E
I'm
not
saying
there
were
droughts
that
we
play,
but
it's
an
issue.
It's
just
that
I
know
how
these
things
go
and
like
we
say
that
it's
only
seven
of
us
right
now,
but
when
we
get
kicking
and
things
get
like
you
know,
whatever
I
mean
it's
a
it's
an
easy
question
for
somebody
to
ask
us:
why
is
there
only
redhead
documentation
in
this
resource
thing
or
whatever
so
I,
don't
know?
F
E
Yeah
and
I
might-
and
my
thing
is
to
I'm
like
I,
just
think
that
people
are
gonna,
see
resources
as
resources
for
them
and
they're
gonna
be
poking
around
in
our
stuff
and,
like
the
media
does
too
and
like
I,
think
like
if
we
do
have
a
resources
folder,
please
just
include
a
readme
that
says
these
are
not.
This
is
not
our
guidance,
etc,
etc.
E
So
that
people
are
extremely
clear
about
that,
but
I
agree
like
I
was
going
to
also
bring
up
that
we
needed
a
like
a
doc
with
like
links
and
stuff
like
that
for
us.
So
yes,
it's
needed.
I,
just
don't
know
just
from
a
perception
standpoint.
I
don't
want
folks
to
to
go
that
way,
all
right
Josh.
Should
you
have
any
more
governing
stuff
that
you
wanted
to
address
with
Matt,
specifically
no.
C
E
G
F
Maintainer
diversity,
the
community
health
and
and
and
like
I,
was
saying
before
having
some
rubric,
which
is
slightly
more
defined,
and
the
literally
random
got
check
that
that
we
use
right
now,
because
that
is
honestly
what
happens
right
now?
It's
a
bunch
of
us
just
like
eyeball
some
stuff
and
say
as
a
healthy,
and
we
use
our
own
completely
subjective
measure
of
that.
G
Content
kind
of
spread
out,
like
you
mentioned
people,
were
putting
up
github
stars,
for
example,
and
there's
the
only
reason
people
do.
That
is
because
there
isn't
a
template
that
says
totally
like
Arthur.
No,
it's
a
PR,
but
whatever
this
is
what
it
should
look
like,
and
so
you
look
at
a
previous
one
and
then
you
go
okay!
Well,
someone
else
had
stars
all
these
stars.
There's
been
open
issue
for
months
about
having
a
template
and
there
isn't
one
yet
and
like
that's
something
that
we
should.
We
should
take
on
then
and
go.
G
In
addition
to
a
doctor's
and
a
couple,
other
things
then
like
I,
don't
have
like
they
don't
have
a
home
now.
So
if
you
say
that
it's
part
of
our
charter,
then
I
think
we
should
kind
of
like
grab
some
of
those
other
stragglers
that
are
people
have
said
they
want
to
do,
and
everyone
has
been
searching
for
for
months
because,
like
there's,
been
turn
and
kind
of
bring
it
in
and
like
make
it
part
of
our
wheelhouse
yeah.
D
So,
let's,
let's
pick
it
up,
I
see
the
I,
see
the
you
know
some
of
what
we're
doing
funneling
into
okay.
We
make
it
easier
for
SIG's
SIG's
to
do
their
due
diligence
that
eventually
escalates
to
TOC
and
then
becomes
you
know,
does
or
doesn't
become
a
project.
I
would
also
say
that
there's
a
lot
of
I
think
that
the
TOC
list
is,
is
the
fun
place
for
chatter,
about
of
how
some
of
these
things
function?
D
And
you
know
as
someone
who's
like
we're
working
on
submitting
Dex,
as
you
know,
for
for
sandbox
right
now
and
I
jumped
around,
like
a
million
pages
trying
to
figure
out
like
how
I
was
supposed
to
do
it.
I
open
an
issue
and
me
was
like
hold
on:
can
you
do
it
as
a
PR
and
and
and
and
then
got
point
pointed
to
a
separate?
E
E
All
right
and
then
like
on
the
template
in
front,
we
can
also
do
contributor
guides
and
things
under
like
the
contributor
growth
working
group.
That's
like
super,
like
I,
don't
want
to
use
the
word
easy,
I'm,
saying
easy
for
us
on
the
line.
A
lot
of
us
have
done,
contributor
guides
and
things
like
that.
Meaning
easy
for
us
to
populate
like
good
templates
and
resources,
and
things
like
that
and
then
I
did
want
to
take
a
note.
You
have
obviously
CI
and
CI
being
expensive
and
you're
like
what
maintainer
x'
want.
C
F
D
E
That's
why
I
think
we
need
to
get
all
of
our
working
groups
up
with
read
Me's
get
all
of
our
documentation
in
order
before
we
open
the
gates,
because
once
we
have
been
the
gates,
y'all
know
how
it
works
like
people
are
gonna,
be
like
gimme
an
object
or
give
me
a
task,
and
then
you're
like
here's.
This
ambiguous
thing
over
here
so
we'll
be
like
having
our
own
meta
issues
that
the
rest
of
the
projects
alright
I,
think.
Is
it
for
my
questions
with
Matt?
Does
anybody
else
have
Matt
related
gb,
rep
questions.
D
A
general
thank
you
you're
doing
a
whole
bunch
and
across
a
bunch
of
different
groups,
and
I
saw
like
when
you
were
when
you
were
up
I,
guess
applying,
or
you
know
the
4,
4,
GB
and
and
all
the
stuff
that
you
said
around
wanting
to
make
the
community
better.
So
so,
thank
you
for
the
work
that
you've
been
doing
already
all.
F
I,
don't
think
so
I
mean
again.
This
is
an
area
that
I'm
personally
passionate
about.
So
my
my
suggestion
is
what
we
were
saying
before
is
I
think
the
group
will
be
more
effective
if
we
pick
a
small
set
of
things
and
try
to
actually
do
them
right.
So
you
know
I,
think
like
starting
on
a
you
know
like
a
a
what
what
is
done
list
or
something
along
those
line
like
what.
What
does
success
mean?
F
E
F
E
F
There
there
are
things
even
from
the
conference
perspective,
that
I
would
love
to
do
which
we
don't
do
right
now,
it's
right.
It's
like,
for
example,
Wyatt
coupe
con.
Do
we
not
have
a
maintainer
happy
hour,
slash
meet-ups
lunch,
slaps
breakfast
or
something
like
that
right
I
mean
it's
just
there's
such
low-hanging
fruit
here
in
terms
of
getting
some
of
these
people
to
actually
talk
to
each
other
that
we're
not
doing
right
now,
so
I
feel
like
this
group
can
drive
some
of
some
of
those
things
in
terms
of
mailing
lists
and
meetups
and
yeah.
E
All
right,
yeah
we've
got
that's
one
I'm,
taking
some
notes
too.
All
right,
yeah
we've
got
a
ton
and
I
think
our
it
sound
I
think
our
crew
right
now.
Does
anybody
on
the
line
and
feel
like
they
have
no
idea
what
to
do
next,
because
I
think
right
now
we
want
to
launch
some
of
these
working
groups.
Officially
get
some
of
that
stuff
kicked
off.
I
know:
we've
got
some
kick
smaller
kickoff
meetings
with
like
the
end
user
stuff
and
with
contributor
growth
like
Carolyn
and
Karen.
E
So
we'll
kick
those
off
next
week
and
then
I
may
be
in
there
in
our
smaller
working
groups.
We
can
talk
about
what
done
looks
like
for
each
of
us
and
then
come
together
in
the
next
two
weeks
at
the
next
two
weeks
meeting
and
talk
about
some
of
them
are
first
deliverables,
Zack
well
with
everybody
I.
E
E
E
B
F
B
E
I
think
the
only
the
only
issue
that
we've
had
to
date
is
just
the
fact
that
they're
called
other
things
in
other
project
that
kind
of
flag
discrepancy.
It's
like
I
agree
with
you
and
like
if
you're
clear
with
someone
and
what
the
hell
it
is,
do
it,
but
like
I,
think
that
might
also
be
a
cause
for
like
a
reason
why
the
things
that
the
CNCs
level
have
not
had
you
know-
or
you
know
the
folks
that
are
saying
that
they
don't
have
enough.
You
know
folks
and
they're,
helping
them.
E
I'm
wondering
it's
just
if
there's
this
just
general
confusion
around
the
term
seeing
and
what
the
heck
I
stick
does
stuff
like
that
at
the
CN
CF
level.
By
the
way,
that's
so
anyway,
that
was
my
bike.
Sean,
I'm
and
I
say
so:
contributor
growth,
folks,
fYI,
there's
a
doodle
in
the
slack
I'll
put
a
doodle
on
the
mailing
list
as
well
and
use
our
folks.
We
are
sort
of
on
pause
ish,
but
we
should
meet
anyway.
That's
your
and
Steven,
and
he
been
in
governance
Josh.