►
From YouTube: CNCF SIG Contributor Strategy Governance WG 2021-02-02
Description
CNCF SIG Contributor Strategy Governance WG 2021-02-02
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
A
B
Yeah,
the
so
okay,
so
I'll
do
that.
There's
gonna
be
a
bit
of
a
delay
in
approving
that
anyway,
because
for
our
sort
of
advisory
procedure
we
need
our
two
toc
liaisons
to
approve
it
to
go
on
the
website,
not
that
the
website
is
live
yet
yeah.
Currently
we
only
have
one
toc
liaison
because
matt
just
retired
from
the
toc,
so
I
need
to
recruit
a
new
second
toc
liaison
before
anything's
going
to
get
approved,
but
I'll
go
ahead
and
get
that
merged.
B
B
Yeah
so
we'll
we'll
have
three
maintain
your
council
elected
central
steering
committee
and-
and
you
know,
sub-projects
those
were
the
three
generics
I
could
think
of.
I
feel
like
any
other
form
of
governance.
I've
seen
was
fairly
specific
and
and
not
really
genericizable,
but
I
might
have
missed
something.
B
C
A
A
Then
yeah
on
the
defined
cadence
for
for
leadership,
one
that
one
was
a
little
bit.
I
don't
know.
I
feel
like
that
one's
a
little
complicated
because
it's
like,
if
you're,
if
you
just
have
like
a
couple
of
maintainers,
if
you're
a
small
project
like
you,
don't
necessarily
need
like
an
annual
cadence.
B
B
Okay,
let
me
tell
you
what
I'm
addressing
here,
which
is
specifically,
we
had
a
cncf
sandbox
project
in
which
one
of
the
governance
positions
was
for
life
and
I'm
you
know,
and
this
is
actually
what
triggered
me
on
hey.
We
need
a
definition
of
open
governance
because
they
were
like
well.
How
is
that
not
open
and
and
so
even
for
a
small
project
that
is
led
by
maintainers?
B
B
But
but
like,
I
feel
that
if
a
project
has
somebody
who
is
affected
de
facto
appointed
for
life,
because
there
is
nothing
in
the
governance
that
says
that
their
status
as
leader
ever
gets
reviewed,
then
that
is
not
open
governance,
because
that
person
can
retain
that
leadership
position.
Long
after
they've
stopped
contributing
to
the
project.
B
A
B
Yeah,
I
kind
of
feel
like
an
actual
period,
has
to
be
defined
in
the
governance,
because
you
don't
necessarily
say
this
person's
a
leader
for
life.
You
may
just
not
set
any
elections.
If
you
follow
me
that
is
yeah,
you
could
have
elected
leaders,
but
if
there
is
no
regular
schedule
of
elections,
then
they're
not
actually
elected.
B
So
just
I
feel
like
yeah,
because
I
understand
where
you
came
from
on
that,
seeing
the
word
replacement,
and
so
I
think
you
just
need
to
have
a
different
word
that
understands
that
hey,
you
know
there
needs
to
be
defined
cycle
for
leadership
changes
and
those
changes
might
result
in
re-electing
or
re-selecting
or
re-promote.
You
know
or
retaining
the
same
people,
but
they
have
to
be
at
least
reviewed,
and
there
has
to
be
an
opportunity
for
them
to
step
down
or
be
no
longer
leaders.
I.
A
A
C
A
B
B
D
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
D
B
D
So
I
just
as
one
caveat
there,
I
was
not
part
of
like
the
selection
or
or
even
because
who
were
considering
for
the
steering
committee
so
yeah
the
so
my
understanding
of
the
basic
idea
behind
the
end
user
concept.
Is
we
get
a
lot
of
folks
who
companies
who
are
who
have
been
part
of
the
community
longer
for
a
very
long
time,
and
so
we
value
their
input.
We
they've
made
contributions
in
the
past,
which
makes
some
contributors
as
well.
D
As
I
should
say,
their
companies
have
been
contributors
in
the
past,
so
you
know
they're
people
who
are
using
linker
d
in
ways
that
we
think
are
representative
of
the
way
that
people
would
need
to
use
a
service
mesh
they're
solving
those
problems
in
their
production
environments
with
the
service.
So
again,
that's
my
take
on
it.
D
D
D
B
Yeah
the
yeah,
I
have
to
say
I
was
looking
at
it
and
I
was
seeing
because
we
have
a
number
of
projects
that
have
not
gotten
a
lot
of
multi-vendor
participation
in
the
projects
right
and
have
struggled
with
ways
to
effectively
find
leadership
positions
for
their
users,
yeah
yeah,
and
so
this
was
very
interesting.
For
that
reason,.
D
D
B
D
A
The
I
am
curious
how
this
works
with
other
other
leadership
within
the
linker
d
project.
So
I
I'll
admit
that
I'm
not
super
familiar
with
how
your
leadership
is
structured.
But
how
does
how
does
the
steering
committee,
given
that
it's
more
end
user
focused?
How
does
it
interact
with
the
other
other
parts
of
the
library
leadership.
D
That's
a
good
question
again.
A
lot
of
this
development
of
the
steering
committee
in
this
election
happened
with
through
conversations
that
william
and
oliver
had
with
folks
in
the
community.
So
I
don't
have
details
on
how
that
particular
decision
was
made,
or
even
I
assume
that
their
interactions
are
are
up
until
tomorrow
have
been
pretty
informal
lots
of
emails
and
slack.
But
again,
I'm
just
speculating.
A
This
is
really
different
than
a
typical
steering
committee,
which
would
have,
I
don't
know,
would
sort
of
oversee
decisions
made
by
individual
maintainers.
But
this
is
this
is
different
because
it's
it's
end
users,
so
obviously
they're
not
going
to
be
the
decision
makers
over
like
the
maintainer
decision
making
yeah.
It
sounds
like
sort
of
two
different
paths:
yeah.
B
For
I
mean
I
was
thinking
about
this
in
terms
of
certain
other
projects,
and
I
was
thinking
if
you
were
to
sign
in
end
user
council.
You
know
of
whatever
kind,
whether
you
call
it
a
steering
committee
or
not
authoritative,
decision
making
over
something.
The
obvious
thing
would
be
compliance
and
scope
right,
because
obviously,
users
care
pretty
deeply
about
what
is
defined
as
canonical
project
x
and
what
isn't
the
are
going
to
be
somewhat
knowledgeable
in
the
area
compared
to
their
knowledge
of
oh
hey.
B
B
A
A
But
this
is
really
interesting.
I
mean
I
think
this
is
a
really
interesting
way
to
get
end
users
more
involved
and
more.
How
do
I
say
like
basically
skin
in
the
game
with
the
project,
and
so
I
think
it's
I
do
think
it's
really
interesting,
I'm
just
I'm
just
poking
at
it,
just
because
I'm
curious
to
understand
how
the
pieces
fit
together,
but
but
I
do
think
it's
really
interesting.