►
Description
CNCF SIG Contributor Strategy Contributor Growth WG 2020-09-29
A
A
B
A
B
No
well
so
I
started
planning
like
really
last
minute
to
yellowstone,
because
I've
been
wanting
to
go
this
whole
summer
and
just
like,
haven't
planned
anything,
and
now
it's
like
oh,
like.
If
I
want
to
go,
I
have
to
go
soon
because
everything's
gonna
be
closed
for
the
season,
so
I
think
we're
planning
something
towards
like
the
second
half
of
october
and
I
won't
get
back
until
like
the
day
of
halloween,
so
yeah
but
halloween
starts
like
now.
A
B
B
B
B
A
Well,
I
was
kind
of
productive.
Today
I
was
kind
of
excited
about
that.
Hearing
me
share
I'll,
show
off
my
productive
stuff
and
evie
paris.
We'll
talk.
I
shall
trick
her.
Oh
hey
burst,
see.
I
knew
I'd
trick
you.
I
started
sharing
productive
things
and
you
would
talk.
I
started
working
on
the
issue
labeling.
A
I
know
it's
not
what
people
want.
Evidently,
but
that's
the
content
I'm
here
for
so
that's
still
good
content
too
bad.
So
it's
all
about
good,
first
issue
and
stuff,
and
I
wanted
and
everything
so
I
should
have
a
pr
this
week
for
that
I'm
excited,
but
with
someone
at
the
2c
meeting
do
they
know
more?
I
was.
A
C
C
The
end
goal
was
kind
of
a
well.
The
only
thing
that
should
be
prescriptive
is
the
project
giving
instructions
on
how
to
get
to
maintainer
or
how
to
get
to
certain
things,
and
then
maybe
that
could
help
with
you
know
kind
of
like
the
need
that
folks
feel
like
prescribing
things,
and
then
we
also
talked
about
like
community
strategy
overall
and
how
projects
should
think
about
that.
And
you
talk
about
that
a
bit
more
like
what.
C
C
Like
kind
of
like
just
these
documents
in
general
and
like
these
thought
processes
about
like
governance
and
who's,
going
to
take
care
of
your
people
and
just
kind
of
like
everything
that
I
had
put
in
that
one
issue
about
creating
a
contributor
strategy
requirement
kind
of
thing,
whether
that's
like
inside
of
their
governance
document
or
whatever,
it's
just
a
roadmap
of
you
know
how
they're
going
to
take
care
of
their
contributors.
Pretty
much
like.
Is
it
gonna
be
through
a
sig?
Is
it
gonna
be
through
a
working
group?
C
A
C
I
would
say
yeah,
I
would
say
we
should
get
a
shell
for
the
the
contributor
ladder
and
it
doesn't
need
to
be.
I
don't
think
it
needs
to
be
filled
in.
I
think
it's
like
just
like
the
shell
to
like
the
drafts,
folder
yeah,
okay,
and
encourage
also
that
would
also
encourage
more
people
to
come,
help
us
as
well,
because
right
now,
we've
just
been
kind
of
like
spitting
out,
but
like
it's
coming,
it's
coming.
C
You
know
what
I
mean
me
too,
because,
like
I'm,
I'm
on
one
of
those
lines
as
well
with
the
the
community
strategy
piece,
but
you
I
we
just
keep
kind
of
saying
it's
communist
coming,
so
all
right
who's
on
the
ladder
getting
someone.
I
think
it
was
jennifer
and
karen
at
one
point
was
probably
me
at
one
point
as
well.
A
A
D
A
It's
our
contributor
ladder
template.
I
think
we
had
some
scope
of
what
we
wanted
in
and
out.
We
had
some
examples
of
a
whole
bunch
of
examples.
It's
wonderful,
but
we
don't
have
a
template
yet
so
maybe
we
could
look
at
the
examples
and
then
just
kind
of
pick
out
that
and
use
that
for
the
show
yeah.
C
C
The
slack
we
could
like
you
could
just
like,
throw
out
a
link
and
be
we
could
like
talk
about
it
like
we
could
even
like
you
know,
say
what
we
like
about
it,
what
we
don't,
maybe
not
like,
maybe
less
of
what
we
don't,
but
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
collaborate
that
way.
That's
that's
like
super
easy
for
me
because,
like
in
in
the
middle
of
boring
meetings,
I
can
be
like.
C
A
Because
we
found
that
a
couple
of
us
have
found
that
we've
been
able
to
move
faster
by
just
saying
we're:
gonna
open
a
pr
and
iterate.
There
agreed
yeah
and
it's
gonna
go
in
a
drafts
folder.
So
it's
okay
to
merge
and
then
have
somebody
else
if
they
wanna
make
significant
edits,
open
another
pr
and
make
more
edits.
On
top
of
your
pull
request,
too,
you
don't
have
to
be
the
person
who
synthesizes
everyone's
feedback
and
somehow
makes
a
bunch
of
text,
because
that's
asking
a
lot
sometimes.
I
think.
D
There
were,
there
were
three
docks
that
were
talked
about:
one
was
the
contributor
ladder,
the
other
two
were
some
kind
of
a
plan
for
sustainability
or
longevity.
Is
that
the
bad
strategy
yeah?
That's
it's
kind
of
no,
no,
not
at
all,
actually
the
so
because
this
basically
came
around
addressing
you
know.
Why
does
the
multi-organization
requirement
exist
in
the
first
place?
Okay,
and
basically
it
came
down
to
a
few
things.
One
was
openness
to
contributions.
C
Yeah,
that's
where
I
wrap.
That's
why
I
wanted
to
wrap
it
in
with
the
community
management,
because
I
felt
like
by
itself
it
didn't
ride.
But
if
you
talk
about
like,
if
you
talk
about,
if
you
need
a
sig,
a
working
group
or
a
full-time
part-time
or
a
steering
committee,
or
whatever
that's
focused
on
community
growth,
sustainability
topics
etc
and
you're
kind
of
covered
in
those
areas
anyway,
because
you
already
have
people
thinking
about
that
stuff
right,
instead
of
like
doing
a
project
blowing
up
and
then
realizing.
Oh,
we
forgot
about
that
part.
C
Where
is
that
that's
why
I'm
like?
I
think
that
that
guidance
and
like
see
having
maintainers
think
about
that
early
on
like
where
they
want
to
grow
their
project,
how
they
want
to
grow
it
like
that's
all,
that's
all
part
of
like
their
principles,
their
vision
and
their
mission,
and
then
once
they
have
that
that's
how
they
can
kind
of
think
like
okay,
well,
we're
probably
gonna
have
a
lot
of
people
contributing
here.
So
we
should
probably
think
about
people
that
are
you
know.
Gonna
take
take
care
of
this.
C
So,
like
you
know
what
strategy
should
we
employ?
That's
kind
of
where
I
was
like
hoping
to
like
wrap
that
in
and
then
and
then
obviously
with
like
that,
and
then
we
can
tie
like
contributor
contributor
ladder
stuff
in
with
that,
I
don't
know
if
I'm
all
faced.
Let
me
know
I
just
I
just
couldn't
think
of
like
what
you're
saying
I
couldn't
think
of
like
a
doc
or
anything
that,
like
a
project,
could
do
that
would
address
that
without
just
like
a
check
box.
If
that
makes
sense,.
D
C
Where
we're
also
very
ambiguous,
though
like
when
we
talk
about
feedback,
that's
all
we
say
it's
like
because,
like
I
hear
it,
all
the
time
like
people
come
to
me
like,
oh
apple,
give
me
feedback,
and
I'm
just
like
what
kind
of
feedback,
and
that's
like
the
ambiguous
part.
It's
like.
Where
do
you
want
the
feedback?
How
do
you
want
the
feedback?
C
Onboard
that
I'm
still
figuring
out
yeah
because,
like
I've,
only
been
I've,
only
sat
in
on
one
so
far
so
well,
one
that
I
sat
in,
I
was
just
so
blown
away
like
how
many
companies
were
represented
there
and
the
types
of
people
there
and
that
they
were
being
so
open
about,
like
what
they
use
and
adopt
and
like
it
was
just
great
and
like
that's
what
I
was
just
like.
Okay,
so
we've
got
this
great
thing
right
here
and
then
we've
got
this
great
thing
over
here.
C
You
know
what
I
mean.
So
that's
why
I
was
just
like
where's,
the
the
like.
My
brain
cells
are
just
like:
where
do
we
connect
right
yeah?
So
I
think
that's
that
that's
that
area
of
growth
that
I
think
needs
to
happen
and
like
in
our
original
proposal
for
this
sig.
We
included
some
of
that,
but
then
realized
like
we
also
just
bit
off
like
the
whole
entire
world.
In
the
charter.
D
C
Is
really
when
they
say
when
they
say
longevity?
I
really
think
they
are
just
thinking
of
a
forward
progressive
like
documentation
on
how
things
work.
I
think
that's
kind
of
what
they're
like
what
they're
lacking
and
like
every
project
is
different,
and
I
don't
know
it's
where
I'm
like.
How
can
we
help
with
that.
A
C
C
But
inside
of
that
better
process,
you
also
have
projects
that
hear
like.
Oh
now,
I
have
to
go
in
this
one
direction.
Now
I
have
to
go
in
this
other
direction
and
so
it's
kind
of
like
well.
How
can
we
prescribe
them
to
do
it?
The
way
that
the
toc
wants
it
in
an
ever-changing
environment
when,
when
it's
kind
of
okay
to
also
improve
and
change
your
processes?
But
at
the
same
time,
how
can
you
like
your
steer,
a
project
that
that
kind
of
like
reactively
when
you're
talking
about
some
of
this
stuff?
C
I
don't
know
how
do
they
account
for
that
ever-changing
thing
which
gives
mixed
messages
to
projects
which
ultimately,
like
that's,
why
we've
got
like
you
know
one
project
that
one
project,
that's
you
know
graduate
or
incubating
that
has
like
all
one
isv
and
then
somebody
in
the
sandbox
has
all
one
isv
and
the
current
toc
says
that
they
don't
like
that.
But
you
know
there's
one
in
incubation.
That
already
does
it
like
that.
So
it's
just
kind
of
like
the
conflicting,
the
conflicting
things
that
we
see
with
like
certain
projects
and
their
maturity.
C
So
that's
that's
where
a
lot
of
this
stems
from
in
some
in
some
element
right
and
like
so,
for
instance
like
with
nats
and
grpc,
for
instance,
like
they
didn't
necessarily
have
like
a
contributor
ladder
or
any
way
that
like
tells
their
contributors,
how
to
like
be
a
maintainer.
So,
like
a
lot
of
the
toc
would
say
well,
it
seems
like,
for
instance,
on
the
grpc
side
that,
like
you
know
that
google
controls
it
so
by
at
least
having
the
documentation,
because
people
say
like.
C
Oh,
I
didn't
know
you
could
be
a
maintainer
to
jrpc.
I
thought
you
had
to
work
at
google.
That's
just
a
one
example
of
a
million
right
yeah,
so
it's
just
more
about
like
the
documentation
and
the
the
thought
processes
so
that
I
guess
the
toc
has
just
more
guidance
and
guidelines
and
can
make
a
decision
instead
of
being
like
kind
of
opinionated.
A
Because,
like
as
a
person
me
speak
as
a
person,
some
of
the
longevity
stuff
feels
like
saying
how
do
I
say
this
like
it
all
comes
down
to
people
who
are
seriously
overworked
and
I'm
leaving
a
company,
and
I
have
to
make
a
decision
not
me
personally,
I'm
not
leaving
like
you're
leaving
a
company.
You
may
actually
end
up
leaving
that
project
because
you're
not
being
paid
to
work
on
that
project
anymore,
but
you
know
that
product
may
collapse.
C
C
A
A
D
Yeah
no,
but
the
thing
is,
and
you
have
to
be
able
to
remove
people
who
have
actually
left
the
project
yeah
so
and
and
I'll
say
for
that
matter.
There
are
projects
that
I
won't
name
on
a
recording
that
have
set
up
a
situation
where
they
don't
allow
anybody
who
doesn't
work
for
them
to
become
a
maintainer
and
therefore.
A
A
C
Honestly,
I
think
it's
about
those
situations
exactly
it's
kind
of
like
how
do
you
protect
and
how
do
you
protect
the
individual
and
how
do
you
protect
the
project?
It's
like
yeah.
I
think
it's
all
of
those
examples
like
that
and
that's
what
they
mean
like
that's,
why
they're
kind
of
it's
kind
of
ambiguous
right
now,
but
I
think
that's
they
just
mean
all
of
that
like
because
there's
just
too
many
examples
that
are
all
like
situationally
different,
but
also
the.
C
D
A
A
D
Anyway,
I
would
not,
I
would
love
it
if,
if
one
of
the
results
of
this
was
the
cncf
requires
some
kind
of
contributor
ladder
for
graduated
projects,
the
because
I
would
say
there
are
graduated
projects
where
it
is
certainly
possible
to
to
become
a
contributor
to
that
project.
But
the
process
is
not
in
any
way
clear.
A
A
I
I
would
expect
or
hope
that
a
con,
a
contributing
ladder
contribution
ladder
would
be
something
that
should
be
articulated
much
sooner,
because
you
can
be
in
cncf
sandbox
incubating
for
a
pretty
long
time.
It
seems
there's
not
a
lot
of
graduating
projects
and
and
to
be
able
to
skate
by
without
articulating
who
can
be
a
maintainer
how
to
get
there.
Is
it
an
exclusive
club
before
you're
forced
to
say
something
and
open
it
up?
D
C
I
think
so,
especially
for
like
draft
states
like
now
that
now
that
we've
like
talked
through
the
just,
submit
the
damn
draft,
I
feel
a
little
bit
better.
You
know
I
do.
I
feel
a
little
bit
better
about
that.
So
yeah
I
feel
like.
We
should
just
start
submitting
the
damn
drafts,
and
you
know
it's
obviously
explaining
that
in
our
pr
that
it's
a
draft
or
whatever
so
yeah.
A
B
A
C
A
C
No,
it's
just
really
hot
trust
me
when
I
tell
you
like
I,
I
think
you
can't
do.
I'm
gonna
be
late
to
my
doctor.
If
I
don't
care
it's
a
doctor,
you
can't
it's
so
impossible
to
lead
and
try
to
take
notes
and
also
pay
attention
to.
The
chat
like
I
feel
like
you
just
can't
do
all
three
at
the
same
time
it's
kind
of
like
juggling
for
me
anyway.
I
just
feel
like
I
like.