►
From YouTube: CNCF SIG Contributor Strategy Governance WG 2021 03 02
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
B
B
C
Yeah
so
I'll
talk
about
things
like
company
versus
versus
foundation,
contributor
risk
organization,
that
kind
of
stuff
I've
been
doing
some
internal
presentations
on
that
because
I'm
trying
to
get
you
know
there
are
certain
companies
that
have
been
more
problematic
than
others.
I'm
trying
to
get
people
to
think
about
the
business
risk
of
adopting
their
open
source
projects,
but
I've
got
you
know.
I've
got
a
great
example
right.
I've
got
the
whole
like
elasticsearch
kibana
example
of
you
know
the
licensing
risk
that
can
happen
with
company-owned
projects.
C
B
C
But
I
did
actually
get
a
chance
to
work
on
or
start
work
on,
loosely
start
thinking
about
the
charter
resource
doc.
So
I
threw
that
on
the
agenda.
I
haven't
actually
written
anything
yet
I
started
looking
at
it
and
then
I
just
had
a
whole
bunch
of
questions
and
I
was
like
well
the
meetings
today.
So.
B
B
C
Let
me
give
you
some
background,
so
when
I
approach
something
like
this,
I
like
to
I
like
to
just
look
at
some
examples.
That's
always
how
I
start
something.
So
let
me
see
what
other
projects
have
done.
I
clicked
through
the
github
repositories
of
every
single
cncf
graduated
project,
searched
for
the
word
charter
in
that
organization,
github
organization
and
came
up
with
not
much.
What
I
came
up
with
was
several
of
the
projects
said
that
they
follow
the
values
in
the
cncf
charter
and
kubernetes
and
tick
b
had
sig
charter
templates.
C
No,
I
even
for
kubernetes
I
couldn't
find
like
the
overall
charter
for
the
whole
org
like
for
the
whole,
like
kubernetes
as
a
whole,
which
I
thought
we
had
and,
interestingly
enough,
several
of
the
I
ran
into
several
references
which
will
talk
about
you
know.
The
charter
of
this
project
isn't
to
do
this
or
is
to
do
this,
but
just
like
in
conversation,
but
I
couldn't
actually
find
the
charters
which
led
me
to
the
question.
C
So
so
like?
Do
we
need
this
or
is
there
something
else
I
should
be
working
on
instead,
if
we
do
think
we
need
it
like,
I
do
think
charters
are
important
to
define
if
we
do
define
it,
you
know.
Is
it
just?
Is
it
just
something
optional
and
do
we
define
it
as
like
a
template
or
series
of
templates,
or
do
we
do
just
kind
of
an
informational,
how-to
resource
doc,
like
I
did
with
the
leadership
selection?
C
B
C
B
If
we're
starting
down
this
road,
we
have
to
recognize
that
it
is
not
common
practice
to
have
a
charter
and
therefore
we're
going
to
have
to
start
from
the
question
of.
Why
should
they
have
a
charter
rather
than
starting
from
the
question
of
what
should
be
in
it
yeah?
I
I
think
it's
worth
exploring,
because
if
you
think
about
it,
one
of
the
biggest
sets
of
arguments
you
have
in
an
open
source
project
is
scope.
B
B
C
B
Because
if
we
think
it's
a
good
thing
for
open
source
projects
for
cnc
projects,
they
have
charters,
then
our
template
should
reflect
that,
whether
it's
a
separate
charter
template
or
whether
it's
we
add
a
you
know,
mission
section
to
every
governance,
template
that
we
have
yeah
and
now
that
you
brought
it
up.
That
sounds
like
a
really
good
idea.
B
B
C
Yep
totally,
I
think
I
think
what
I'll
do
in
this
case
is
maybe
maybe
start
with
a
resources
doc.
That
outlines
why
it's
important
to
define
kind
of
the
mission,
the
values
the
you
know,
loosely
defined
the
charter
for
your
for
your
project
and
then
once
I
have
that
resource
doc,
we
can
look
at
how
we
might
want
to
incorporate
something
into
the
templates.
B
B
B
C
B
B
C
B
C
B
B
Okay
yeah,
it
sounds
good
and
then
we'll
do
that
and
I
will
look
into
getting.
I
mean
I'll,
get
the
subprojects
thing
through
the
way
it
is
right
now
and
then
I
will
look
at
getting
a
you
know,
and
one
of
the
things
we
have
to
decide
is
right
because
because
we
actually,
the
cncf
is
a
good
template
for
the
sort
of
complete
version
right,
because
you
have
mission
practices
and
values,
but
that
does
feel
like
a
little
much
for
most
open
source
projects.
Yeah.
C
B
B
What's
this
project
for
like
oh,
my
god,
I
mean
completely
that
also
the
other
benefit
of
missions
is
for
advocacy
yeah,
because
I
cannot
tell
you
the
number
of
times
you
know
in
my
role
at
red
hat,
where
I
go
to
one
of
the
projects
we
sponsor,
and
I
look
at
the
web
page
and
I
say
okay,
first
of
all,
tell
me:
what
is
this
project
for
yeah?
What
does
it
do?
B
C
B
B
C
B
A
A
C
A
B
Nope,
no,
it's
just
the
our
general
slog
of
adding
lots
of
new
content.
Yep
the
I
have
a
bunch
of
notes
for
stuff.
Like
you
know,
hey
you
have
to
accept
the
ip
policy
of
the
cncf.
What
actual
concrete
steps
do
you
have
to
take,
given
that
I've
done
that
particular
dance,
five
or
six
times
now
the
including
discovering
why
I
o
domains
are
problematic.
C
C
Call
the
other
day
and
one
one
person
who
works
at
either:
a
financial
institution
or
a
relatively
conservative
company
and
another
person
chimed
up.
They
were
like
oh
yeah,
us
too.
I
was
like
I've
never
heard
of
this,
but
apparently
because
they
have
no
rules.
They're
super
problematic
and
there's
all
kinds
of
inappropriate
stuff
on
the
dot
io.
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
A
B
C
C
C
Project
yeah
and
you
can't
continue
to
treat
it
like
your
company's
project
and
get
all
the
benefits
that
you
get
from
being
under
the
cncf
it
doesn't.
It
doesn't
work
that
way
and
it's
it's
hard
work
to
get
other
companies
in
some
cases
interested
in
your
project,
and
you
need
to
put
in
that
work.
If
you
want
the,
if
you
want
the
cncf
graduated
benefits,.
B
So
anyway,
but
there
was
a
proposal
about
three
months
ago
to
change
the
multi-organization
to
something
else,
but
that
proposal
was
never
sustained
by
a
vote
of
the
toc.
So
I'm
going
to
assume
that
it
is
no
longer
a
thing,
and
particularly
given
that
we
have
a
new
toc,
now
yeah,
the
and
and
and
and
the
creating
a
clarifying
document
with
examples
of
you
know
how
you
can
be
multi-organization
is
still
on
our
to-do
list,
the
so
okay
cool
yeah.
Okay,
that's
about
it!
Yeah.