►
From YouTube: CNCF SIG Contributor Strategy Governance WG 2021-01-05
Description
CNCF SIG Contributor Strategy Governance WG 2021-01-05
A
C
C
A
D
B
B
D
B
B
B
I
actually
want
to
add
some
stuff
to
the
leadership
guide,
specifically
around
cncf
requirements
about
things
that
have
come
up.
I,
for
example,
that
you
know
will
your
project
can
have
a
single
project
leader
that
needs
to
be
in
elected
position
and
not
one.
That's
appointed
for
life,
the
so
get
get
sort
of
more
specific
on
that,
and,
then
add,
add
relevant
templates
for
all
of
those
one
thing,
I'm
a
little
hes
one
thing,
I'm
a
little
hesitant
to
bring.
Actually
I
should
bring
this
up
as
a
separate
agenda.
E
E
I
think
it
was
just
slack
but
but
still
yeah
yeah.
So
my
my
main,
I
I
don't
know
quite
where
I
would
fit
in
yet
and
helping,
but
I
am
very
interested
in
this
topic.
I
worked
a
bit
on
on
helm's
governance
went
well
initially,
but
it
was
in
a
sort
of
unique
position
because
it
was
originally
part
of
the
kubernetes
project,
and
so
it
followed
a
lot
of
those
guidelines.
B
B
Yeah,
that
would
be
really
helpful.
I
I
mean
heck
even
a
document
on
what
helm
learned
through
the
governance
process.
You
know,
starting
with
hey,
let's
copy
kubernetes,
to
the
things
that
had
to
change
the
because
a
lot
of
looking
at
kubernetes
as
an
example,
but
then
we
have
projects
where
they
have
a
total
of
four
contributors
and
they're
like
we're
gonna
base
our
governance
and
kubernetes,
and
I'm
like.
I
think
this
might
be
a
little
complicated
for
you
right
where
you
are
right
now.
B
F
Yeah
from
my
side,
I
know
that
a
lot
of
those
conversations
are
starting
as
the
new
year
starts,
so
we
there
are
some
higher
level
discussions
happening
that
I'm
not
privy
to
at
the
moment
and
once
that
gets
pushed
down
to
me,
then
I'll
have
a
better
idea
of
what
I
can
or
of
what
we
are
going
to
share
with
the
group
and
the
approach
that
we're
going
to
take.
So.
Okay.
B
B
G
B
Future
yeah,
that's
true
in
general,
we're
going
to
be
getting
a
position
of
merging
stuff
to
the
contribute.cncf.io
website.
The
stuff
that's
been
through
some
kind
of
an
approval
process
which
we
haven't
quite
determined.
Yet
our
hypothesis
is
the
sig
in
general,
approves
it
in
a
sig
meeting.
We
get
the
sign
off
from
one
of
our
toc
liaison
people
and
then
then
it
goes
up,
but
we
we
actually
will
need
to
have
the
toc
approve
that
process.
I
think
they
will
the.
B
B
B
B
The
I
don't
have
more
information
that
she
could
make
the
meeting
so
the
presumably
for
scott
and
allison
the
badging
proposal.
This
was
originally
proposed
by
dims,
which
was
to
have
a
simple
system
of
badges
for
projects
that
would
help
potential
users
and
contributors
to
identify
some
things
about
them.
You
know
not
just
what
level
they
were
at
in
the
cncf
maturity
hierarchy,
but
some
other
basic
things
about
the
project,
like
you
know,
is
the
project,
a
specificate.
B
E
Yes,
I
do.
I
do
have
an
interest
in
that
personally,
I'm
just
in
okay
in
taxonomies
in
general,
like
the
that
weird
threshold
between
enough
enough
diversity
and
and
too
much
complexity.
It's
like
the
devil's
kind
of
in
the
details
there.
You
know
I
was
thinking
even
just
as
one
example-
things
like
user
ship
number
of
users
and
for
due
diligence,
sometimes
there's
a
lot
of
gray
area
when
you
have
a
project.
That
is
that
that
is
really
a
distributed
software
project
that
has
multiple
repos.
You
know.
E
So
it's
like
what
about
stars.
What
does
that
mean
when
you've
sort
of
switched
from
kind
of
like
a
major
version,
one
to
two
like
linker
d
did
and
so
on
and
like
flux
recently
just
did
so,
of
course,
that's
on
my
mind,
but
there
are
many
other
things
like
that.
That
might
be
kind
of
hard
to
say.
How
do
you
define
these
things?.
B
Yeah,
the
okay,
so
there
is
an
open
issue
for
this.
Okay,
so
go
ahead
and
she's
kind
of
focused
on
the
whole
taxonomy
issue,
which
I'm
not
100
convinced
is
the
best
way
to
handle
badges,
but
the
just
just
because
these
things
are
a
little
bit
squishy,
but
I'm
not
working
on
it.
So
people
are
working
on
it,
get
to
define
it
the
so
the
and
the
okay
so
jump
on
that.
B
If
you're
interested
in
that
in
terms
of
the
end
user
thing,
it's
actually
that's
actually
come
up
before,
specifically
the
end
user
requirement,
because,
based
on
the
nature
of
some
projects,
it
can
be
really
hard
to
define.
Who
is
an
end
user,
particularly
specification
projects.
Have
the
problem
that
you
look
at
and
you
say:
hey,
we
need.
You
know
x,
number
of
non-vendor,
end
users,
but
by
their
nature,
specifications
are
pretty
much
are
often
exclusively
adopted
by
vendors.
The
so.
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
B
B
B
B
F
B
H
Is
there
anything
else
that
you
need
a
final
call
on
for
for
reviews,
because
this
is
going
back
to
back
to
what
we
talked
about
in
our
meta
meeting,
where
we're
going
to
try
out
a
graduation
process
for
guidance
where
we
we
do
a
final
call
with
the
with
our
mini
community
and
then
sadden
and
matt
would
weigh
in
from
toc
and
then
toc
would
graduate.
It
quote
quote
so
this
was.
This
is
pretty
much
us
implementing
that
anything
else
that
needs
to
go.
B
F
E
I
have
one
other
one
other
possible
agenda
item,
but
I
don't
know
that
we're
going
to
cover
all
these
today,
just
thought.
Since
you
know
I
would
at
least
bring
it
up,
and
maybe
it
could
be
a
future
topic,
or
maybe
it's
easy
to
answer.
I
don't
know,
but
there's
an
issue,
there's
an
issue
in
the
toc.
E
Let
me
grab
it
real,
quick,
the
defining
rationale
for
multi
for
maintainer
multi-org
requirement
from
the
toc.
The
reason
that
I'm
bringing
that
up
is
because
it
specifically
focuses
on
the
excuse
me
the
governance,
working
group
and
and
defining
criteria,
but
it
happens
to
be
in
the
toc
repo
and
I'm
wondering
here
it
is
I'm
wondering
if
we
should
consider
moving
it
or
consider
getting
the
the
working
group
more
more
involved
right
now.
I
think
it's
it's
mainly
actually
yeah
there.
You
have
the
first
comment:
josh.
B
B
B
E
B
B
Requirements,
and
so
the
idea
there
is
to
put
fill-in
and
detailed
material
for
things
that
are
required
by
the
cncf
in
terms
of
what
they
actually
mean
and
which
advisory
documents
will
help
you
implement
them.
So
things
like
a
cncf
requirement
is
open
governance
in
you
know
multiple
organizations
and
a
few
other
things
adopt
the
coc,
and
none
of
these
things
really
have
backing
documentation
like
as
in
okay.
We
have
to
adopt
the
clc.
B
Multi-Order
just
basically
jumped
to
the
head
of
that
list,
because
it's
been
a
topic
of
debate
due
primarily
to
some
projects
that
want
to
graduate,
but
do
not
have
substantial
participation
from
more
than
one
organization,
yeah
gotcha,
the
so
the
you
know.
So
again,
anybody
is
welcome
to
kick
some
of
those
off.
B
We
haven't
sort
of
documented.
I
expect
that
when
we
get
to
publishing
those
things
our
toc
liaisons
are
maybe
going
to
want
to
actually
bring
them
up
in
a
full
toc
meeting,
since
once
we
publish
something
as
a
requirements
document
it's
you
know.
This
is
what
the
toc
is
going
to
have
to
vote
on
for
projects,
but
the
let's.
B
B
B
B
B
H
H
B
B
E
B
B
B
B
B
F
B
H
I
H
So
I
know
that
I
know
that
charles
has
also
heard
this
40
times.
I
think
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
there's
context,
because
this
is
a
heavy
topic,
I'm
not
gonna
lie.
It's
been
something
that's
been
weighing
on
me
for
at
least
a
year
here
I
just
chatted
the
chat
of
the
the
mega.
The
mega
issue
so
just
like-
and
I
mean
in
april,
pointed
it
out
in
her
comment
as
well,
which
is
there
really
only
is
three
classifications
of
a
cncf
project.
H
Right
now,
you've
got
graduated
incubated
in
sandbox
and
according
to
each
one
of
those
levels,
you
have
to
do
certain
things
right
and
that's
all
great
we're
all
bought
into
that
notion.
However,
there's
more
than
one
way
to
eat
a
reese's
and
there's
more
than
one
one
more
than
one
way
to
run
your
governance
of
your
project.
As
we
can
see,
I
mean
josh
and
others
have
already
produced
like
three
different
kinds
of
governance,
documentations
and
things
like
that
and
structures
that
are
inclusive
and
that
meet
the
values
of
cncf
and
things
like
that.
H
So
what
we've
been
doing,
though,
is-
and
I
see
others
doing-
this
is
a
lot
of
the
times-
they're
like
just
copy
kubernetes
or
just
copy
so-and-so's,
but
there's
actually
like
some
thought
that
needs
to
go
into
this
number
one
and
that's
what
the
governance
group,
like
this
governance
group,
is
trying
to
figure
out,
but
number
two.
A
lot
of
this
stuff
can
also
further
get
refined
into
more
sort
of
like
taxonomies.
H
If
you
will,
because
when
people
say
copy
kubernetes,
they
don't
necessarily
some
of
them
may
just
say
copy
kubernetes,
but
some
of
them
are
also
giving
this
innuendo
of
oh.
That
means
you
should
be
a
contributor
community
because,
according
to
nadia
in
her
learning
with
in
her
learning
in
public
book,
she
calls
kubernetes.
She
doesn't
really
call
kubernetes,
but
you
can
read
the
description
of
what
a
federation
is,
and
federation
is
pretty
much
where
kubernetes
is
today,
which
is
a
contributor
community
and
it's
extremely
rare.
H
So
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
or
is,
I
think
our
next
steps
are-
is
really
break
down.
Do
we
have
different
types
of
communities
here
that
are
based
on
maybe
like
the
nadia
definition,
and
then
second
thing
is:
do
we
need
our
own
classifications,
meaning
like
if
nadia's
aren't
good
for
us
like?
Should
we
rework
classifications
that
are
good
for
us
and
then
the
third
thing
is:
are
there
classifications
that
aren't
good
for
us
and
maybe
that's
the
stuff
that
we've
been
fighting
about?
Not
fighting?
H
That's
that's
a
wrong
word,
but
we've
been
going
back
and
forth
a
lot
about
which
is
oh.
Does
this
project
need
a
steering
committee?
Well
if
they
fall
under,
maybe
like
a
club
bucket.
You
know
like
that
kind
of
thing.
There's
like
I
think,
there's
a
better
way
to
map
needs
with
like
the
project,
value
and
stuff
like
that
right.
So
I
think
those
are
kind
of
like
the
three
things
that
I'm
thinking
in
my
head
right
now.
H
I
guess
start,
you
know
start
really
getting
some
more
concrete
things
down,
which
is
our
next
step,
because
this
also
flows
into
the
badging
concept,
because
the
idea
behind
the
badging
was
just
pretty
much
to
elevate
what
kind
of
governance
structure
you
have
on
a
readme
so
that
it's
not
buried
in
a
million
governance
files.
So
things
like
governance,
slash
steering
like
you
would
have
like
security
checked
past
on
a
readme.
H
But
you
do
neces,
but
you
do
probably
have
to
have
certain
qualification
and
characteristics
of
open
governance
and
like,
for
instance,
in
nadia's
book.
Something
like
a
toy
might
be
okay
for
sandbox,
but
that's
not
gonna,
be
okay
for
incubation
and
we
could
like
draw
that
kind
of
stuff
out.
So
now
I'm
gonna
stop
talking,
because
that
was
a
lot
and
like
where
do
y'all
think
as
far
as
like,
if
we
were
to
kick,
this
can
down
the
road
like.
What
do
you
think
our
next
step
would
be
as
far
as
like.
E
E
H
E
H
E
Yeah
yeah,
I
guess
to
me-
badges,
are
basically
just
indicators
that
otherwise
could
be
labels
or
or
or
anything
else,
but
they
just
have
the
extra
weight
of
being
official
officially
decreed
by
x
organization
by
cncf
in
this
case.
So
it's
like
to
me:
that's
what
it
seems
like
the
badges
thing
is
for,
but
it
sounds
almost
like.
The
idea
is
to
secondarily
use
them
for
99
other
things
which
might
partly
be
maybe
wyatt.
There's
some
debate.
E
I
haven't
been
part
of
any
of
the
debates,
but
but
you
know
you
know
they
can
be
used
for
organizing
for
an
organization
you
know,
but
but
primarily
just
for
organizing,
where
the
things
at
are
in
their
badging
status.
You
know
it
almost
seems,
like
labels
that
relate
to
the
badges
would
be
better
for
things
like
having
cncf
organize
things
or
you
know,
identify
needs,
or
things
like
that.
You
know
so.
I
H
Yeah,
I
think
that's
our
main
like
if
we
were
going.
If
we're
like
go,
you
know
going
for
some
kind
of
mvp
and
only
one
use
case
out
the
door.
I
think
we
would
go
for
that,
like
user,
because
that's
really
where
that's,
where
the
whole
conversation
actually
started,
which
was
the
badges
initially
like,
and
then
it
grew.
Then
I
read
her
book
and
then
that's
when
I
like
thought.
H
The
idea
grew
to
like
taxonomies,
but
like
the
idea
was
really
like
stemming
from
you
know
the
service
mesh
side
of
the
house
where
it's
like
well,
like
you
know,
like
identification
of
governance
and
and
ease
of
participation,
which
is
a
big
one
right.
Companies
want
to
know
how
easy
it
is
to
participate
and
not
only
participate,
but
what's
the
what's,
the
likelihood
of
ownership
so
like
that
kind
of
stuff
is
always
just
buried
in
docks
and
most
end
users,
either
a
don't
read
them
anyway
or
b,
like
don't
care
or
whatever.
H
It's
it's
like
it's
the
it's,
the
crap
that
you
see
where
it's
like:
somebody's
advertising
that
they're
a
contributor
community
and
they're,
not
a
contributor
community.
That's
where
you
really
start
to
see
like
the
gloves!
Come
off
and
people
go,
that's
not
open
source
and
you're
like
what
are
you
talking
about?
That's
open
source.
H
H
B
E
E
I
just
wanted
this
next
in
this
particular
case,
for
flux,
governance
to
be
just
to
kind
of
cover
the
bases-
and
I
probably
covered
too
many
bases,
future
cases
that
we
might
not
even
have,
but,
but
I
just
happen
to
know
like,
for
instance,
with
helm,
we
ran
into
things
later
that
could
have
been
cut
off
earlier
on,
you
know
or
anticipated
earlier
on,
so
I
mean
sorry.
The
point
is
that
this
is
one
of
those
questions.
E
What
is
it,
what
exactly
is
a
contributor
community
for
so
so
it's
it's
and
that's
what
that
one
issue
that
I
brought
up
earlier,
I
think
right
before
paris
you
got
on
or
maybe
right
when
you
got
on
there.
I
I
had
asked
initially
and
josh
gave
a
very
good
explanation
of
why
that
issue
gets
to
be
into
the
toc
repo,
but
that's
asking
about
multi-org
requirement
and
and
and
that's
that's
one
of
them-
it's
like
it.
E
H
H
She
says
I
really
hope
that
people
take
this
taxonomy
piece
and
break
it
down
for
them
to
make
it
make
sense
to
them
and
their
orcs,
because
that's
so
true,
it's
just
because,
like
we're
always
debating
these
kind
of
like
abstract
things
of
like
well,
what
does
this
mean,
and
like
does
this
mean
that
I
need
this
thing
too,
and
I
think
it's
just
giving
giving
some
like
some
logic
behind
the
the
art?
I
don't
know
you
know.
H
H
I'm
wondering
like
how
would
how
would
y'all
define
your
projects
if
here,
here's
the
four
buckets
federation
club
toy
stadium
and
we
give
them
the
exact
definition
that
nadia's
has
for
each?
I
would
be
curious,
where
folks
put
themselves
where
folks
put
their
projects
on
these
like
made
up
taxonomy
scales
right
because
that's
the
kind
of
stuff
where
it's
like
you
can
grow
into
these
because,
like,
for
instance,
most
projects
probably
start
out
as
toys,
meaning
like
they're,
just
like
code
thrown
over
the
wall,
with
nothing
like
nothing
there.
H
H
E
H
H
F
E
H
Much
less
much
less
okay,
yeah
yeah,
it's
it's
200
pages
short
a
short
book,
and-
and
it's
like
her
act
like
the
chapters
that
she
does
are
actually
so
well
like
site,
mapped
and
information.
Architected
out
that
you
can
just
jump
into
certain
chapters
so
yeah
totally
like
she,
even
she
even
kind
of
brings
like
the
odd
thing
was.
She
almost
broke
the
book
down
kind
of
like
how
we
operate
here
in
contributor
strategy.
H
H
Oh
yeah,
I
was
just
like
it
just
sucks,
watching
people
go
back
and
forth
on
twitter
about.
Is
this
open
source
as
it's
not
open
source,
and
that
really
it's
really
about
like
the
like
the
ease
of
participation
and
how
people
like
to
work
in
open
source
and
the
values
that
they've
come
to
get
used
to
in
whatever
community
that
they're
in
and
like
yeah.
F
B
E
It's
very
it's
a
very
interesting
territory
because
there
are
very
strict
definitions
and
it's
all
it's
all
legal.
It's
all
licensing
at
this
point.
So
I
think
governance
is
a
little
bit
less
defined
because
there
are.
There
are
there's
no
official
world
government,
so
people
that
have
tried
to
try.
E
You
know
law's
already
been
figured
out.
You
know,
you've
got
licenses
and
you've
got
laws,
and
then
you
can
debate
it
in
court.
You
know
if
you
need
to
and
then
there's
precedent
and
then
there's
it's
always
evolving
right
as
needed,
but
governance,
it's
one
of
those
things
where
you've
just
got
precedent
and
you've
got
aspiration
and
that's
it
and
and
so
there's
a
lot
of
different
schools
of
thought.
E
So
like
there
are
major
categories
of
governance,
you
know
ideas
about
what
open
governance
is,
but
but
there's
no
real
official
body
that
could
ever
give
a
decree
of
what
that
means.
So
you
kind
of
have
to
just
keep
going
and
hope
that
you
kind
of
snowball
more
and
more
support.
You
know,
and
then
it's
seen
as
as
as
value
you
know
like,
for
example,
if
you
look
at
open,
I
know
chris
a
contributed
a
lot.
Maybe
some
of
you
did
too.
E
Yeah
and
there's
another
one.
That
sounds
almost
exactly
the
same
if
you,
google
search
for
it,
that's
that
that
github
promotes
that's
on
on
their
checklist
for
open
source
projects.
That's
not
the
same
thing
and
they
don't
cover
all
the
same
stuff.
So
I
just
I'm
not
exactly
sure
how
to
square
that
circle,
but
I
do
think
that
when
we're
talking
about
open
source
and
debates
about
like
how
cncf
defines
projects,
I
think
we
really,
unless
I'm
really
missing,
something
which
I
very
well
could
be.
H
Yep
yeah,
but
that's,
and
that-
and
I
think
that's
like
you
know
one
of
the
like,
because
people
just
kind
of
lump
everything
in
with
opens
the
term
open
source
right.
That's
why
I'm
just
like.
How
can
we
break
this
down
a
little
bit
more
right,
like
you
know
it's
kind
of
like
I
don't
know
some
some
point
in
time.
They
were
like
wow,
there's
a
lot
of
birds,
I'm
sure
they
don't
eat
all
the
same
thing.
E
H
E
H
H
H
E
And
the
open
governance
thing
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
if
there
is,
if
it
just
if
it
just
happens,
to
have
overlapped
because
chris
is
working
on
it
or
if
or
if
there
is
some
sort
of
cncf
interest
in
that
or
if
it's
just
totally
totally
independent.
That's
what
I
meant
not
not
the
not
the
badging
thing.
Oh.
E
I
was
talking
about
the
open
governance
github
organ
and
that
open
governance,
github
project,
that's
trying
to
define
you
know,
take
a
stab
at
defining
open
governance
in
an
independent
way.
I
was
wondering
if
cncf
is,
if
there's
an
interest
in
having
an
affiliation
there
or
if
that's
just
kind
of
seen
as
totally
independent.
At
this
point.
G
I
think
it's
it's
independent
and
can
be
can
be
related,
not
under
the
cncf
scope,
but
more
under
the
linux
foundation
like
the
whole
linux
foundation
is
their
organization
here.
So
yeah
I
mean
like
chris,
has
involved
into
multiple
areas
in
the
universe's
world.
So
I'm
not
I'm
not
surprised
to
see
to
his
to
see
his
name
in
the
rare
spaces,
not.
E
H
I
H
I
H
H
Yes,
charles
you're
late,
I'm
kidding,
I
am
I'm
kidding,
it's
so
good,
y'all,
I'm
sorry,
I'm
so
good,
I'm!
So
it's
so
good
like
I
guess
I
just
it's
so
good
for
me
to
do
this
all
the
time
you
know
it's
like
if
you're
a
surgeon-
and
you
read
like
some
like
something
validating
your
new
heart
surgery,
you're
like
yeah,
that's
how
I
felt
when
I
read
this
book.
I
was
just
like.
I
G
H
H
Yeah,
I'm
ready
to
start
booking
stuff
for
los
angeles.
Like
I'm
real,
I'm.
I
think
I'm
ready,
I'm
almost
like
I'm
gonna,
probably
wait
until
the
end
of
january
and
see
where,
like
you
know,
all
the
all
the
the
the
panty
stuff
is
but
yeah.
I
think
I'm
ready
to
book
some
book
us
some
parties
for
for
kubecon
l.a.