►
From YouTube: CNCF SIG Contributor Strategy 2020-05-21
Description
CNCF SIG Contributor Strategy 2020-05-21
A
A
A
A
C
I'm
attempting
I'm
trying
to
do
notes
and-
and
this
on
hey
I
said
so-
this
is
gonna-
be
awesome,
yeah,
so
survey
I
got
the
governance
side
of
the
house,
questions
I
added
some
stuff
for
kind
of
contributor
growth
and
needs
some.
Some
things
into
way.
Y'all
had
suggested
made
some
edits,
got
that
back
to
you
in
chat.
I,
don't
have
it
on
the
agenda,
though,
looking
at
that
right
now.
So
let
me
get
the
link
to
the
questions,
so
you
can
see
that
or
someone
else
is
in
slack
right
now
and
can
grab
that.
B
C
Thank
you
and
right
now,
I
think
we
stand
at
12
ish
questions
which
is
kind
of
a
lot
I
think
there
is
one
question
on
there
that
we
could
probably
play
combo.
So
I
wanted
everybody
to
give
it
at
least
one
more
look
over
and
then
there
will
be
instructions
as
well
about
hey.
If
you
have
survey
fatigue,
that's
cool
me
too.
C
C
But
it
definitely
needs
another.
It
definitely
needs
another
edit
round,
but
I
think
once
we
have
an
edit
round
on
the
survey
and
then
also
an
editor
around
on
the
email
to
make
sure
that
we're
kidding
all
the
points,
because
I
think
there's
at
least
three
points
and
the
email
that
we're
trying
to
hit
home.
You
know
then
I
think
we'll
be
good
to
go
with
kind
of
like
our
first
communication
out
of
the
gate,
that's
proactive
and
personally
inviting
to
the
contributors
and
in
most
cases,
maintainer
z'.
C
A
C
C
You
know
in
no
more
than
10
minutes
survey,
because
for
now
there
are
like
I,
think
two
or
three
long
questions,
but
we
can
only
put
those
at
the
bottom
and
reorder
them
in
a
way
where
it's
not
scary,
and
it
looks
like
the
easy
questions
are
first
but
I'd
like
to
target
to
get
this
out
as
soon
as
possible.
So
whatever
y'all's
review
bandwidth
looks
like,
let
me
know
and
be
honest
I've
been
dragging
my
feet
on
this
as
well.
So,
okay.
C
C
A
Are
all
cnc
of
projects,
so
theoretically
they
should
all
have
logo
we're
available
from
the
cnc
of
store,
at
least
in
fan
box.
Well,
though,
oh
you're
right
and
we
do
want
to
hear
from
your
inbox
projects
the
and
I
am
not
willing
to
volunteer
to
do
swag
design
for
every
project
that
fills
out
the
survey
know.
A
F
A
E
H
Say
that
the
biggest
incentive-
actually
it's
just
knowing
what
we're
gonna
do
with
the
survey
short
and
sweet,
saying
how
it's
gonna
help
people
are
not
okay,
that
matters
more
to
me
when
I
fill
it
out
than
anything
else,
don't
really
want
another
t-shirt
or
stickers
or
anything
yeah
I
don't
want
it
like
give
someone
my
address,
so
I
think
if
we're
just
brief
and
clear
on
how
it's
gonna
help
people
and
they
trust
that
we'll
follow
through.
That
means
a
lot
more
than
anything
else.
We
do
yeah.
A
That
gives
that's
the
tack
we're
taking
and
I
have
not
looked
over
this
document.
Since
Paris
added
a
bunch
of
questions
is,
we
should
really
have
several
questions
that
allow
maintainer
x'
to
complain
about
the
CNCs,
because
that
will
get
them
to
fill
it
out.
I
mean
it
sounds
terrible,
but
I'm
willing
to
bet
that
it's
true.
C
I
was
thinking
of
what,
if
we
put
these
questions
into
like
an
issue
template
owner
of
a
repo
and
then
people
can
come
in
and
just
fill
out
an
issue,
and
then
it
doesn't
necessarily
it
or
rather,
if
they,
you
know,
if
they
want
to
be
anonymous,
then
we
can
send
them
some
other
kind
of
form
of
sorts
and
they
can
anonymous
that
way.
Let.
A
A
C
A
C
A
A
A
C
C
C
B
Yeah
I've
made
some
suggestions
on
reworking
some
of
the
questions
like
some
of
the
stuff
that
you
had
Parris
being
kind
of
the
long
answer
like
you
can
actually
make
it
a
yes/no
and
then
have
it
be
a
yes.
You
know.
If,
yes,
please
tell
us
more
and
that
also
could
remove
some
of
the
potential
for
fatigue
because,
to
be
frank,
I
think
for
a
lot
of
those
questions.
You're
not
gonna.
Have
a
lot
of
people
say
yes,
so
in
actuality
it
makes
it
a
shorter
survey.
B
Yeah
but
when
you
talk
about
survey,
I'm
gonna
be
completely
Frank
and
you
talk
about
survey
fatigue.
I
am
survey,
fatigue
from
CNCs
surveys,
I
get
maintainer,
ambassador
I,
don't
know
what
else
twice
a
year
at
least,
but
it
seems
like
much
more
often
I.
Don't
know.
It's
just
feels
like
there's
always
a
survey
and.
B
And
especially
like
in
the
h1
h2
type,
surveys
like
I,
don't
necessarily
have
anything
that
changes
so
whoa.
That
was
a
weird
noise.
My
head's
I,
just
made
I
think
that
it's
good
to
have,
like
you
know,
a
clear
kind
of
I.
Think
it's
good
that
these
questions
are
very
different
than
what
the
CN
CF
surveys
ask,
and
I
saw
that
was
commented
somewhere
and
I
think.
Maybe
we
make
that
a
little
more
clear
and
the
email
as
well
that,
like
we
know,
you're
getting
surveys
already.
B
G
B
G
A
C
F
A
A
H
A
A
A
How
do
we
want
to
set
that
up?
You
know
like
I,
initially
set
it
up,
where
we
have
a
requirements
subdirectory
under
the
governance
directory
with
the
idea
that
sort
of
we'd
be
working
on
governance
requirements
separately
from
contributor
growth
and
have
no
conflicts,
and
that
sort
of
thing
I'm
starting
to
rethink
that,
because
now
that
we're
actually
getting
in
mucking
about
with
some
of
the
actual
requirements
number
one.
A
The
line
between
governance
and
contributor
growth
is
not
entirely
clear
because,
for
example,
the
diversity,
the
maintainer
diversity
requirement,
there's
a
governance
part
of
that
which
says:
how
do
we
define
you
must
have
you
know
external
maintainer,
x'
right,
but
there's
also
contributor
growth,
because
you
know
it's
like
we
can't
just
require
this.
We
also
need
to
explain
how
do
you
get
external
maintains
the
I'm.
H
A
problem
with
any
of
these
things
related
governments
where
we're
always
gonna
have
a
requirement
and
then
a
recommendation
on
how
to
meet
that
requirement
and
the
requirement
directory
is
gonna
get
to
become
like
a
junk
drawer.
If
we
show
everything
in
there,
let
me
know
people
feel
the
ways
I
think
it
may
be
helpful
if
we
reference
people
or
like
laying
people
off
to
where
we
have
best
practices
and
advice
and
templates
on
how
to
accomplish
those
things,
and
that's
where
we
collaborate
yeah.
A
I
mean
they're
also
requirements
that
are
definitely
in
the
wheelhouse.
A
contributor
growth
like,
for
example,
require
like
there
are
existing
requirements
around
contributor
activity
levels,
the
you
know,
and
and
from
our
perspective
we
have
different
working
groups
for
these
things,
but
it's
the
director
of
the
TOC.
They
want
one
set
of
requirements.
H
H
D
A
Governance
fourth
group
III
got
pulled
into
some.
I
urgent
discussions
around
the
diversity
requirement,
mainly
because
of
one
project
gnats
that
meets
other
requirements
for
graduation,
but
the
TOC
does
not
feel
meets
the
diversity
requirement
or
they're
on
the
border
about
whether
or
not
they
meet
the
diversity
requirement.
A
The
that
ended
up
being
really
complicated.
I
will
say
that
that
is
actually
the
special
urgency
for
the
diversity
requirement
is
actually
gone
away,
because
it
turns
out
that
Nats
this
situation
is
much
more
complicated
than
that,
and
and
even
if
we
straightened
out
diversity
requirement
issues
tomorrow,
it
would
not
necessarily
allow
them
to
proceed
so
so
can.
H
A
A
A
B
C
B
Mean
I
get
the
spirit,
but
I
also
feel
like
the
whole
nature
of
the
way
CNC
have
to
set
up
is
like
there's
always
gonna,
be
TOC
changes
and
there's
always
gonna
be
a
different
for
set
of
perspectives,
and
then
the
world
changes
and
everything
else
and,
like
you
know,
hey,
there's,
always
going
to
be
stuff.
That
goes
on
and
changes.
A
A
A
B
H
B
A
A
A
G
A
G
So
I,
just
like
kind
of
just
broad
context:
the
climate
bill
packed
pockets
under
the
app
delivery
sig
we
were
sandbox
projects
like
a
year
and
a
half
ago
were
going
through
incubation
and
we
filled
out
a
due
diligence,
talk
and
there's
questions
of
basically
what
end
users
mean
for
our
project.
So
the
project
is
mostly
a
specification.
G
So,
like
google,
just
announced
support
for
climate
built
packs
and
built
a
bunch
of
cognitive
built
packs
on
top
of
it,
you
can
use
it
with
the
Google
cloud
platform
and
for
us,
that's
like
a
big
win
like
for
usage
and
stuff,
but
I
think
like,
according
to
the
actual
definition
around
end
users
least,
this
is
what
like
carry
from
who's.
The
chair
from
the
apps.
G
But
then
there's
a
question
like
if
someone
say
uses
Heroku
who
happens
to
implement,
though
packs
or
Google
weapons
to
implement
they'll
packs
and
they
use
cloud
and
build
packs.
Are
they
an
end
user
of
the
project,
or
do
you
have
to
actually
like
host
your
own,
like
coop
cluster,
or
something
that
happens
to
have
cognitive
effects
as
part
of
your
build
pipeline
and
therefore
you're?
Now,
a
user
examinate
sense,
yeah.
A
Okay
yeah,
so
that
opens
a
question
and
the
okay,
so
I
understand
the
question
there
and
so
will
follow
up
on
next
Tuesday
discussing
this
and
see
if
we
can
hammer
out
a
recommendation
to
the
TOC
on
how
the
requirement
could
either
be
modified
or
clarified
and
by
the
way
one
of
the
other
things.
Since
this
person
isn't
hero
the
online
is
that
the
other?
There
was
another
project
that
this
was
brought
up
in
the
same
context,
oh
cloud
events
who
also
thought
they
were
in
the
same
situation,
I.
A
G
A
G
Of
like
I
guess,
like
I,
said
in
the
due
diligence
that,
like
I,
had
to
draft
for
incubation.
One
of
the
things
in
the
template
is
like
there's
an
end-user
requirement
of
three
you
end-users
and
most
projects,
who
kind
of
I
guess,
like
I've,
read
a
lot
of
drafts
of
due
diligence
Doc's.
At
this
point
they
tend
to
list
out
like
three
users
in
depth
and
talk
about
them
to
some
degree,
and
then
they
linked
out
to
an
adopters
MD,
but
yeah
I
mean
there's
no
like
requirements
around
can
be
adopters
thing,
but
yeah.
A
In
other
words,
and
but
that's
my
belief
that
he
OSI
has
not
actually
endorsed
that
reasoning
so
and
we
need
to
get
the
TOC
to
say.
This
is
the
rationale
for
this
requirement,
because
if
we
understand
the
rationale,
then
then
the
actual
requirement
about
say
who
is
an
end-user
will
become
a
lot
clearer.
B
Yeah
I
think
a
lot
of
this
like
a
good
starting
point,
like
you
said
it's
like.
If
the
TOC
can
tell
us
what
it
is
they're
trying
to
actually
get
like
what
their
dream
project
looks
like
for
each
category,
then
we
can,
you
know
better,
build
out
the
requirement
list
and
then
I
think.
We
also
need
to
be
clear
on
what
a
project
gets
by
being
in
each
category,
like
what's
the
incentive
to
graduate.
A
A
B
A
A
With
Nath's
I
said,
contribs
track
can't
solve
this,
because
the
project
is
not
asking
for
governance
help.
The
project
is
asking
TOC
to
examine
their
policies,
and
that
is
true,
letici
manner,
so
I
basically
have
handed
it
back
to
the
TLC
him
to
the
CNCs
staff
and
if
the
circles
around
and
the
project
in
the
TOC
agree
that
the
project
is
going
to
do
something
or
whatever
and
they
want
help
doing
it
and
then
it'll
come
back
to
us.
A
C
And
Steven,
who
is
not
on
the
line
right
now,
but
that's
actually.
One
of
the
first
points
is
that
I'm
gonna
solicit
help
for
planning
the
maintainer
circle
inside
of
our
intro
email
with
a
survey.
So
that's
why
I'm
also
trying
to
get
this
get
this
out
to
folks
quickly,
so
we
can
get
some
help
here.
I
need
to
get
the
link
for
the
PR
that
I
just
checked
in,
but
this
is
the
readme
for
the
maintainer
circle.
C
A
C
F
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Yeah,
our
working
governance
working
group
is
gonna
end
up
starting
with
requirements
just
because
the
TOC
is
asking
for
us
to
do
requirements
stuff,
the
and
I
think.
Probably,
resources
are
just
going
to
start
out
with
linking
external
resources
unless
someone
else
is
a
lot
of
time
to
write
original
stuff,
because.
C
F
A
A
F
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
I
put
that
we've
completed
that
with
the
contributing
markdown
file,
but
we
have
not
done
that
in
the
readme,
but
we've
innuendo
did
in
the
readme
that
we
have
some
repos
so
I'm
just
saying
that
we
should
clear
some
confusion
there
and
then
the
discussion
point
was:
do
any
of
these
working
groups
operate
in
any
one
of
these
repos,
primarily
I
didn't
know
if
like
if
we
should
map
that
to
like
github
the
issue
that
we
just
talked
about.
That's
just
like
more
advanced
stuff
that
it's
not
a
blocker
for
the
issue.
C
A
So,
link
out
that
sort
of
thing
I
mean
honestly
what
I
would
say
looking
at
the
contributor
PO
is
that
it
would
make
sense
to
actually
have
the
split
more
in
that
stuff.
That's
work
in
progress
goes
in
our
repo
instead
contributor
strategy,
and
when
something
is
going
to
be
published,
we
copy
it.
We
copy
the
published
version
to
the
contributor
repo
and.
C
A
H
A
A
C
We
have
this
written
out
somewhere.
What
on
one
second
I'm
looking
at
our
documentation
here
it
is,
we
have
the
contributing
guide,
says
quote,
see
it
CF,
slash,
contribute,
will
house
contributing
information
and
guidance
that
we
provide
to
CN
CF
project
for
contributor
strategy
topics.
The
intention
is
to
grow
this
as
a
resource
for
all
contributors,
aspiring
/
animators,
and
then
the
CN
CFC
contributor
strategy
says
contains
our
metadox
that
cover
our
governance,
how
we
operate
and
resources
that
we
collect
along
the
way.
A
A
A
That
will
require
us
to
get
access
to
the
contributor
repo,
but
I
think
we're
going
to
need
that
eventually
anyway,
so
yeah,
yeah,
okay,
well,
I
will
follow
up
on
the
infra
issue
on
permissions
on
the
contribute,
repo
I
and
follow
up
with
the
CN
CF
to
make
sure
that
they
don't
have
any
objections
to
that.
Workflow.