►
Description
The Knative Community recently adopted a new Steering charter. The overhaul of the charter took 6 weeks of discussion, and many arguments and eventual compromises between stakeholders with different goals for the project. Join Knative project leaders who will talk about why they changed the charter and the process of driving consensus on new governance for the project.
For more information, visit https://knative.dev
Visit communitycentral.tv for information on upcoming episodes of Community Central and past sessions on open source community projects and best practices!
Click subscribe below to stay up to date with content from the Red Hat Open Source Program Office!
A
B
D
A
B
So
I
would
say
that
the
overarching
goal
of
k-native,
certainly
when
we
were
getting
started,
was
to
try
and
present
serverless
style
user
experience
that
run
ran
on
top
of
kubernetes
since
kubernetes
is
becoming
ubiquitous
right.
You
know
having
a
serverless
developer
experience
on
top
of
that
platform
that
runs
everywhere,
and
so
we
sort
of
at
the
originally
we
identified
sort
of
three
main
areas
that
they
were
sort
of
felt
like.
B
There
were
gaps,
one
of
those
spun
off
and
is
now
a
project
that
you
may
know
as
tecton
and
then
today
what
folks
think
of
as
k
native
is
largely
sort
of
two
main
pillars:
an
area
we
call
surveying
which
handles
request-based,
scaled
container,
containerized
workloads
and
then
another
area.
We
call
eventing,
which
handles
know
bringing
events
into
our
model,
distributing
those
events
to
consumers
and
maybe
soon
handling
how
those
events
actually
exit
our
model
and
into
you
know
that
takes
us.
A
D
I'll
that
a
stab
at
that
one,
so
the
the
the
end
result
of
those
changes
is,
is
basically
there's
two
broad
categories.
One
is
that
our
steering
committee
is
moving
from
a
model
where
we
had
folks
on
the
steering
committee
representing
their
employers
and
without
a
clear
set
of
rules
for
how
we'll
maintain
the
membership
of
this
committee,
and
that
steering
committee
is
moving
toward
a
model
where
it
is
elected
and
there
will
be
annual
elections.
D
The
other
broad
category
is
that
there
is
now
a
committee
that
maintains
the
trademark
for
k-native,
and
you
may
want
to
just
like
brace
yourself
for
the
name
of
this
committee.
It
may
shock
you,
it's
called
the
trademark
committee
and
that
is
really
about
maintaining
the
scope
of
what
the
trademark
encompasses.
D
So
this
is
when
we
were
having
this
discussion
about
the
the
governance
matters
that
we've
been
working
on.
It
sort
of
became
clear
that
this
was
maybe
more
of
a
fit
situationally
for
a
committee
where
vendors
are
represented,
and
so
that
will
be
the
the
nature
of
that
committee.
And,
although
it's
not
elected
every
year,
the
trademark
committee
will
consider
new
vendors
for
a
spot
on
that
committee.
D
C
A
C
A
D
C
D
C
B
I
think
I
think
the
expectation
and
the
way
things
have
been
well.
I
don't
think
this
has
been
set
up
yet,
but
I
think
the
way
it
was
sort
of
structured
was
that,
ultimately,
that
the
trademark
committee
would
hopefully
delegate
certain
areas
so
that
there's
policies
governing
it,
you
don't
have
to
go
to
them.
You're
like
can
I
make
this
sticker
right
and
you
know
so
certain
self-service
policies
for
certain
use
of
the
the
trademark
buffer.
You
know
in
order
to
call
it.
B
You
know
both
the
example,
these
canadian
teapots
you,
you
might
have
to
go
to
the
trademark
committee,
but
for
certain
other
areas,
like
you
know,
being
in
the
the
what
we
currently
call
the
k-native
sandbox,
I
like
to
call
it
the
k-native
bike
shed.
You
know
it
might
have
more
relaxed
rules
where
working
groups
can
sort
of
self-govern
to
an
extent.
You
know,
with
oversight
from
the
various
governing
groups
to
create
new
things.
C
C
D
B
Oh,
that's!
That's
a
really
good
point,
one
of
the
sort
of
key
things
that
you
know
was
went
into
how
the
market
would
be
protected
with.
What's
this
idea
of
sort
of
conformance
specification
and
conformance
testing
to
match
that
specification,
so
that
folks
could
basically
use
those
conformance
tests
to
ensure
that
they
are.
You
know
in
good
standing
with
respect
to
their
use
of
the
mark,
and
so
conformance
is
something
we've
talked
about
forever.
A
B
Yeah,
so
I
I
think
one
of
one
of
the
things
that
was
feels
like
a
good
distinction
that
came
out
of
some
of
the
conversations
we
had,
especially
with
the
dynamic
of
like
when
we
were
talking
about
hearing
versus
tfc.
Do
we
need
both
whatnot
right,
so
the
sort
of
now
bodies
that
I
think
exists
at
the
sort
of
top
level
of
the
project.
There's
the
trademark
committee
that
deals
with
sort
of
what
we've
been
talking
about.
B
There's
steering
and
I
think
the
most
crisp
articulation
is
it
deals
with
this
community,
the
people
element
of
it
and
then
there's
the
technical
oversight
committee,
which
deals
with
the
sort
of
technical
aspects
of
the
project,
and
you
know
I
like
that
sort
of
succinct
separation
of
the
those
three.
But
obviously
we
all
talk
a
lot
and
you
know
nothing.
We
don't.
A
D
I
want
to
say
it's
community
issue
33
to
to
encode
the
rules
for
how
steering
committee
will
be
maintained,
and-
and
this
was
also
sort
of
like
something
that
was
of
great
importance
to
a
lot
of
us
on
steering
to
do
after.
We
had
our
first
toc
elections
earlier
this
year,
but
it
wasn't,
it
was
wasn't
quite
as
easy
as
as
you
as
you
joke
about
josh.
We
had
a
number
of
public
steering
meetings.
D
D
Well,
the
we
are
going
to
be
having
the
first
elections
later
this
year,
in
fact
josh
before
this.
If
you
remember,
you
were
kind
of
banging
on
me
about
getting
some
of
the
details
of
the
elections
finalized
that
hopefully
we'll
be
able
to
finalize
those
this
week
and
begin
the
call
for
nominations,
but
we
we
should
exit
2020
with,
among
other
things,
a
partially
elected
steering
committee
and
that
will
become
fully
elected
in
2021.
A
B
A
Okay,
we
have
a
very
different
question
from
the
audience
debbie
wants
to
know.
Is
there
any
chance
that
one
day
k-native
serving
will
be
integrated
into
kubernetes
the?
Because
this
is
because
we
put
aside
the
serverless
part
just
the
fact
to
create
a
single
hand,
service
resource
that
creates
everything
else,
would
make
our
lives
easier.
B
So
I
I
mean
it's
a
good
question.
I
you
know,
I
would
say
pro
probably
not,
but
you
know,
I
think,
there's
a
bunch
of
reasons.
So
we
are
working
with
various
efforts
in
the
upstream
community
to
sort
of
push
upstream
well
work
with
upstream
efforts
to
make
sure
that
they
are
better
aligned
with
what
we
are
doing
in
serving
so.
B
But
the
other
thing
that
sort
of
makes
me
so
it
makes
my
sort
of
gut
reaction.
No,
it's
I
think
upstream
and
kubernetes
they're,
trying
to
you
know
embrace
crds
as
a
model
for
things
to
exist
outside
of
core
and
for
kubernetes
itself
to
be
less
monolithic,
and
so
I
think,
moving
k-native
serving
into
something
like
kubernetes
upstream
is,
actually
you
know
moving
against
the
current
there
to
some
extent,
and
so
that's
sort
of
my
take
on
it.
But
yeah.
D
C
D
The
and
and
that
is
actually
one
of
the
one
of
the
main
motivations
for
custom
resource
definitions
being
in
kubernetes,
that
we
can
have
projects
that
are
sort
of
maybe
a
higher
level.
If
you
think
about
kubernetes
is
like
the
base,
knowing
there's
a
lot
under
it,
of
course,
but
but
think
of
kubernetes
kubernetes
is
sort
of
layer,
zero
or
layer
1.
Depending
on
what
your
index
initiating
preferences
are,
enabling
things
to
be
on
top
of
kubernetes
without
requiring
you
know,
requiring
full
api
servers
or
being
directly
integrated.
D
There's
been
a
lot
of
work
in
cube
to
facilitate
that
kind
of
thing.
So,
of
course,
the
devil's
in
the
details
right
like
when
we
think
about
when
we
think
about
the
question
of
will
k-native
ever
become
part
of
cube.
The
answer
is
probably
that
that's
as
matt
said,
maybe
the
opposite
of
the
way
that
the
winds
are
blowing,
but
on
the
other
hand,
if
you
look
at
the
details,
there's
probably
individual
features
that
where
kubernetes
may
evolve
some
functionality.
D
That's
currently
present
in
k
native
and
the
the
the
one
that
comes
to
mind
for
me
around.
That
is
scale
to
and
from
zero
for
the
auto
scaler
and
matt.
You
probably
know
a
lot
more
about
that,
and-
and
michael
you
probably
know
a
lot
more
about
that
than
I
personally
do
so.
It
might
be
good
to
just
kind
of
examine
that
case
in
point
a
little
bit.
B
B
The
need
to
integrate
with
the
sort
of
networking,
layer
and
buffer
requests,
while
things
are
scaled
from
zero,
and
so
I
think
I
think
it's
actually
a
really
good
improvement
to
kubernetes
for
sort
of
pull-based
scale
from
zeros
to
things
like
cada,
which
I
see
is
very
complementary
to
k-native
doing
pull-based
auto-scaling,
where
there's
a
queuing
system
involved.
That's
already
buffered
the
request
right
and
it
can
observe
sort
of
the
metrics
on
the
queue
to
sort
of
rehydrate
it
and
you
know,
hold
hold
on
to
those
things.
B
D
Well,
I
think
the
the
first
qualification-
and
I
won't
give
my
exhaustive
list,
but
the
the
first
most
fundamental
qualification-
is
that
you
want
to
do
the
job
of
steering
and
that
job
is
around
is
around
growing
the
community
and
making
sure
that
the
community
is
healthy
and
maintaining
to
the
extent
that
is
necessary.
You
know
governance
changes
around
things
like
steering
charter
or
contributor
ladder
that
kind
of
thing.
C
Yeah,
maybe
maybe
what
you
can
add
there
as
well?
It's
not
only
how
you
get
become
part
of
steering
committee,
but
also
like,
if
you're
more
on
the
technical
side,
how
you
can
engage
in
the
project
as
well,
and
there
are
various
opportunities
you
can
join
some
of
the
work
groups.
There
are
various
roles
within
the
work
groups
you
can
fulfill.
C
B
And
I
think
one
of
so
I
think,
there's
a
couple
sort
of
things
I
wanted
to
touch
on
there.
So
one
of
the
things
that's
happened
in
the
last
year
is
the
introduction
of
some
sort
of
non
or
less
technical
roles,
around
sort
of
managing
execution
and
and
whatnot
of
the
project
that
are
new
and
sort
of.
B
But,
as
paul
said,
I
think
you
know
wanting
to
do
the
job
and,
like
you
know,
having
I
like
the
term
chop,
chopping,
wood
and
carrying
water
right
like
there's,
I
think
a
lot
of
work.
We
can
do
to
grow
the
community,
and
so
you
know
folks,
who
you
know,
are
interested
in
helping
us
do
that.
You
know.
That's
that's
the
most
important
thing
I
think.
D
Yeah-
and
I
I
want
to
just
draw
attention
to
to
something
that
matt
said
around
the
exception
process.
We
we
really
do,
I
think,
not
just
on
steering
but
just
broadly
within
the
project,
value
all
forms
of
contribution,
and
we
know
that
some
of
them
are
like
really
tough
to
count
right
and
and
the
ones
that
are
countable.
Sometimes
like
the
count.
Can
it's
just
a
piece
of
data?
D
It
depends
on
like
what
dimension
you
put
on
that
data
for
what
it
means.
So
we
we
know
that
there's
no
perfect
algorithm
to
like
deterministically
count
and
away
contributions,
so
both
if
you're
interested
in
being
a
candidate
either
for
toc
or
steering
there's
an
exception
process,
and
if,
if
you
feel
like,
you
should
be
eligible
to
vote
and
our
counting
stuff
doesn't
bin
you
in
the
eligible
column,
there's
an
exception
process
that
allows
you
to
approach
the
project
and
say
I
would
like
to
be
allowed
to
vote.
D
Yeah
and
one
one
thing
I
want
to
mention
before
we
like
get
too
far
a
field
of
exception
process
is
that
when
we
talk
about
that
trademark
committee,
that
the
same
thing
applies
also
to
trademarks,
because
we
know
that
you
know
at
the
level
of
vendors
that
are
contributing
to
the
project.
It's
not
always
easy
to
count
all
those
things
either
so
in
in
the
next
year.
D
So
when
we
think
about
like
when
we
think
about
developing
influence
just
know,
you
know
if
you're
watching
this
and
you're
you're,
maybe
a
decision
maker
around
where
your
development
team's
open
source
spend
is
going
to
be
that
that
we
don't
need
to
be
in
the
mindset
of
like
we
need
x
or
y
number
of
commits
that,
like
it
is
really,
and
maybe
this
would
be
something
good
to
codify
in
the
values.
If
it's
not
already
there,
I
think
it
is,
but
like
we
really
do
value
all
different
forms
of
contribution.
D
So
we
talked
about
governance,
and-
and
we
did
talk
about-
you-
know
the
internal
workings
of
the
project.
We
talked
about
the
trademark
committee
and,
like
I'll,
just
be
the
one
to
describe
the
800
pound
gorilla
that
maybe
is
still
in
the
room,
which
is
that
a
lot
of
folks
are
really
interested
in
having
k-native
move
to
be
part
of
a
software
foundation.
D
And
it's
easy
to
you
know
if
I
think
about
ghostbusters
to
cross
the
streams
and
and
sort
of
think
about
those
two
things
as
as
as
one
and
the
same
they're
they're
very
closely
related,
of
course,
but
they're
different
things
and
we
we
did
not
have
any
change
yet
in
the
the
stat
foundation
status
of
the
project.
I
know
that's
something
that
folks
are
really
interested
in.
So
I
for
me
personally,
that's
that's
one
thing.
I'd
like
to
see
some
movement
on
over
the
next
year.
C
Oh,
I
I
I
think
paul
captured
it
well,
it
is.
It
is
the
next
big
rock
that
we
need
to
address
on
the
governance
side.
I
think
what
we
are
hoping
to
accomplish
with
the
changes
we
already
made
is
to
open
up
the
doors
for
more
contributions
like
make
it
more
appealing
for
people
to
contribute
to
engage
in
the
community
to
grow
the
community.
B
B
B
D
Absolutely,
and
and
a
good
way
to
do
that
is
you
can
you
can
certainly
reach
out
to
us
individually,
but
I
think
that
if
folks
are
comfortable,
probably
the
most
effective
way
to
get
the
broadest
reach
on
communicating
those
kinds
of
things
that
may
still
be
encumbrances
for,
for
you
is
to
create
an
issue
on
our
k-native
community.
Repo
would
probably
be
the
most
effective
way
to
have
the
the
broadest
reach.
A
Cool,
so
any
final
thoughts
on
well
actually
wait
back
up
before
we
get
to
final
thoughts.
So
four
other
projects
who
are
at
the
point
where
they're
going
through
the
change
of
you
know,
hey
their
leadership,
is
just
their
initial
set
of
of
of
contributors
to
actually
having
a
formal
governance
structure
and
having
elections
and
stuff.
C
Yeah,
I
think
what
has
also
proven
how
to
be
a
good
element
is
like
this
new
thought
about
trademark
committees,
separate
from
steering
committee
before
we
had
it
all
lumped
into
one
and
that
generated
complexities
in
the
the
project
setup
that
that
made
it
hard
to
come
to
an
agreement
amongst
all
parties,
and
I
think
this
this
new
construct
and
like
we
just
said
before,
it's
probably
the
first
project,
who
has
a
structure
like
that.
But
this
new
construct
helped
us
untangling.
B
Yeah,
so
I
echo
the
point
of
both
of
those
good
points
about
sort
of
the
coup
precedent
and
you
know
sort
of
separating
out
trademark
from
steering.
I
think
one
thing
that
I
think
I'd
probably
caution
a
little
bit
about
the
coupe
president
is
it's
a
really
big
project,
and
so
I
would
say,
as
the
project
as
projects
reach
the
point
of
needing
a
certain.
B
You
know
a
certain
body
or
a
certain
process
for
things
I
would
say,
look
at
kubernetes
for
precedent
and
you
know
I
think
that
it's
widely
regarded
as
doing
pretty
well
there.
They
don't
have
everything
figured
out
they
you
know.
Frankly,
they
have
a
lot
more
folks
thinking
about
those
problems,
they're
sort
of
laying
tracks
out
in
front
of
the
train
right.
So
hopefully,
by
the
time
your
project
hits
problem
x,
they
will
have
sort
of
figured
that
out
and
in
a
way
that
folks
are
sort
of
receptive
to.
B
But
I
think
you
know,
canada,
I
think,
probably
had
heavier
governance
and
process
early
on
than
it
should
have.
And
then
you
know
recently
it
probably
took
more
effort
than
it
should
have
to
fix.
Some
of
the
things,
so
I
don't
know
that
we're
a
great
example
of
when
to
do
those
things,
but
I
think
that
you
know,
as
evidenced
by
sort
of
us,
wanting
the
same
process
for
steering
that
or
a
similar,
very
similar
process
for
steering
that
we
did
for
toc.
B
I
think
we
think
that
the
the
toc
process
was
pretty
successful.
I
think
we
ended
up
with
a
great
bunch
of
folks
from
the
community
on
it
and
that
has
its
roots
in
you
know,
I
think
kubernetes
based
processes,
so
I
yeah
they
have
a
big
plus
one
to
sort
of
not
reinventing
the
wheel
and
looking
to
kubernetes
processes.
They,
as
paul
said
that
the
way
those
things
have
been
documented
is
just
justice,
yeah,
they're,
very
good,
they're,
very
well
articulated
and
yeah.
D
D
This
up,
thanks
to
everybody
in
our
community
that
participated
in
this
process
of
getting
to
getting
to
the
point
we're
at
now
with
steering
like
I
probably
one
of
the
best
open
source
experiences
of
my
life,
was
like
seeing
how
many
people
thought
it
was
a
good
use
of
time
to
attend
our
public
discussions
around
this,
and
I'm
personally
convinced
that
that
we
have
a
much
better
outcome
due
to
community
participation.
So
let
me
just
say,
thanks
to
everybody
that
that
participated,
couldn't
have
done
it
without
you.