Kubernetes Steering Committee, 18 Jul 2018

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: Steering Committee 20180718

Description

Notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qazwMIHGeF3iUh5xMJIJ6PDr-S3bNkT8tNLRkSiOkOU

Chat (times are probably off):
00:14:04 Joe Beda: https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/projects/1
00:20:56 Michelle Noorali: +1
00:21:07 Quinton Hoole: +1 lets move on
00:22:11 Michelle Noorali: What does PSA stand for?
00:22:22 Phillip Wittrock: Public service announcement
00:22:25 Aaron Crickenberger: ^
00:22:26 Michelle Noorali: Oh thanks
00:24:14 Michelle Noorali: https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/issues/62
00:25:27 Michelle Noorali: Internet issues sorry
00:32:47 Joe Beda: Yeah - the SIGs should feel like they own their own charter.
00:35:54 Michelle Noorali: maybe we can track these in issues?
00:36:07 Michelle Noorali: Like open an issue if you see something you want to discuss over time?
00:56:11 Joe Beda: Please do more "voluntelling" Michelle. That is super helpful.
00:56:18 Michelle Noorali: sure thing
00:56:43 Joe Beda: toothless? From how to train your dragon?
01:05:17 Michelle Noorali: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/2384

A

Okay, okay, so we're now recording it is oh I'm in London, so I don't know what time it's one floor. 104 p.m. in Pacific time and today is Wednesday July 18th. This is the steering committee, and so everything will be recorded and posted. So be careful about what you say. If there are some topics that you want to cover privately, you can go ahead and slack me and I'll keep an eye on that. We can stop the recording and cover that stuff, but I.

A

Don't think anybody has anything specifically that I heard of so Aaron welcome back, oh you're gonna be bozon. Yes, fine heard the cat's.

B

Here, yes, it's good to be back I'm still catching up on all the things I'm, not sure which is more disorienting, starting at Google or coming back to the kubernetes community after eight weeks of not seeing what I think it's its literal insanity, so I appreciate it.

B

Just chases efforts at putting together a project board for us and I thought we could try using that to just quickly scroll through, what's in the in progress column, to see if it actually belongs there and that will get us to discussion about the charters, because there's an issue about charters in there. Does that sound good to everybody before.

C

We do that. Can we give a brief update from the feedback Phil, Derek and I had which fed into the charters? Can we do that when we get to the charters? It's like pre charter conversation, though so I'm fine, with whatever yeah.

B

If you don't mind, I, just I just want to try using the board to see if we can actually get a the thing that drive us. So thank you, Joe for posting the link. So first there is a new repo request for the contributor site. I guess I could share the screen here. No actually I have too many things on screen. So first request is for the contributor site: it's a request from contra bucks.

B

As far as I was concerned, there Kath looked great they've met all the requirements, except for a written record of the decision that the sig has agreed to this repo, and so they are kindly doing a vote on their mailing list right now. Thank you for sharing your screen, they're doing a vote on their mailing and I figured once that vote closes I'm happy to go ahead and create the site Joe I saw you had questions about the scope of it.

B

I think that would be better directed at contra Bex and on the cap, but my read was they're. Just talking about markdown files are yeah.

A

I'm happy to engage with them I think either way if they, if they think they need a repo or on this stuff, we'll find the right way to make it work. Yep, there's no reason to stand on that cool.

B

Next item is something about documentation requirements, not really sure where this came from. Based on my read of the agenda, it talks about determining how documentation policies are enforced and how the enforcement is folded into sig release. It's unclear to me where the steering committee needs to weigh in and why this isn't something that sig release purely has mandate over so.

A

I I'm trying to remember the conversation.

A

It's really one of as new features as new things happen. Do we want to make documentation, be a gate to some degree right and so sig Docs can say hey. You should do this, but if we want to say hey like you know, you cannot check in a feature. You cannot merge this. You cannot a feature flag until your documentation is a certain level. That's a level of policy that probably should involve the steering committee making your decisions.

A

B

Hear that that is a difficult thing to enforce, because a lot of features are implemented as a variety of us like a stream of pull requests, and so it's kind of difficult to yank them all back out. No.

C

It's more of a when you switch it from on the major switches. So, even though you could have all the pill requests in place before you can actually promote from alpha to beta, which is like a final there's, a final push really okay, so we can do that final push between alpha to beta or beta G, a that there would be a gate. Okay, that sounds like a cig architecture decision.

B

Where's, the steering in this policy yeah.

D

I think the proposal in the doc that SiC ducks should propose what that gate should be for output, beta and GA, and we should approve it or complain. If we don't like it seems reasonable to me. Yeah.

E

I think the mechanism which I'm a fan of that idea I think it gating a flag. I was also thinking, it'd, be a stepping stone towards future branches or something docks are just one requirement. I think we also need to look at tests. So you know if the release team worked with, say these are Zig, dachshund, suggesting and other parts the org about the requirements.

E

Then it could just it could be like a launch checklist yeah, you get, you passed all the checks and you can launch one challenge that we've had in the past, with turning on things late is that the tests can't run about a hundred times more frequently when they're run at head in the in the master, then, if they're just feature feature tests that only get run when changes specific to that feature, get pushed.

E

So that's that's an issue with feature branches, but it's also depending on how the enablement works could be an issue with with the gating approach as well. We need to make sure that the test run offer enough to service problems. Early is.

C

This really in progress, or we kind of punted on this. So our goal is to evaluate, what's actually in progress or is this kind of like we've been do a new column? That's oops is blocked and waiting. So we're waiting for someone documentation to write the policy thing.

A

I'm with him I think we need to find a owner for this. It's probably not somebody on the steering committee and then I just.

F

A

Think it's a matter of the steering committee to be able to to advise and approve, or maybe punt it says, Sagarika tech, chure, I think that may be a reasonable thing. Yeah.

B

Again, my principle concern here is: is like I'm, not clear on why steering committee has to be involved. This seems thoroughly something that's if we're trying to do our jobs right, we're trying to delegate decisions as much it's policy.

E

B

E

Whose which cig is responsible like I, could imagine so at least have the right people that it could be sig released to define released requirements in the.

B

Same vein, as like features aren't allowed to go to GA until they have conformance tests. I believe that was an architecture, exclusive decision and I would say it could be the same thing for futures shouldn't: go to GA or flag shouldn't be flipped until sega architecture has a saying on that sort of thing. Well,.

E

Cigarette yeah and I could see that argument. I'm the API thing was pretty obvious where it fell, because Sagarika texture owns API governance, which owns the definition of what a GA or API even means.

E

And don't hit me on the conformance definition so and then kind of all relevant size.

B

Of that particular issue, so I don't know I agree with, we should find an owner. But to me it seems like this isn't something a steering committee is working on. We should see who, from sig Docs would like to make this proposal and circulating architecture, and/or sig release, and if there are points of contention and they feel the need to escalate back up to steering then we'll be happy to take a look at it.

B

But if it'll stakes involved agree great- and there are members from the steering committee who are involved in both of those yeah.

E

That sounds good to me.

C

Okay, cool so to summarize, I put it two blocked and waiting, and we should update the note inside the documentation requirements, one to punt it two docks Folkston sounds.

G

Great and some yeah who's in charge of punting it back to Mike who's gonna write the email, it's gotta be one of us.

B

Or I can ask you to do it, assign it to me, because I can go tap chase on the shoulder, no or.

E

B

Be good here, I can even slash this line and I'll do that. Okay, so now we're at the charters issue Tim, you said you had some stuff you wanted to discuss before we even dive into specifics. Yes,.

C

Fills in the cost so filled, Eric and I went off and reviewed number Chartres and Phil had updated the template, so it's more of a PSA and that template reflects a lot of the commonality that we saw across the best practices and the things we didn't like and canonical examples that folks should reference according to what we saw was node and off, where the examples, the good examples to try to replicate.

C

So it's more of a PSA as we review, we should be taking a look at those two and updated template anything else, Phil that I missed. That's.

H

It yeah I had the action item after that meeting them to go and update node to reference. The common template I haven't done that yet I'd like to get that done shortly, but I don't know if you want to say what we liked or didn't like about them, but I think it was largely around declarations of scope in Anna scope, yeah.

E

I mean he does in fact, what we're focusing on, like the that we wants around specific roles. I think is something that we wanted to downplay.

F

E

Focusing on in their reviews and come back to that as we iterate on and refine those if I.

F

Create an issue for like just listing out things that make up a good charter and not so well just good I, don't have a negative one, but that issues out there I don't know. If we want to collaborate on that as we go forward, I know: you'll have a doc separately that you list out, like specifics and for each SIG's charter. But do you want to do something generic and that issue and then make a document, and that would actually help us as steering committee members review charters going forward.

F

E

Is that the the meta issue or I.

F

Know it's an its I'll, give you a link to it.

G

F

Yeah just sent you a link.

E

C

And what were you asking again, Michelle yeah.

F

I just want to know like how are we gonna talk about how what like, what makes a good charter? Where do we list out, like the bullet points? Basically, so, like a good charter is gonna. Look like the stake charter template. It has a well-defined scope section that accurately reflects what the sig is doing. Currently, there's a process for world transitions. Are there other things that we want to add to that item and make that maybe a document that's listed so that people will understand like what we're looking for in a charter? Well,.

E

So we have the short template and a document about the requirements for the charter should list in the and the requirements. Yeah.

F

That makes sense.

E

Like things that are especially important or things that are discouraged, or at least not recommended, or things like that, okay.

F

E

Do it this way because you'll run into this problem or it's redundant with this other thing or the information could go somewhere else instead, that seems like it should go in the in the meta document, and the template should just be as simple yeah.

F

That makes sense yeah.

B

Yeah, like I'm I, think I'm, probably coming from Michelle's context as well. First off sorry, I.

F

B

Reviewed any of the charters that have been assigned to me, I'm, not even sure which ones there are I'm going to I, would like to make that my focus and go heads down and focus on nothing, but that soon and what would help me do? That is a checklist to know exactly what I should be looking for when I'm reviewing so Michelle's issue looks a lot like what I what I would be expecting. If there are other documents there, maybe I just haven't read yeah.

B

So this could be an issue of me not being up to speed, and you already have a checklist in your head, but I'm trying to fit on really hoping that, like II well.

E

Well, we were supposed to do what I think Phil and Tim just did, which is. We were supposed to look across like a half dozen or so charters figure out what we liked and what we didn't like by looking at those examples, update the templates and potentially the the guidance document that goes along with it and then go apply that the remaining charters, yeah.

H

So we looked at four and I think we looked at cigar, we looked at note off and apps and frankly, I think we felt Ark was not representative of, like other SIG's, necessarily not.

E

Done so yeah don't look at that one! That's.

B

On the burner, for now, can you for my.

E

B

Post the dock of where you summarized that stuff in chat or something I liked I, must have totally missed it. I.

A

Think there's a list in the in the issue. That's linked off of the.

H

And then Mary, he said feedback like you can knit on a lot of things, but I think the biggest general net was like some some sakes. The scope was so broad that they could literally accept any project into the project like any lily, sponsor any sub project. Well,.

E

I know the template didn't initially even have a scope sections in there and some of the charters that pre-existed the whole push to get to develop. Charters yeah we're pretty short like there were one sentence: scope, descriptions which is not sufficient.

H

So I think that was the major piece of feedback and that those that had an out of scope section were helpful and having the scope more closely aligned to the code that the sig already owned or sponsored versus like aspirationally, owned and sponsored, was considered. Helpful. I think yeah.

G

I I think that we do need to just push everyone to use the new template, because I saw a lot of rattling every which see it was I think it was service catalog, on like cleaning up the language of the old template. Like all of yesterday, there three people trying to make the old template better I think we just need to hold decide whether this template here has been enough until everyone and start using it is this word printing too many cycles, yeah.

E

That sounds good to me, yeah. Unfortunately, the six got ahead of when.

B

We weren't really ready to move forward, so we expect that by everybody using the template, they're all gonna, more or less use the same roles in decision-making process and where we expected I think is in scope. Yeah.

H

So I think the link to the standard roles and then say where they deviate. Yeah.

G

Essentially, they can override, but just because all of them work spending all this time trying to clean up the language like. Oh, what happens if somebody works for a new company or wherever they're just spending all this time, so.

B

To me, it seems like we're taking a desperate like first pass of this, because it's been way too long and it's probably not gonna, be right. So I'm wondering are we making it do? We need to make it clear in documentation, policy or process that this is intended to be iterative? So, for example, one of the most important things we as a steering committee did for our Charter was to make sure we had a process to like change our Charter right. Do we expect or anticipate such things from SIG's.

C

Yes, it's just a pull request away. Well,.

E

I think there's a question of what deserves steering committee review versus just can be reviewed within the sig. Maybe and I, don't know how volume what the volume of changes will be and whether it will I just glanced at them all and say yeah. It looks fine, that's not something! The steering committee cares about.

E

Hopefully that that's the case. There aren't super frequent changes, but I think we should make it clear at least that if they change the scope of the sig, this during committee has to review that okay.

D

I think even the even the changing of officers has historically led to some confusion. Stroke. What's the right word controversy we've had a few of them. We've had it. We've had a few very smooth ones which were not problematic and we've had a few problematic ones. It's it seems useful to just mandate that they distribute the plans. You know two weeks before committing the pool request or whatever just so that everybody's aware of what's going on and it can complain if there are any objections like.

B

I, don't know to me I'm wondering if this is a process that we owe it to SIG's to document, so we've had hazard lis attempted to take a first pass here, but then going forward as you change your charter, you need to do XY and z 8, you know, make sure you get lazy consensus from your Civic and make sure you get sign-off from a member of the steering committee.

E

Well, yeah I agree that the steering committee should define a process so that not everybody struggled needs to struggle to figure out one themselves. I, don't know that. That's the process that I would recommend, but I do agree that coming up with some kind of these basic process would be helpful. Like.

B

For me, even even before, I like at the verbage right can I understand if, because it's totally trying to set the expectation that hey everybody I know, though some of you feel like you put a lot of effort into this, and now it is set in stone forever. It will not change and it could be that as humans often do we've made a mistake, the first time and there will need to be cm summary adjustment and, like anything.

C

In the project or anything that we've done, that implies that things are arbitrary, set in stone like yeah I, think it even if I recall correctly, the template spells out. You know, changes to the template itself or changes to your charger. So it's not. We don't have an explicit. You know like here the bylaws for the template or something like that, but I think we could probably add some language to that. You know to the template that basically says you know, changes welcomed over time or some some generic statement.

C

That makes it clear as they copy the template that they can just go forth and iterate on it as needed. But the whole purpose of the modification of the template was because we saw people redefining the basically the same roles over and over again, and so we just decided saying, like that's meta, now, just change the things that are different about your sick. Yes,.

B

I understand that I guess, like one devil's advocate corner case, could be if the steering didn't committee decides to make it change to that template. Suddenly that changes the behavior of every single sig, that's linking to that template version.

E

Like the code of conduct.

A

Like point to a sha and you're done,.

E

That like, if we're closing loopholes in this thing, like don't we want, we can opt in to can email all the six and say you know, please, please take a look at the changes and, if you're good update to the new one, if.

A

You're not good, tell us why or or it's like hey, you have seven days to object. If you don't object, we're just gonna, like you know, like I, prefer the.

E

A

C

Think we should make a generic statement like this thing, is subject to change over time and will be communicated via something something alright. So that way, at least it's clear that we haven't, we don't know the future, that's impossible line.

E

C

B

Sure, as needed, I'm just okay, we can reflect if we're cool with that language right. It's it's just a it's a tonal thing. That's all I'm! Personally, fine with.

E

If anyone wants to update the disabled, communicate over such-and-such a channel I'd be okay.

B

So the other, the other direction that makes me think about this question is when I look at I, hope: I, don't rattle us into another thing, but like when I look at sig cloud provider and then all of these others sakes for individual clouds or that's really the only concrete case. I have right now for where SIG's might want to merge and we might have an opinion that differs from the opinion of the stakes and that opinion may change over time. I'm curious what the policy or process would look like for that.

C

B

C

The charters is a forcing function for pounding. What is responsible for and whether or not it's a sub-project right like we might need to change. I think this. The whole purpose of this is to try to rationalize the structure that we currently have right so or the implicit structure make it very explicit right, take what is kind of implicit and then rationalize it and make it very explicit and right.

B

And so like a bunch of each of us are all looking at a bunch of different charters and there's no one person who collectively understands the scope of everything and how it like links together and ties together and whatnot. That will take time and if we notice that something is off over time. Are we clear on how we're going to address that do.

C

We want to have a subgroup of people responsible for maintaining managing looking at this as they as they're inbound, because we kind of federated the overall view of the world, but somebody some subgroup of folks who you know have look at all of the deets. So.

A

I, don't think I mean the Charter should be succinct enough, that we can actually pull together, one page that actually pulls out the charters, the the scope out of each of the charters, and that ends up I mean is that's the critical thing looking for overlap. Yeah at least.

E

A

Statements are in this six diamo already. Yes,.

E

A

We just say: hey: that has to be the scope that has to line up with the Charter and then we'll have a way to sort of overview and look for overlap and look for overly broad stuff. All that so.

B

Your self suggestion is, you know, opening an issue and discussing this as we noticed it over time. That's that's what I would expect to be the most obvious and intuitive direction. Take I, just wonder from who has the final say perspective I think.

F

That is, that is staring right. That is why we're why we're here, yeah.

E

Need a steering committee Charter is written, it's written to reserve all the power to the steering committee and delegated.

F

As for how to deal with the cloud provider in nursing six for each cloud, yeah I think we should maybe make that an issue. Since that's something that we want to talk about and then discuss it over time because I've, you know, I've reviewed that I've reviewed the few email threads that we've had on that, and it just conversation seems just like rabbit poll on email thread and it's just like not the right place to discuss it. So maybe we should bring trying.

D

To create a conversation.

F

D

We so for the charters, I think we kind of dulled them out to members and steering committee to make sure that each sig had a kind of a mental with respect to figuring out their charter, and maybe we should expand that to like a general mentoring role where someone on the stage. So every Sikh has allocated to it a steering committee member whose responsibility it is to make sure that that sig is kind of functional and not overlapping without the sage and whatever and advise them they don't have to.

D

You know actually attend or signa change, but maybe a quarterly check-in to say is your signal operating according to what we expect SIG's to do.

D

Hi did that make sense. It.

B

Did part of me is like that sounds like a single point of failure, but at the same time, informally that's happening for a lot of us were a lot of things already and I would be curious, which SIG's aren't covered formally or informally by us, and it's not that hard to have that information into SIG's, not yamo or whatever.

D

Yeah exactly and the steering committee mentor to each sig and we're done I.

B

Would maybe do it not so much mentors point of contact or liaison yeah.

D

We can debate the name, but that person on the steering committee mate is responsible for making sure that the sig is healthy. Yeah.

E

For each sig we tried to assign a primary.

B

And a secondary, so basically are we talking about taking that spreadsheet and turning that into something a little more formal, okay, I can take an action item to turn that into a formal thing and contact.

B

People, if there are gaps in that the only other question is there multiple six, where a steering committee member is also actively involved in that sig? Does that chain is? Should that be considered one of the person, or should we still be going with, like the spreadsheet kind of made sure that the two people were not a member of the sick, I.

D

Think this, if I remember correctly, the spreadsheet, didn't enforce that and enforce that one of the two was not an active like the lead of the sig I think it might be going little over the top to not allow any of the sig participants to be the steering committee representative for the sig, and this video I mean yeah.

E

I, don't see the I think when we discussed this originally, we actually thought it was an advantage for that person to be familiar with what the sig did. Okay, like in terms of helping them craft, a traveler, defined scope, and things like that. Okay, so.

B

I'm gonna make sure there are at least two steering committee members for every sitting, based on the spreadsheet, if they're hard and we'll look for some and I'll try to make sure at least one of them is on the sig, and one of them is not.

G

Interviews of all thank you sounds.

B

Good, okay, so back to charters.

B

What are what our next steps here, I.

E

Think we're good with the template. I think we can move forward with reviewing the other charters that are in flight according to this spreadsheet, and then we can identify which cities don't have charters and say worth. We think we're ready now to, for all the said, the rest of the states to be their charters. Okay,.

B

So messaging that we would prefer charters that basically just link to the template yay for you, you get to write list. We care about scope. You may have questions about scope.

B

um If we do have questions about Skype, where do we resolve these?

B

Do we reach out? Do we resolve them on the PR right, I'll, try.

E

B

Okay, okay and we're going to look at everything, that's in flight and then we will start soliciting from people who haven't done anything in flight. So we could maybe say that by the next steering committee meeting will be at this point where we are soliciting from things that are not in flight. Well,.

E

I, probably can't do anything.

B

Yeah, you know a lot of us have busy so.

F

There are like flow requests that are just sitting there and that's.

B

What that I talk about, though, is just being in flight right, so.

F

B

Wondering if we can get to the.

F

People that are not in play, I, like worry, about making commitments about getting to the people that are not in flight because, like until we have the people who have been in flight for a long time sold.

I

F

Done so, could we maybe just focus on that for now and then come back next year and committee meeting and decide on whether we're ready or not.

G

Okay, so yeah we have 10 I, think we should get them all merged. The people who are on the list, good with helping out like Brian grant, has three of the ones that are happy ours up, but he doesn't have time. Can we maybe switch that up to people who have time.

E

That's Stephenson architectures not ready to move forward, so I wouldn't consider that one in flight for now, okay, I.

F

Can take apps I'm pretty familiar with that I'm like that seems like a conflict of interest or something I'm.

E

Not worried about conflict of interest, I looked at apps and provided feedback before Matt said he addressed it and I didn't have clean and I didn't have time to get back to him. To me, I think scope was the biggest issue there, because it seemed to be claiming a scope for a lot of things that weren't considered in scope for the kubernetes project as a whole, but that was something that we wanted to resolve.

E

There were also similar issues but trying to fix the template, but if it just update to refer to the template, I think that aspect of it should be addressed so.

A

The commotions here just to be clear, I, just want to make sure that, like I understand what we're talking about here, it's gonna, be it's gonna, be encouraging these things unless they have really good reasons. I think like something like st.

A

cloud may have reasons to structure things a little bit differently, for example, but unless they have really good reasons, just point to the main template as being sort of authoritative and then and then making sure that there's a good scope that passes the sniff test and then maybe we can socialize the scopes more widely across the steering committee. As as we like to set all this stuff, I mean beyond that. I think that's and then just being a point of contact, I'm explaining and creating some certainty around.

A

This is that is that what we're talking about here, I think.

G

We're trying to just get the first 10 and using the template the.

B

Template in template right.

A

B

If there are areas where the specific reviewer has a question is the sort of question about the authenticity scope, whatever they were, trusting them to decide it on their own or at what point do they kick it up to the steering committee to check out it's the sort of thing where I feel, like you kind of trust, your best judgement and then, when you reach a point, you're like huh I'm, not sure what precedent this sets. You email the steering list with a link to where you're at and we can all join I. Don't.

A

Think it's unreasonable for us to say you know: hey I was I've been working with sig off like because they don't have a scope right now and might that's the first one where I see my name as as as lead I've been working with sig off they've decided to use the standard charter here is their scope. We think that this actually captures what they do. Anybody have any objections.

A

If we let let three days go by or something like that, then we'll just assume like some sort of lazy consensus, where at least we socialize that with the steering committee seems seems like maybe a reasonable process here. I'm.

B

Getting the implicit agree that the templates, great awesome and I would like for us to socialize when we're noticing differences in scope or how we're making those decisions in much the same way as we have discussed the concept of the code of conduct committee having some sort of record of its decisions and how and they were made I think it's fair that do the same thing for adjusting scope and I. Think that could be public and on the steering mailing lists. That.

C

Should be on appearance.

B

C

Why would you not why we do not put a comment on the PR itself? That says your scope is unbound. Hats tearing you know like we need to revise this scope. I, don't see why that isn't part of the standard review process for the person who's assigned who's, doing the review for the PRS that are in flight and then they can have the team or the group here to get broader buy-in I. Was it different from any PR that.

B

That's fine I guess: I was just instead of that steering mailing the steering list, since that seems to be higher signal for folks unless you're getting up notifications are so useful that at steering is meaningful to you. I have.

C

Filters for filters that have filters so like everything that steering gets bucketed properly, I.

F

Don't live that way. I am curious. What those filters.

H

Are that sounds.

B

E

G

E

At the sieve to see if I can programmatically generate this.

C

Is not something I'm proud of.

A

Brian I did some email, where I there's a tool where you can have a Yama file that specifies filters. That thing gets uploaded to Gmail automatically. Oh, my god, I can I can dig that up for if you want it, yeah.

E

I think I have pointers to a couple of those I need to actually generate that llamo, probably well.

A

Actually, what I did is I took my llamo based on Tim suggestions, and that might be a good starting point. I sent that out says I've.

E

Already implemented all Tim's they're, not.

F

Gonna tag in that mailing list, or are we gonna do so.

E

I would comments I would put in the PR in terms of raising visibility. Emailing the mailing list- hey, there's this major issue: we've we fix it here or it's still being debated here. I think that's fair and useful, but I would put the like the full record of what's going on PR all.

A

E

So we need each other honest about.

A

Sort of saying: hey, not the mailing, let's do it in the PR or not the mailing. Let's get a PR, then I.

F

A

F

Was the suggestion was both right, like let's tag everyone and then also raise visibility in the mail.

E

Details in the PR notifications via mail right.

F

B

My hope is that the details and auditability of the decision are in the PR, but at the sort of summary level fYI. This is something we're deciding on or this is what we have to sign it like think of it like we could give it quick, ten minutes field next steering committee meeting about what you noticed.

B

Your assignment I have.

F

A question yeah I I'm, not really understanding the hey, we're just gonna point to the Charter template thing, because the Charter template is more of like a fill in the blank choose-your-own-adventure sort of thing. So so I just want to make clear.

I

F

What we're asking is we, so what we need to do is go to a sig, leads mailing list and ask all of the sig chairs to go back and redo their charter according to the Charter template, for it to be approved. Is that what we're asking so and I are not for that, but I'm, just okay.

G

So my problem is I, see sig service catalog yesterday spent all their time not focus on scope, but like adjusting language on how seat chairs are selected based on language that we're not trying to keep that plate up-to-date. That.

C

Is that was all shifted to like here's, the midde topics right and if you diverge, that's what the template update was basically like to get rid of this redundant, weird text that keeps repeating so the that was changed in the template. Brandon.

B

Could you maybe pull up the template that we're all talking about so that Michelle can see it.

H

Really should be what you do, what you don't do and how you deviate from the normal process that others get stuff done, and that's what this yeah.

G

So this is the template as it sits today, and then this is the template that a lot of people started with.

B

So they kind of copy pasted everything here and we're suggesting ratings dead link to the other one confusing, because the other one still has like fill in the blanks here and here it like.

B

It would be helpful if there is a template template thanks to you, the template, you get what I'm saying right: I'm.

F

For this, in particular like they link their scope, links to their definition, so it's not even like written in the in the Charter. Is that okay, like that's something I was unsure about. Would you mind you that's right.

A

I would I would want the Charter to be authority.

F

G

And so they'd link to their mission statement. Essentially, okay,.

F

But the mission statement we're saying it should be in the Charter I.

A

Don't think we have an opinion on anything called a mission statement officially but like the scope of the of this, SIG's should be defined in the Charter and, if that happens, to align, but they want to consider their mission and that's that's fine or do inste SIG's don't have mission. It has like.

E

It is fixed, I am on its mission.

A

E

F

Such a fine word.

D

Sounds like we need import statement in our in our Charter, so you can just import stuff from the template right.

B

Like that's I think the suggestion isn't that we ask people to like rewrite their template with a whole new set of copypasta. It's instead get rid of your copypasta and link to the not this doc. The other tab anyway, I think.

C

It's better to like reference, canonical, good examples like off, and the update to node like I mentioned earlier, as the reference examples that people should be copying because they they will reference the template and you know not do the overburdensome copy/paste. That happened before so.

A

I mean for what it's worth Tim I mean like even off what you're, using as a good example. It doesn't have a scope defined in its charter.

G

All right so I think what needs happen is one of us needs to create some template language, so we pasted into the ten open issues so essentially hey thanks for only work on those really. What we're trying to get at is just freakin, fine, your scope and, what's in an out of scope and the best way to do that, the autistic template.

G

Do it in a such nice way, but I think we're all kind of circling around the same thing? Is we want them to divine scope and a lot of them happen and they're, focusing on non important things now.

E

H

And update the node charter to reference the template as we agree and here's a group best sees fit and know it already has a scope and out of scope section. We can then link to that and then say: please follow this pattern right, but otherwise I don't see the PR is open. So that's why you're not gonna see it. I just have to go and update my PR to link to the template and then I think we would have a decent example of what we were looking for. Okay, just.

D

Observation, we have three topics on the agenda and we're 45 minutes in and we're on the first topic: should we tree move on to the second and third ones before we ran out of time.

B

Work it we're gonna get there. So I was about to close us out here. Brandon. Do you want to take that action? I, don't sure.

G

I can do that. Thank you.

F

I sent an email out to the sig leans group on basically saying the exact same thing before we decided it, sorry, which was a scope section and check out the sig charter template so just like nap I, there's already an email that one out. If we want to send another one, that's fine, but then, if you want to put it in the full request, that's cool and if you need help, let me know: okay,.

B

Yeah, it sounds like you and Brandon should work together. Mitchell.

B

Okay, so we're in agreement we're going to come back next meeting with all ten of these, hopefully merged hi.

G

Yeah we do people to like drink volunteer for a couple of these. Like oh yeah, we're has that's nothing.

B

Can volunteer her sake, Multi cluster? What.

F

Do we do about Tim's spots, Brennan I'd asked if you wouldn't mind taking notes, but I mean I can see that there's several of them, so I took.

G

Some I took them all: okay,.

B

I was happy to take some of them to you since yeah.

G

Yeah yeah, Erin and I definitely had Nick. Have the majority right now.

F

If you want to throw some my way, I'm happy to table.

G

Your earring tie with Erin so you're, not a good person.

B

Well, by talking about it in the context, the next steering committee meeting that gives us next week and which point I plan on throwing up my hands and saying I can't do this if or I need help. I need help by then. Okay.

G

F

All right, I'll, just voluntold people like I, did and I started channeling that.

B

Sounds great, okay, I think yeah I agree. We should move on. So the next item in the board is document. How working group should be formed, which I think was the working group formation process proposal work in progress, doc the Jase drafted? What, where are we on this.

F

There's a whole like there was a working group was a working group. It's my my people, I missed.

B

The drama that I heard there was drama yeah.

F

No less snowless working group, no less, no books, no less yeah, no less white! What's up what's going on.

E

With working group formation or- and so we had, we have like a dozen working groups now there wasn't a documented process at all, like I think there was new language about how to go about it, so people were kind of carb occulting with the approach and it wasn't clear who could it prove them or who could say? No and pretty much all of them just went ahead and got merged, and many of them are actually still needed make sense. As working groups, they should just be sub projects.

E

In any case, I think somewhere there's it says that you should ask SIG's that are interested, and that was interpreted as you need to take sponsor or something. But it's totally unclear and people are asking. Should this be a working group? How do I do that should be a sig? Well, everybody says no to new SIG's, so I'll just make it a working group. So there seems to be a lot of confusion and frustration about about this. So Jase did draft something.

E

There was also the whole discussion about birds of the feathers since I see that highlighted in terms of discussion groups. You know some groups just got shouted down when they were trying to form and things like that and I. Don't think that went anywhere. I discussed it with n CF CN CF is actually also having a similar discussion about what should the purpose of working groups be? Should they live forever?

E

Should they also serve the function as birds of a feather kind of discussion groups or not so Matt Farina is involved with that. There's a working group working group to sort that out and seen CF there's.

E

Actually, a PR to add language, but it's not going anywhere at the moment because this again, though the working groups there are sort of like Stig's in kubernetes and that they have they're trying to define scope and things like that so anyway, I assume that our working groups, somewhere I, had some things I would expect from a short list of a few things. I would expect from working groups to deliver I, don't remember if that made it into the proposal or not.

E

You know, I think this. Is it a working group? If part is kind of the clearest part there are at least the first bullet of that it does not own code and it doesn't really have authority. So anything is just to try to move some goal forward that crosses state boundaries.

B

So like what do we need to move this forward, I'm thinking again of your unavailability and wondering if it's something that I can help push forward, if I do that? What our next steps, how.

H

Does this does this I guess I'm trying to map JC stock, which I have not yet fully read yet and I apologize? But previously the working group had to be sponsored by in theory, more than one sake like I had to span assay, go well.

E

So that was unclear and we had said that one purpose was for issues this ban SIG's, but I wasn't clear that it actually officially needed sponsorship for multiple SIG's, so that was just like all the language around that is totally ambiguous and unclear.

E

So this was trying to clarify things and get agreement and obviously it goes into a fair amount of detail. It's been a while, since I read it but yeah I'm moving forward, we there was Joe, had a pending PR open for various governance hues or something for a long time, and that said a couple of things about working groups, but it didn't. You know, go into this. This much detail. Obviously I mean.

A

I'm happy to somebody asked me to resurrect that and merge. It I mean like that kind of stalled out, because I just felt like it was getting nitpicked and so I feel like. We need to find a way to make progress on this type of stuff without just nitpicking everything to death. It's just like.

E

Yeah, so with this specific thing, if someone else from this drink Vinnie, if you did it Aaron, that would be great to look at this proposal and identified issues and sort of created a tldr for the rest of the steering committee and sent it around. Then we could say yeah. That sounds good and we could convert this to a PR and get it merged. Okay, I will try.

B

And do that that this isn't the sort of thing I want to get done through the mailing list and have it like off the table by next meeting, because I'm hoping that at least settles roughly what the working group aspires to be and the creation procedure for it looks like we have four SIG's and thus a creation procedure, and then I think the next thing that we can discuss that the next earing committee is what do we do with all of the existing working groups? So one.

H

Thing I was curious, is if, by definition, every working group has a cig stakeholder or a kind of working group exist. That is only related.

C

To steering okay, could we potentially just assign a couple of people who are interested in this topic to take it forwards to get the PR in place instead of, like you, know, brainstorming here? Who else wants to work on it with me? I.

B

See a hand up for Michele I see a hand up from jail just because I.

A

Want to get that other PR in I'll help you do that and I'll help review stuff. Just because I still have that hanging over me. Okay,.

B

I'm Derek I saw your ad. Was that a quick yank the hand away? There were too many people or yeah you wanna participate. Okay, cool can.

F

I have a minute at the end of the call to discuss the code of conduct committee and I see a card for that on the issue board. That's what I.

B

Do not, and as far as license scanning goes there's nothing concrete, I can say or do about that right now my gut tells me there were a whole bunch of relevant issues that were thrown at us and somebody who is currently on the release team has volunteered to help out with that contributor experiences volunteered to help out with that. I do not trust that that's gonna actually fly I, wonder about finding the right owners and staffing it appropriately. If this is an urgent thing, how is this steering's problem, though this seems like sig releases issue?

B

E

It's not I mean it's the source code itself. We have dependencies on licenses that are valid.

C

Licenses- it's not really talking totally get that, but we're a policy board we're not necessarily. We should say that we depend on X Y, Z, Paula or light licenses, which is to.

E

B

Us because it came from C&C, F, right and Americans that are in violation of policy. What is our policy for? Like fixing it? Yes, that's.

C

That's punted to seek relief; okay,.

B

So I'm just raising the concern that I don't know. If that will happen fast enough, and are we okay with that.

E

Well, it's been lingering for a month months months: I, don't know how to burgeon. It is okay. That's then that's fine! That's all we need to tie all so. Don't know that sick release is an obvious place for it. What.

G

Would be the alternative?

G

E

So the person who is trying to write something originally was involved with sig testing and sig contributor experience. I mean effectively it's like the issue of what system do we use to bender dependencies and things like that right? We need to have tests any needy dependency that gets added actually needs the licensing or requirements.

B

Yeah, but it's also like the dependencies themselves and replacing them with something else: that's suitable. It I, don't think we're gonna get benefit by talking more about this today. I want to give code of conduct discussion sometime if that's cool with everybody, this okay.

B

Do we alright Michelle? It's yours, we're we're still on camera. We.

F

Can still be on it yet there so I published all right. I opened a pull request containing a document which contains basically what I had given to everyone as an outline of how we would form the code of conduct, committee and and kind of what the bootstrapping process is and and how would they have what they kickoff and what their objectives are. So that's in a ploy requests. I can sent you a link to that for review.

F

The the vote is out, so there I think we're seven or eight people who were nominated I think was seven unique people who were nominated, so you should have all gotten a link to vote on who you think should be on the code of conduct committee.

F

So that's out, let's see what else is there I, don't remember when I said the deadline was to vote I think it was tomorrow, but I can extend it. If anybody needs more time. Does anybody feel like they need more time?

F

As does did everyone? Did anyone not get that Langley.

E

We got it that I'll have to figure out how to find it. Okay,.

F

If y'all could take a few minutes today or tomorrow and try to find it and do that- and let me know if that's an issue, then that'd be really great, so we can close that loop after that we'd form the committee and have the first meeting I will say after reviewing Paris and Jace's research on code of conducts addendums and the thing that Mozilla does, that I feel that the outline that I created was pretty weak.

F

So there's just a lot of work to do there and there's a lot of wiggle room and there's there should be a lot of iteration coming.

F

How about stuff goes. So that's what I have does anybody have anything specific they want to discuss or any questions or suggestions just.

D

Thanks very much for putting it all together. Michele super useful I.

F

G

A stick: sorry.

E

Steve, a civs Paul yeah.

F

E

F

And you know it's thinks about that is that I had some people come forward that wanted to be on the kind of kind of committee after I published that so I didn't know how to like deal with that issue. There's more candidates and I also feel, like one company shouldn't, have the majority of the seats on that committee.

F

So you know not more than two people from one company, but I didn't add that to the to the outline, because I had discussed that with y'all, so I do want to add that little line, if anybody has any issues with it, feel free to comment on the pull request that comes for it. I'll send an email with it.

H

Michelle did I miss I got the link on the poll, but I don't remember. Seeing like the write up for the nominees.

F

Okay, so there should be an email, that's a great question: there should be an email in staring private. It has a link to a spreadsheet which has all the candidates and basically the description from the nomination forum on why they should be selected. That should give you more information about each candidate and if you need more, please let me know and I can zoom our research or give you whatever you need it's my first time doing this kind of thing.

B

Yeah I, like oh thanks for pushing forward on this, where they needed code of conduct committee work. Okay,.

D

Just a can I make a very brief comment before we wrap up I just want to remind everybody I think we got the steering committee elections coming up and I, don't think we have allocated anyone to make sure they actually happen.

D

Do you want Tim and I Tim and I did that exercise on who gets to vote? Should we just extend that and actually execute the boat, or do we have better ideas? Can you make an issue.

B

For that put it on our board an aside. Yes,.

D

Sorry, I put it in the notes. Didn't you know, I have issues. I can do that. The reason I'm expediting is because I don't think we have like two weeks to start thinking about it where the election results need to be announced at the beginning of October. Essentially, and if you wind it back to you know getting candidates and I.

B

Understand we mostly really had the help of George in Paris from contributor experienced on running this last time, they're both kind of out of pocket this week and I, don't know how much next is going to eat at their time next week, but we definitely ought to start thinking about it. Okay,.

D

Unless anybody has objections, I'll speak to Tim some killer and we'll figure something out. Okay,.

B

Cool- and that is our hour- thank you, everybody so great to see you all again happy Wednesday. Thank you.