 Hey Josh. Hey Hora, how are you feeling? Not too bad. Not too bad. Back to work. So everything is fine. How about you? Okay. The nice thing about having to record all of these things in advance for KubeCon is that there's, well, and publish all these things in advance is that there's actually very little left to do at this point. Yeah. Yeah, it's funny. I've started having this weird like online conference stress because like the day or two before the conference, I feel like I should be preparing more. But I don't need to because I did the presentation weeks ago. And so I've got this like weird feeling that I've forgotten to do something. Yeah, although, yeah, and actually, well, it got really weird when it got down to like the hour before the presentation, what normally I'm used to running through a rehearsal and adding last minute tweaks on my slides. Yeah. Yeah. It's almost like you're attending somebody else's presentation and just answering questions on it. Yeah. Which, which almost but not quite makes up for the 12 hours it takes to get a good recording of a one of a 45 minute presentation. I was just looking for which password keeper I put in the ID for this call so that I can actually record it. I did this thing a while ago where I was going to move from one password to bit warden. And then in the middle of it one password started offering three password keeping to the Kubernetes project. So I decided not to move but now I've got like half. Wait. You know what, I don't think actually how Oh, I don't actually have the host key for this one. But it appears that we're recording anyway. It's kind of recorded so. Okay. Any any should take care of it. Okay. Anyway. Welcome to the governance working group meeting for November 10. It's I as usual wonder the CNCF code of conduct. But all of you know that I did actually invite a couple of projects who had had governance questions to come by this meeting but we will see if they do the meantime the only other thing that I have on the agenda is I published a pull request with a template for a couple of the most sort of common types of governance of governance requested. I opened that and started to look at it and put it on my task list even to review it before this meeting and then I forgot. I did take a quick look at it and it looked good. The goal was, I took two of the most common types of governance right. One is like straight up maintainer or council one. The third one is simple is steering committee elections, and I tried to come up with the simplest most generic version of each one of those as a as a starting point for projects. The third one that I wanted to do, which is another common type is your sort of composite or sub project amalgamation, where you have multiple sub projects and then there's a leadership council that's composed of the leaders of the sub projects. But I haven't honestly been able to find a good example of that to start from. And my goal for these was to not come up with a wholly synthetic example that wasn't even similar to anything anybody had adopted. Because I'm not sure it would be useful right because like I know the maintainer council one is useful and I know the elections ones are useful because they are both derived from charters that projects are actually using. Yeah, wonder vm has has any suggestions. Since she's been compiling that list of charters and governance docs. I wonder if she knows of a good. Yeah, I started poking through that but of course you can't search on them on that basis. No, I would ask her and see if she remembers. Okay. I'll do that and see if she. Yeah, if she actually knows those. I was also going through obviously a bunch of the CNC F ones, and a couple of the CNC projects basically do have that sort of general form. But they have it in such a complicated because like I started off basing something on the Prometheus starter. And I realized that the Prometheus thing was so complicated in particular to the Prometheus project that it wasn't going to generous as well. The, and I don't know, we'll see. I've been the network tools working group for for CNC F has been talking about actually becoming a project as well as a working group. And if they do that then they will have that form of government governance so maybe I'll have the chance to write one, but in the meantime I don't expect to get one ready for coupon. Yeah, I just, I just took another quick look at it and dropped in LGTM on the pull request. Okay. I'm sure want to tweak those later on. The other thing I wanted to get ready for coupon is I do have this sort of in in from another publication this round up of all the different kinds of paperwork that a project might want to have. And I'm hoping to get that finished before next week. And this is basically just this paperwork with a paragraph of description. You know, with the idea that at some point we will have examples or templates for most of those things. Yeah, that'd be good to have. And that's pretty much all that I have for this meeting. You already said in another meeting you wouldn't have time to do anything you haven't already done. Yeah, I don't, I don't think so I still have to do the charter documentation but I haven't just haven't gotten around to it. And things have been a bit hectic. The problem is like I'm out for so many days with with Kubecon next week and then I'm actually taking the whole week of Thanksgiving off, even though it's not a holiday here but everybody else has taken the week off so I felt jealous and I had extra vacation days. So that means I'm trying to cram like everything into this week like all my meetings are pushed into this week. I have the advantage that pretty much everybody that I work with is going to be involved with Kubecon. And that's going to affect most of my regular meetings next week to be canceled by other people. Yeah. Very true. So, it's already the case that that I'm not hearing from anybody the CNCF except right now. Hi, you are. We'll get that when we have the web page I guess. Because Carolyn's been working on the contributor web page. One of the things that we can do once we have that is put up the schedule of meetings for this. So that people know, oh, hey, Charles. People know that they can just drop by this meeting if they're looking for governance advice. Yeah, yeah, I think it'll be, I think it'll be good once you have that website up. Hey, Charles. You. Did you come here with questions are you showing up to help. Just showing up to help. There's a meeting this afternoon that I think we'll actually have questions for. Yeah, that's a contributor growth meeting. Yeah, yeah. Which is for for your project more what you're working on. Yeah. Because you kind of have your governance set up. Yeah. And Catherine will be there for that one as well. So. Yeah, I'm just looking at the doc for this one now. See what's on the old agenda here. Yeah, not a whole lot. One of the things actually wanted to mention here is. Just so people know. The. So after that whole long discussion with the to see about steering committees and alternate ways to approach the multi organizational requirement for projects for graduation, et cetera. We do not have a clear mandate for anything they want us to prepare. Okay. There was a suggestion that somebody tried to draft requirements that target more. The actual critical elements. You know, survivability and. Ensuring that. Contributions are welcome regardless of source. The. But the to see never took a vote or even a lazy consensus to say that was the direction they wanted to go in. So. So that remains unchanged, probably to be an item of discussion again at some point in the future. And in the meantime, we will continue to work with projects on. Becoming multi organizational for graduation. Cool. What was the website you're just mentioning because that's something that I can. Is there are there. So yes, yes, there is. So hold on. Let me get you. So Carolyn. Has started working on a simple Netlify website. I'm not actually sure where the repo is for that. Actually now where is where the source code is located was a bit confused about it. Yeah. It's on the second to the strategy on the website trip or probably. Under the website branch. Okay. Chance to take a look at it. Yeah. I mentioned and slagged it would be great to have all this all the source code and all the information to be put under the probably under the contribute triple that CNCF is currently hosting and eventually just to merge both both initiatives into the single one and that's, that's it just not to, not to create too many. Related sinks. The. Yeah, I kind of, I mean, I do admit that. And this is really more for the general meeting that having one website called contribute that CNCF.io. And the second one called contribute tours that CNCF.io would be problematic. Exactly. Because people would never remember to distinguish the two of them. The. Yeah. So we can just use both domains one of them can read can redirect to another one and that's it just to march everything under the under the same website. I'm happy to help with this. I'm happy to help with this from the CNC side. If something will be well, but. Yeah, so the answer would be, since Carolyn's leading this effort to go ahead and coordinate with her in that. And then maybe give us the ability to push things. To the contribute site. I guess the question is, if we change the path of stuff that's on the contribute site, what are we going to break. Currently, if you go to, if you go to contribute it will actually go to contributed just redirects to get up. Yep, exactly. And so we can, we can move this branch from see contributed strategy report movie to to the contribute repo. And point both domains to, to the Netlify to the Netlify website. That's that's it. So, however, there's going to be some things like for example, if you contribute that CNCF that IO. So we should really have this discussion in the general SIG contributor strategy, because like right now Carolyn's not here and was not expecting. Yep. Yeah, that's a really good point. I'm just saying we're going to have to if we're going to use contribute that CNCF that IO then we're going to have to move things that are currently there, which will break someone's links. I don't think it's that much of a problem but we don't want to do it. Without discussing it without potentially at least posting a warning. CNCF slack in the TOC thing. Yeah, so that's the thing and the idea here is that that will become our publication target for a lot of our advisories and guides and everything else, everything that's not a template. That'll go into that website and then you know so we'll have some kind of process, whereby stuff gets approved to go on to the website. Ideally, you know, once we get that set up, I'm going to solicit the TOC to authorize a liaison probably Matt I guess. If you're still on the TOC lost track, but AT TOC liaison to approve our decisions there, rather than having everything come up for a full to see vote. Because if we have to have a full to see vote every time we want to publish an update to a document. It's going to be real slow. So yeah, beyond that. So Charles, the other thing is, I've got linked in there the two sort of templates that I created for sort of generic project governance. I would mind having your eyes on them as somebody who hasn't been involved with any of this. You know, who had a project that recently went through a governance overhaul to think of, you know, hey, if I was just starting a new CNCF project would these be useful to me. Yeah, okay, I'll take a look. Yeah. These aren't like live anywhere. I have a markup renderer that I can use just curious if that's live somewhere that I can read. No, the PR hasn't been merged yet. Okay. Cool. The, and you actually kind of need to look at the raw because they're designed to be templates. Markdown documents and there is no markdown template language. So the, so there's a bunch of stuff in there that's actually invisible if you look at it as rendered markdown. Okay, cool. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah, and it just more I'm, you know, looking at, hey, what is this actually going to be useful to people like I think it is based on dealing with some of the red hat projects but More eyes is good. Okay. Cool. How did the linker the anchor launch go. Good. We've got a few folks interested already and we're finding ways to get them kind of talking to each other as well. So yeah, Catherine will definitely be chatting about that this afternoon. Yeah, we got some interest straight away and we also reached out to folks who we knew we're already basically like, they're basically doing the things that we that we want people to do for the program so we've got a good few people just to get started so the challenge that we're looking at now is just keeping the momentum going or building the momentum and keeping it going I guess I should say. Yeah. Particularly without in person events. Yeah. Yeah. Because like we have a couple of projects that have deferred launching new ambassador programs, simply because without having in person events there's not that much for the ambassadors to do. That's interesting. Yeah, we're focusing on like your people become ambassadors or anchors based off of content that they're generating, you know, and it's kind of the way we've approached it is. We, we know that you're integrating linker D with XYZ. Let's write a blog post about that and share it with folks, or let's let's put together a tutorial. You know, the difference between a blog post is this is what we did and why we did it in a tutorials like step by step by step. Just from my position of working with the community I see people asking similar questions, but they'll happen like three and four weeks apart and I'm like, Oh, I know somebody just ask that. They might know and then we have the free version of Slack so I can't go back very far to find the answers that I'm looking for. But yeah, it's we're iterating over it. It's pretty exciting and yeah Catherine's been doing a lot of the thinking most of the thinking around it. So I'm excited to for her to share with you what she's come up with. Yeah, I think that's a really good approach. I think it's, I think it's probably healthy for us now to take sort of a step back and think of not always think of ambassadors as just the people who fly around to all the conferences and give all the talks. I mean there's other other ways to be an ambassador that don't involve spending all of your time on a plane. Yeah, well, we have, we have a good history of the science of ambassadors in general and we definitely don't require them to speak at the, at the conferences these days. So, however, draw various ways how you can contribute to, to the open source world even not flying to different conferences and speaking there, like, write a blog post for publish, even, you know, publish some books, run or speak at the podcast, like be engaged in the community, be, be active with your local community in the online or, you know, online or offline way, even draw, draw some ways how can you, how can you work with the local community so definitely ability to speak at the global events, the global physical events is not the same requirement here. Yeah that's, that's where we didn't even consider like on site events as part of our strategy we're focusing on doing as much as we can virtually. And we've also, we're working internally to have like one member of the team generate one piece of content once a month. Right so that gives us, if only, if only our team is doing it that means for the next two years we will generate one piece of content per month, which is way lower than we want it to be but that's just internally. So if we're getting folks externally. We're hoping to have two to three pieces of content per month and that's the thing. Well, this is actually this question might be better than one of the other groups but the thing that I personally am seeing is I feel like people are getting fatigue from virtual conferences. My focus is to generate content that they can consume on their time whether that again is, it's either an article a blog post or a video. So that's, that's where we've been thinking that's where I had that on those, that type of content in particular. That being said I don't want to limit myself to that constrained type of thinking so if you all have other thoughts. I think it's a function of this is a forcing function actually. So we need to start thinking differently and how do we get people give them interesting things not just things. I don't want to throw a bunch of content out there that people aren't interested in so. Yeah, these are like questions that are open ended for us and that we're we continue to try and answer ourselves. Wait, so what was the question there. There was no question it's open open ended questions like I started to go down the path of if you all have thoughts about alternative content but then I realized, I think that's a better just like open ended discussion. So, sit down and start throwing things at the wall and see what sticks. Yeah, but that's kind of what we're doing internally but there are other. You know we have our way of thinking and we want to get other people's way of thinking. Yeah, the only thing I would, I would suggest, based on in the actual core mission for this working group is to suggest that there should be a way for your anchors to have a vote in project leadership. That is, their efforts should count towards whatever requirement you have to having eligibility. Yeah, that makes sense. Let me write that down. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, that's really helpful. Thanks. Yeah. And I'll tell you one thing. So there's there's different ways to do that. And for some projects you just say, hey, if you're already if you're sort of an acknowledged anchor than you automatically have assuming, wait, let me look at LinkedIn governance. I don't think you have voting right now do you. No, I don't think we will I've never voted on anything. It might be in there, but yeah. Yeah, so. So until you actually have, yeah, you have basically maintainer council. Yeah, because I was looking to do your maintainer council. I should have based my maintainer council on yours because he was ridiculously simple one. But you have a basic maintainer council structure. So there isn't currently any voting. So if you're not moving to like an electoral structure anytime in the near future, which there may be no good reason for you to do so. My suggestion would be that eventually you actually have make anchors a project in and of their own. And give and basically then create anchor maintainers. And it's a way to get people involved with governance out of the anchor program, even in advance of them being code contributors. Yeah, that makes sense to me. Hey, Bill. Hey, how's it going. The. You came in a good time because we just finished with our earlier topics. And you had some governance related questions earlier. Yeah, I did. Is it a good time to kind of like. Yeah, I guess. Thanks. So yeah, I guess we're starting a new, like working group. Like the CNF conformance and. We presented it to the TSC last week and they said it might go under like SIG. App delivery a SIG networking, but our question kind of is, is if we want to get this, like kind of before that happens, we want to get it kind of like off the ground and running at cube con. We're trying to like get people kind of like in charge of that because right now it's kind of like, so I work with this at the CNCF and it's kind of being like organized by us, but we'd like to have it be kind of like driven by the community going forwards and we'd like to kind of have some like elections. And I was wondering if there's any kind of like, like advice or like standard structure like template we can use for like elections and like governance of like a working group. There isn't. Because the way that governance works for the SIGs is that each SIG has a certain small set of chairs or leads. So those people are generally selected by some kind of rough consensus and then they're approved by the TOC. Yeah. So I don't know of any of our SIGs that actually have a more sophisticated mechanism than that. Partly because for the SIGs. It's required that people be approved by the TOC. And so nobody ever felt that they needed a more complicated mechanism for, you know, a more representative mechanism for selecting leadership. As far as I know. And that would cover which ones SIG networking, SIG runtime, SIG storage at least all work that way, along with our SIG. So, but as Amy pointed out. The working group thing is less defined. And I guess one of the questions is. Well, the CNCF doesn't require you to have any particular mechanism for selecting leadership and it requires that the TOC ratify your leadership changes. They also don't prohibit you of having a more sophisticated mechanism. So the question is, is there a reason for you to have some kind of a representative mechanism? So like, so is there a reason why to have where we should have like a structure? Or like. Right. In other words, we'll having a more formal structure for representation either engage more potential participants. Or be a way of avoiding sort of interminable disputes around things. These are the two reasons why you adopt a more sophisticated governance structures to be one of those two things. Yeah, ours is kind of like the ladder where in the telco space there's kind of like a lot of invent vendors who have like very entrenched interests. And we don't want them to kind of like control the conversation. We want to be driven by like multiple different parties, especially ones like the service providers and stuff. And so we don't want it to be kind of. Yeah, I guess kind of like controlled by a few people that already kind of control the ecosystem. We want to make sure that we have kind of like a good representation. Okay. So that would suggest some kind of a leadership council with earmark types of seats. Yeah. Like, you know, vendor seats and service provider seats and say even an end user seat. With the complexity always that it's hard to define those things. Yeah. Exactly like where does Eric sin fall is it a is a vendor is it like a network function provider. Is this an end user because they saw mobile phones. Yeah. And this suggestion would be if you're going to go through a complicated election process you might want to get dispensation from the TOC to not have the requirement that they approve those. Because it feels kind of pointless to have an election if then the TOC can go well now. And they delay approval because they're busy with other things, which is the more likely problem. Okay. And the nice thing is that because it's not us because it's specifically being named as a working group and not a SIG, you can make the case that it's different. Yeah. The. Okay. So. Hmm. So there's somebody on your side who could actually work on. The definitions there I'd be I'd be post coupon and Thanksgiving I'd be happy to help work on this. It's obviously an area where my employer has some definite interest so I can get work time to spend on it. The. And even even if I'm telling. Hi y'all I'm going to set things up so that you don't have control over this. That's fine. The. And. But you want to already announce a governance structure at Kubecon. Yeah, that's kind of ambitious given that Kubecon is next week. And the TOC would have to approve at least the governance structure. Okay. So would you recommend. Maybe announcing that we are going to have like a governance structure, but it's still TBD. Yeah. Yeah. And the advantage of that honestly is that we can write a draft governance and then run it past your early participants so that they actually can supply feedback and have a stake in the governance structure that you end up with. Okay. So we don't have any more TOC meetings before Kubecon. No. So there's no good way to even. Kind of get their blessing on the idea that, that. CNF conforming to the governance structure. So we don't have any more TOC meetings before Kubecon. No. So there's no good way to even. Kind of get their blessing on the idea that. CNF conformance is going to have its own. Governance. Or maybe there is. We do it through the mailing list. Maybe you got to do it through the mailing list because I don't really want to announce anything. And then have say a TOC member go, Hey, we never approve that. Yeah. I would, I would caution against maybe overthinking the governance process when you're really kind of just getting started because the trap that you can fall into is that you spent so much time over engineering it. And then it's, it's not what you actually needed. Once you actually start the work and you end up spending too much time on, on the process and not enough stuff figuring out, not enough time actually doing some of the work and figuring out what you're really going to need over time. So would you recommend? You shouldn't put any process in place now. I just would, I would be careful not to over engineer it right away. No, you're absolutely right. And if for the right in that you need to look at what the outputs of this governance structure are going to be. Like what do you need leadership to actually do. Because that will determine the structure that the leadership needs to take. No. I mean, to give a sort of difficulty, like if, if leadership's role is exclusively going to be approving conformance rules and tests, right? Then that would argue for some sort of a centralized committee structure regardless of how they're selected. Whereas if it's more that you're going to have different aspects of conformance worked on in different sub projects, then that might argue in favor of a more composite structure. You know, one in which you have sort of these sub projects, and then there's some sort of council from the sub projects. And leadership is mainly technical in nature. Yeah, I think it's going to be more centralized where that group is running kind of like what like, you know, conformance is. Yeah. So, okay. And the other thing in terms of dawn with overthinking is you also kind of have to wait to implement anything until you have enough people involved. Because, you know, imagine you come up with a governance structure where we have, you know, two vendor seats and three service provider seats and one end user seat. But you actually only have five active participants in the whole project Yeah. How many people do you have who are already looking to get involved in this. So we I've talked with like, quite a few people, like across a number of different organizations. So and quite a few have expressed interest in like being involved so far. But I guess we'll find out that like the meeting at cube con is where we're kind of like launching it. Yeah. So I'd say they're done is right. You really don't. That's another reason why you really don't actually want to have a predefined governance structure. Okay. You don't even know who's going to be involved at this point. Okay. Yes. Okay. So maybe have the first kickoff meeting and say we're going to have a governance structure. And like, yeah. And, and y'all will get to approve it. Yeah. And for right now, they're just, you know, because the important thing is to find out far more important. The important thing is to find out who's going to actually put people onto this. Yeah. Because the last thing you want is a leadership council that's made up of people who are not contributing to developing conformance definitions or tests at all. Yeah. Yeah. And I think sometimes spent now focusing on things like, like the outputs and, you know, how you're going to communicate with each other and decision making processes and some of the stuff that, that goes around the kind of the leadership selection that's a part of governance, I think would probably be a better use of the time right now. Okay. Okay. So get kind of get it off the ground and running like with us running it. And then once we kind of have sorted out who's actually going to be contributing and like working on it, then kind of like, then that's when we actually launched like the formal governance process. Like right now, I guess for the time being saying like we're kind of like a benevolent dictator. Until we say we understand how it's actually working in practice. Yeah. And I honestly think that you can figure out governance before you're ready to approve. Yeah. I don't think you need any conformance definitions because it's not like you're going to come up with those the week after. Yeah. Okay. Cool. Yes. Thank you. That was super helpful for me. So I know I just jumped in at the last minute here. So I do appreciate you taking the time to chat with me today. You were, you were one of the people that invited to come by this meeting for questions about governance. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think at the agenda, we kind of had this section of the meeting unfilled. So thank you for remembering to come by. Yeah, I just, I just saw it in the Slack channel. I was like, Oh yeah. But we're here for. Yep. And. Cool. Is there anything I can help both of you with? No, it's about it. I mean, when you actually. Some point when we have more stuff up or working on. You know, creating a new website. I might ping you and say, Hey, we now have a bunch of government governance resources online. Tell me if these would have helped you. Okay. Yeah, absolutely. I'd be happy to do that. But we don't have that set up yet. Yeah. Okay. Well, yeah, once it is, I'd be happy to like review it. Okay. Well, I think that's everything for this meeting. Unless you have something else done. No, I don't have anything else. Okay. We will not have a meeting in two weeks due to the US holiday. If some kind of urgent thing came up, we could schedule an ad hoc meeting, but given that everybody that we touch is going to be involved with Kubecon. Next week. And then, you know, a good. Third to half of them are Americans. I don't expect anything to come up in which case our next meeting will be in early December. Sounds good. Okay. Thanks everybody. Thanks. See you. Bye bye.