feat: first version of roles and tech lead nomination process #454
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Thomas Schuetz <thomas.schuetz@whizus.com>
thschue
requested review from
AloisReitbauer,
AlexsJones,
joshgav,
kgamanji and
justincormack
as code owners
✅ Deploy Preview for tag-app-delivery canceled.
|
Signed-off-by: Thomas Schuetz <thomas.schuetz@whizus.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Schuetz <thomas.schuetz@whizus.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @thschue, I did a pass and proposed some clarifications.
Most significantly, I think we should extract out a common list of leadership criteria and apply it to Chairs, TLs and WG Chairs - those criteria should be tied mostly to contributions and participation in the group.
|
|
||
| ## Chair | ||
|
|
||
| The (normally three) Co-Chairs of the TAG App Delivery drive the CNCF community efforts of the TAGs domain. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about expressing this as "the TAG will have up to 3 chairs"? Best to be specific since folks will look to this as canonical in the future.
| ## Chair | ||
|
|
||
| The (normally three) Co-Chairs of the TAG App Delivery drive the CNCF community efforts of the TAGs domain. | ||
| Chairs are experienced leaders within the CNCF community with rooted expertise in the TAG area. Chairs serve a two-year term but may renew their term by submitting a follow-up application. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we enumerate previous contributions expected of chairs? For example:
- participated in some percentage of TAG meetings
- wrote up a number of project reviews
- contributed to end user papers
- contributed to samples like podtato-head
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@joshgav: Please write a proposal for this section. In the past, chairs could nominate themselves if they were active in any way. I am not sure if restricting this will help us growing.
| Co-Chairs are expected to: | ||
| * Manage the operations and governance of the group. | ||
| * Organize, host, plan and facilitate TAG meetings and events. | ||
| * Reporting to the CNCF TOC on the status of TAG work. |
| * Manage the operations and governance of the group. | ||
| * Organize, host, plan and facilitate TAG meetings and events. | ||
| * Reporting to the CNCF TOC on the status of TAG work. | ||
| * Encouraging community members to start projects and working groups. |
|
|
||
| A technical lead (TL) expands the bandwidth of the leadership team in terms of covering technical areas, growing the community, organizing events or doing TAG communications. | ||
|
|
||
| Proposals must have Chair as an active sponsor and the agreement of the majority of the current leadership team (Chairs, Tech Leads & Liaisons). TLs are experienced contributors within the CNCF community with rooted expertise in the TAG area. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps "Proposals for new Technical Leads must have a Chair...."
|
|
||
| ## Working Group Leads | ||
|
|
||
| A working group chairs (usually 3) are experienced contributors to the TAG that applies to lead along one or two others a working group. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps - "Up to 3 chairs are appointed to lead each working group."
Should we define what we mean by "experienced"?
| Working groups as community governance structure are defined in the [CNCF TAG](https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/tags) folder. | ||
| TAG Chairs are responsible facilitating the working group applications and make sure that the process is done transparent, accessible and traceable for everyone. | ||
| At least one of the TAG chairs or Tech Leads serves as the working group sponsor and provides guidance to the working group leads. | ||
| Working group leads are signed off by the majority of the TAG Chairs and the TOC Liaisons. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1, don't need TOC approval for WG leaders
| After a TAG Chair completes their term, they transition into the role of Emeritus Chair. | ||
| This role does not impose any obligations on the TAG, but it acknowledges their committed time and effort. | ||
| The role also lets them share information about their previous work and contributions to the TAG. | ||
| An Emeritus Chair retains the same rights/access as in their previous role. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I lean to say emeritus chairs shouldn't retain admin permissions. There may be times when we need to remove access.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What do you propose @joshgav? - WG Leads have 'write' access, TL's have 'maintain' and Chairs have 'admin'
Propose to drop to 'write' or 'maintain'?
| review the nomination and justification to determine if enough intent and | ||
| commitment is present to move forward with an endorsement. | ||
|
|
||
| Nominees must: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do these criteria apply to Chairs too? Perhaps we should list them there as well.
|
|
||
| Nominations must: | ||
|
|
||
| * come from someone other than the nominee |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure this should be required - folks should be able to nominate themselves too. But I do believe they should be seconded by an existing leader.
|
Ping @thschue, are you still working on this? |
This PR
Later