CoreDNS Governance proposition #2203
Conversation
…or as un-affiliated - integrate an "Expectation from Maintainers" - adapt Maintainership with a loose removal event - make OWNER the main source of list of Maintainers - removed the automatic move to "owner" of Github project - added a begin of list of maintainers - based on current list in the 'maintainers' team of Github (2 organization, 2 individuals)
… and change, project - define the decision making process by consensus and vote if cannot.
|
Thank you for your contribution. I've just checked the OWNERS files to find a suitable reviewer. This search was successful and I've asked stp-ip (via If you have questions or suggestions for this bot, please file an issue against the miekg/dreck repository. The bot understands the commands that are listed here. |
fturib
requested review from
miekg,
yongtang,
johnbelamaric,
caniszczyk and
chrisohaver
GOVERNANCE.md
Outdated
| in a *reasonable* time frame, either providing insights, or assign the Pull Requests to other | ||
| maintainers. | ||
|
|
||
| Every Maintainer is listed in the top-level [OWNERS](https://github.com/coredns/coredns/OWNERS) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Working link is https://github.com/coredns/coredns/blob/master/OWNERS
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks. I think I can simplify to OWNERS
GOVERNANCE.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ## Expectations from Maintainers | ||
|
|
||
| "Every one carries water." |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this a quote? If so, it should be attributed. If not, it should not have quotations around it.
Also as a general note, if any sections of this document are copied/borrowed, we should acknowledge the source.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
about Everyone carries water that is more an idiom no ?
about sections copied .. yes some are, at least some sentences that I copy/paste from other cncf governance doc, which themselves seems copied. Are you sure we need to add the source here ? (I do not remind where I took it).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
for now, will remove the quotes.
GOVERNANCE.md
Outdated
| maintainers. | ||
|
|
||
| Every Maintainer is listed in the top-level [OWNERS](https://github.com/coredns/coredns/OWNERS) | ||
| file, with their Github handle and an (possible obfuscated) email address. Every one in the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| file, with their Github handle and an (possible obfuscated) email address. Every one in the | |
| file, with their Github handle and a possibly obfuscated email address. Everyone in the |
GOVERNANCE.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ## Expectations from Maintainers | ||
|
|
||
| "Every one carries water." |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| "Every one carries water." | |
| "Everyone carries water." |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hum. I do not think it is a quote.
I cannot find another match in google.
GOVERNANCE.md
Outdated
| A Maintainer is also listed in a plugin specific OWNER file. | ||
|
|
||
| A Maintainer should be a member of `maintainer@coredns.io`, although this is not a hard requirement. | ||
| A Maintainer that hasn't been active in the CoreDNS repository for 12 months is considered inactive. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What does it mean to be "inactive"? What are the implications?
If there are none, we should remove this.
GOVERNANCE.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ## Becoming a Maintainers | ||
|
|
||
| On successful completion (it was merged) of a (large) pull request, any current maintainer can reach |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| On successful completion (it was merged) of a (large) pull request, any current maintainer can reach | |
| On successful merge of a significant pull request, any current maintainer can reach |
Do we need to define "significant" here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I do not think so. Anyway the idea is to welcome anyone that is interested to contribute.
GOVERNANCE.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| The CoreDNS community adheres to the following principles: | ||
|
|
||
| - Open: CoreDNS is open source. See repository guidelines, below. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's unclear to me what section below this is referring to.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
right. will rather add a link to coredns.io/community that advertize it.
GOVERNANCE.md
Outdated
| A Maintainer should be a member of `maintainer@coredns.io`, although this is not a hard requirement. | ||
| A Maintainer that hasn't been active in the CoreDNS repository for 12 months is considered inactive. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Becoming a Maintainers |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| ## Becoming a Maintainers | |
| ## Becoming a Maintainer |
GOVERNANCE.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| "Every one carries water." | ||
|
|
||
| Making a community work requires input/effort from every one. Maintainers should actively |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| Making a community work requires input/effort from every one. Maintainers should actively | |
| Making a community work requires input/effort from everyone. Maintainers should actively |
GOVERNANCE.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ## Code of Conduct | ||
|
|
||
| CoreDNS follows the [CNCF Code of Conduct](https://github.com/coredns/coredns/CODE-OF-CONDUCT.md). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| CoreDNS follows the [CNCF Code of Conduct](https://github.com/coredns/coredns/CODE-OF-CONDUCT.md). | |
| The [CoreDNS Code of Conduct](https://github.com/coredns/coredns/blob/master/CODE-OF-CONDUCT.md) is aligned with the CNCF Code of Conduct. |
GOVERNANCE.md
Outdated
| A 2/3 majority vote is needed for the statement to be approved. | ||
|
|
||
| Each maintainer weighs one vote.<br> | ||
| Miek Gieben (@miekg), as the historical owner of CoreDNS, weighs two votes. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| Miek Gieben (@miekg), as the historical owner of CoreDNS, weighs two votes. | |
| Miek Gieben (@miekg), as the owner of CoreDNS, weighs two votes. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not sure how to define the owner of coreDNS - and if there is one, since we moved to cncf and it is opensource project.
From point of view of Github there are several owners.
That is why I prefer the "historical owner" that show, whatever owners are defined today, that the project were started and grown up by Miek.
I propose to keep "historical owner" for now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
unless there is a more appropriate way to say the same thing ?
|
What happened to the "corporate takeover prevention clause"? Where maintainers working on behalf of an organization only get one vote collectively for their whole organization. Are we not doing that anymore? Or is it in there and i'm just not seeing it? |
GOVERNANCE.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| Every Maintainer is listed in the top-level [OWNERS](https://github.com/coredns/coredns/OWNERS) | ||
| file, with their Github handle and an (possible obfuscated) email address. Every one in the | ||
| `reviewers` list is a Maintainer. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| `reviewers` list is a Maintainer. | |
| `approvers` list is a Maintainer. |
@miekg : I removed the initial limitation of a single vote per organization (which is the "Corporate takeover prevention clause" that @chrisohaver is referring above). I understood here that you prefer to have no reference at all to organization. But I may have misunderstood and be wrong here. what is your position ? NOTE: Initial "corporate takeover prevention clause" is:
|
|
@chrisohaver, @rajansandeep : I think I either integrated your proposition of change or reply on your comment in this PR. Thanks to verify. |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2203 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 55.86% 55.84% -0.03%
==========================================
Files 203 203
Lines 9991 9991
==========================================
- Hits 5581 5579 -2
- Misses 3987 3988 +1
- Partials 423 424 +1
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
@fturib, It appears that most of my suggestions were not accepted ... Some are grammatical/spelling corrections that I would urge us to address before merging. |
I though I addressed all those. Let me double check... |
|
@chrisohaver : can you have a second look ? I think this time I addressed all of your comment (hopefully). |
|
Thanks @fturib, About the "CNCF umbrella" thing, I think we should be prepared to be able to answer what that means if we are asked. It would be even better to describe what it means in this document or link to a place that explains it. |
|
@miekg : can you review and provide your feedback or approval ? |
|
|
||
| For formal votes, the following should be added to the relevant github issue or PR: | ||
| * A specific statement of what is being voted on. | ||
| * The voting period - a suitable amount of time during which voting will occur. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I noticed that organization vote restriction has been removed. It is fine as long as the organization stays with the principal of open and transparenttransparent and accessible. I do think some clarifications should be made to make sure no single organization is able to dominate the project. I will share some of my thinking about this area.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I will share some of my thinking about this area.
Let me know what you would like to change here to address "no single organization is able to dominate the project".
There is one in this comment, that is coming from former version of the proposal, and that I copied from other project that had the same concern.
I would like also the opinion of @miekg on this, as he was reluctant to add "organization" reference in this document.
|
I think One important thing is that, make sure |
|
I believe every coredns community members have the intentions to help the project better, so as long as everything remains public, different opinions will always be sorted out in a good way. |
|
We do need to make sure there is no There are several ways to get around the proposed
How to make sure the above scenarios are not going to happen? I think
|
|
Now coredns is under the umbrella of cncf. There will be communications between coredns project and cncf. A question is, who should be the person of contact for coredns to cncf? Should the person be I think |
I am not sure you can avoid that any side-conversation between maintainers or non-maintainers can happen. |
Here I am not sure as there is no person dedicated for that. CNCF is part of this project, so let's ask @caniszczyk to tell us how it is defined for other projects under umbrella of cncf. |
Hum ... initially I created one proposal : #2112, then Miek made another proposal #2152. Looks like the whole point is too agree on the chapter We can work on any of these PR that have the same root. |
Any maintainer can talk to any one, any maintainer can also have sync up meetings with any one, or any group of his or her choice. The clarification is make sure any "decision" is coming from If decisions from other means are ok, you can certainly modify the proposed |
I am not sure how to interpret ... Am I correct ? |
|
The clause is certainly good enough, expect what are the implications if it is not followed? Similarly, some other comments from the review:
|
|
I would prefer the discussion to be in the other PR, but just in case, here is the copied context #2152 (comment): I think the issue with coredns is that, coredns is not unique compared with many other open source projects. It is however, might be special inside cncf. Many other open source projects in cncf have a (or more than one) sponsoring company and the company behind is also the major technical contributor. Companies certainly have more non-technical resources but that typically aligns with technical contributions collectively. So cncf projects still largely follows merit-based open source model and works well. For coredns, there is one independent contributor (@miekg) that has more than 50% of the technical contributions day-to-day. There is also a company that may have more non-technical resources, but, simply just could not have enough technical contributions. Open source software should be merit-based in the area of technical contributions. For me, it will be a bigger joke if THE major contributor of the project is not involved or does not have a final say on anything in this project. Note things may change in the future. |
|
Continue #2152 (comment): A merit-based But at the current stage, I see more benefits for a |
I think that can be fine to have a project lead, as long as we define its role, how that project lead is elected, for how long, and what is the process of replacement/continuation. That would made an "open governance" - because of the periodic validation by the community - and keep all the positive point to have a quick decision process. what do you think ? |
|
Closing this proposition. |
Why is this pull request needed and what does it do?
In order to graduate on last level inside CNCF organization, we need to clarify our GOVERNANCE rules.
Description
After MAINTAINERS sync-up of today,
I merged the proposition of Miek,
replacing the chapter
Benevolent Dictator for Lifeby aDecision making processmoved toward the end of the document.This Decision making process is based on consensus at first, and, in last resort, a vote where each maintainer has one vote whatever the organization. (Miek has 2 votes).
There is no mention of organization in this document, it is purely based on maintainer whatever their professional status.