New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Contributor Experience Charter #2843

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 15, 2019

Conversation

@parispittman
Copy link
Contributor

parispittman commented Oct 24, 2018

Trying this charter thing out again since the mistake during the recent outage merged to master. Ref #2810.

Incorporated most of @spiffxp's review from #2810 except the GitHub management bullets which I'd rather have @cblecker weigh in directly about. Expecting another edit.

@cblecker
Copy link
Member

cblecker left a comment

This looks great. A few comments from me. Really, really, really appreciate all the thought and work you put into this @parispittman 🏆 !


- Establish policies, standards, and procedures:
- routine GitHub management tasks, including but not limited to: org membership, org permissions, repo creation/administration.
- "Org Owner" GitHub permissions, and grant/limit these privileges accordingly

This comment has been minimized.

@cblecker

cblecker Oct 24, 2018

Member

this line might be redundant with the previous

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Nov 1, 2018

Contributor

removed.

- routine GitHub management tasks, including but not limited to: org membership, org permissions, repo creation/administration.
- "Org Owner" GitHub permissions, and grant/limit these privileges accordingly
- bot accounts, service accounts, webhooks, and third-party integrations for all communication platforms that we support but most importantly, GitHub.
- Establishing a "GitHub Administration team" that will oversee the execution of GitHub management tasks: inviting new members to the org, creating repos, executing moderation decisions, auditing permissions.

This comment has been minimized.

@cblecker

cblecker Oct 24, 2018

Member

this may also be redundant

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Nov 1, 2018

Contributor

removed.

- bot accounts, service accounts, webhooks, and third-party integrations for all communication platforms that we support but most importantly, GitHub.
- Establishing a "GitHub Administration team" that will oversee the execution of GitHub management tasks: inviting new members to the org, creating repos, executing moderation decisions, auditing permissions.
- Work with other SIGs and interested parties in the project to execute GitHub tasks where required
-Own and execute events that are targeted to the Kubernetes contributor community, including:

This comment has been minimized.

@cblecker

cblecker Oct 24, 2018

Member

nit: space after dash

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Nov 1, 2018

Contributor

removed

- The weekly [Kubernetes Community meeting]
- [Contributor Summit(s)]
- SIG Contributor Experience face to face meetings
- [Steering Committee elections] (though we do not own policy creation, see 'out of scope' below)

This comment has been minimized.

@cblecker

cblecker Oct 24, 2018

Member

unclear on what this involves. don't know if this is direct contribex, or is it our responsibility to provide election officers who take this on?

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Nov 1, 2018

Contributor

@spiffxp - do you want to shed some light on this from a steering perspective?
I think contribex should own the process as it's a contributor only event and we should influence events that are solely for contributors.

This comment has been minimized.

@spiffxp

spiffxp Nov 30, 2018

Member

I am comfortable with the phrasing as is, but yes I read this as saying elections officers should come from contribex, as that is the SIG I trust to be most in tune with community norms and processes. The steering committee has often deferred to the officers when it comes to the details of executing the election.

- [Group Mentoring - WIP]
- [The 1:1 Hour - WIP]
- Speed Mentoring at KubeCon
- Create best practices, trainings, policies, and [moderation] of Kubernetes communication platforms, the transparency vehicles of information throughout the project. This includes user guidelines when the contributor is the user of the platform. Moderation is an always on, never off service that we supply with trusted contributors spanning time zones. This includes immediate action when dealing with code of conduct issues in a public space that are defined below:

This comment has been minimized.

@cblecker

cblecker Oct 24, 2018

Member

This is pretty long for a point form list, and mixes both owning the platforms, and doing moderation on them. Perhaps this can be shortened or split up?

Also, we (via the github admin team) would handle moderation on GitHub too, where that's needed.

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Oct 25, 2018

Contributor

I took out some lines - how is this:

Create best practices, trainings, policies, and [moderation] of Kubernetes communication platforms, the transparency vehicles of information throughout the project. We supply the moderation teams that span time zones for 24/7 coverage. This includes immediate action when dealing with code of conduct issues in a public spaces, which are defined below:

This comment has been minimized.

@cblecker

cblecker Oct 26, 2018

Member

much clearer! 👍

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Nov 1, 2018

Contributor

updated.

@cblecker cblecker added this to In Progress in Contributor Experience Oct 25, 2018

@jdumars jdumars referenced this pull request Oct 29, 2018

Open

Charters Meta-issue #31

@parispittman parispittman force-pushed the parispittman:charterv3 branch 3 times, most recently from 125db40 to b9ff339 Nov 1, 2018

@parispittman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

parispittman commented Nov 1, 2018

@cblecker - i think this leaves creation of subprojects and steering committee election process as the last remaining items to discuss/clear up. Any other feedback?

@spiffxp - we are close!

@spiffxp
Copy link
Member

spiffxp left a comment

Sorry for the massive delay in feedback. Shanghai and turkey. I'll be responsive to this now.

A few notes to address; the main thing is I'd like to see a decision on subproject creation. Happy to discuss in a more high bandwidth medium if it would help.


### In scope

#### Code, Binaries and Services

This comment has been minimized.

@spiffxp

spiffxp Nov 30, 2018

Member

This reads like a massive and overly specific list. I would prefer to see this summarized and less exhaustively listed, but if you completely ignore this and address the rest of my comments, I won't block.

That said, some suggestions:

  • I still think this would benefit from consolidating moderation/management of communication platforms into one list as I suggested in the last PR
  • Consider breaking up the comms / events / services that you offer into:
    • Community-focused (eg: community meeting, summits, elections, news distro, surveys)
    • SIG-focused (eg: logistics, best practices, event planning / retrospective support)
    • Contributor-focused (eg: mentoring, contributor guide)
  • For some reason project health and automation feel distinct from the above but I can't quantify or come up with a good bullet to lump them under

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Jan 4, 2019

Contributor

fixed

- engagement on project platforms that we manage
- Encourage automation to improve productivity for contributors where it makes sense and consult with SIG Testing if automation is covering GitHub workflows.
- Research other OSS projects and consult with their leaders about contributor experience topics to make sure we are always delivering value to our contributors.
- Provide retrospective hosting services on request to SIGs

This comment has been minimized.

@spiffxp

spiffxp Nov 30, 2018

Member

this is already called out above as

Retrospective moderation for other SIGs upon request

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Jan 4, 2019

Contributor

removed

- The contributor experience for repos not included in the Kubernetes [associated repositories]list.
- Steering committee election policy updates and maintenance.
- We do not create SIGs/WGs but can assist in the various community management needs of their micro communities that would kick off their formation and keep them going.
- We are not the [code of conduct committee] and therefore do not control incident management reporting or decisions; however, our moderation guidelines allow us to act swiftly if there is a clear violation of terms on one of our supported platforms. If there is an action that the committee needs to take that involves one of these platforms (example: the removal of someone from GitHub), we will carry that out if none of the committee members have access.

This comment has been minimized.

@spiffxp

spiffxp Nov 30, 2018

Member

clear violation of terms

the platform's TOS? our CoC? both?

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Jan 4, 2019

Contributor

i put a line about both

- We are not the [code of conduct committee] and therefore do not control incident management reporting or decisions; however, our moderation guidelines allow us to act swiftly if there is a clear violation of terms on one of our supported platforms. If there is an action that the committee needs to take that involves one of these platforms (example: the removal of someone from GitHub), we will carry that out if none of the committee members have access.
- Communication platforms that are out of our scope for maintenance and support but we may still have some influence:
- [r/kubernetes]
- [kubernetesio@] twitter account

This comment has been minimized.

@spiffxp

spiffxp Nov 30, 2018

Member

nit: @kubernetesio

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Jan 4, 2019

Contributor

ty fixed

- The weekly [Kubernetes Community meeting]
- [Contributor Summit(s)]
- SIG Contributor Experience face to face meetings
- [Steering Committee elections] (though we do not own policy creation, see 'out of scope' below)

This comment has been minimized.

@spiffxp

spiffxp Nov 30, 2018

Member

I am comfortable with the phrasing as is, but yes I read this as saying elections officers should come from contribex, as that is the SIG I trust to be most in tune with community norms and processes. The steering committee has often deferred to the officers when it comes to the details of executing the election.

- ongoing work with the CNCF to improve [DevStats]
- the contributor experience survey(s)
- engagement on project platforms that we manage
- Encourage automation to improve productivity for contributors where it makes sense and consult with SIG Testing if automation is covering GitHub workflows.

This comment has been minimized.

@spiffxp

spiffxp Nov 30, 2018

Member

If this is collaboration with another SIG then I would recommend putting this in the cross-cutting section

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Jan 4, 2019

Contributor

fixed

- Own and execute events that are targeted to the Kubernetes contributor community, including:
- The weekly [Kubernetes Community meeting]
- [Contributor Summit(s)]
- SIG Contributor Experience face to face meetings

This comment has been minimized.

@spiffxp

spiffxp Nov 30, 2018

Member

this seems out of place in this list as it's specific to this SIG vs. being community-wide

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Jan 4, 2019

Contributor

removed

### Subproject Creation - TODO
Pick one:
SIG Technical Leads
Federation of Subprojects

This comment has been minimized.

@spiffxp

spiffxp Nov 30, 2018

Member

I need to understand what's holding us up in making a decision here. Both options prefer lazy consensus among SIG members first before resorting to a fallback vote.

IMO a large portion of this SIG's responsibilities are non technical in nature, so I'm not sure that the the TL option makes much sense. I would be comfortable expanding the "TL" option to include "TLs and Chairs" in this case, or suggest Federation of Subprojects (which a few SIGs have chosen, notably SIG Cluster Lifecycle). Or we consider "community management" a "technical" skill, and opt to choose a tech lead or two who specializes in that.

This comment has been minimized.

@cblecker

cblecker Dec 6, 2018

Member

I think in our case, Chairs + TLs is the best option. Still gives a wide perspective, but in practice, we've never needed a tie break.. consensus of the body is always best.

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Jan 4, 2019

Contributor

updated with chairs and tls

@cblecker

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

cblecker commented Dec 6, 2018

I'm good with all of @spiffxp's feedback above.

@parispittman parispittman force-pushed the parispittman:charterv3 branch from b9ff339 to 1e1db92 Jan 4, 2019

@idealhack
Copy link
Member

idealhack left a comment

this charter is really comprehensive. just some nits:


- Deploying Changes:
When implementing policy changes we strive to balance responding quickly to the needs of the community and ensuring a disruption-free experience for project contributors. As such, the amount of notice we provide and the amount of consensus we seek is driven by our estimation of risk. We don't measure risk objectively at this time, but estimate it based on these parameters:
- Low risk changes impact a small number (<4) of SIGs, WGs, or repos, do not break existing contributor workflows, and are easy to roll back. When implementing low risk changes we:

This comment has been minimized.

@idealhack

idealhack Jan 4, 2019

Member
Suggested change Beta
- Low risk changes impact a small number (<4) of SIGs, WGs, or repos, do not break existing contributor workflows, and are easy to roll back. When implementing low risk changes we:
- Low-risk changes impact a small number (<4) of SIGs, WGs, or repos, do not break existing contributor workflows, and are easy to roll back. When implementing low-risk changes we:

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Jan 4, 2019

Contributor

fixed

- Code for the testing and CI infrastructure - that’s SIG Testing
- [kubernetes/community] ownership of folders for KEPs and Design Proposals. Members are to follow those folders owners files and SIG leadership for the specific issue/PR in question.
- User community management. We hold office hours because contributors are a large portion of the volunteers that run that program.
- The contributor experience for repos not included in the Kubernetes [associated repositories]list.

This comment has been minimized.

@idealhack

idealhack Jan 4, 2019

Member
Suggested change Beta
- The contributor experience for repos not included in the Kubernetes [associated repositories]list.
- The contributor experience for repos not included in the Kubernetes [associated repositories] list.

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Jan 4, 2019

Contributor

fixed

- Low risk changes impact a small number (<4) of SIGs, WGs, or repos, do not break existing contributor workflows, and are easy to roll back. When implementing low risk changes we:
- Socialize on kubernetes-sig-contribex@googlegroups.com and on our weekly update calls
- We will go to each lead, their mailing lists, slack channel, and/or their update meetings and ask for feedback and a [lazy consensus] process. We will follow up with a post to [kubernetes-dev@]googlegroups.com mailing list
- High risk changes impact a large number (<4) of SIGs, WGs, or repos, break existing contributor workflows, and are not easy to roll back. When implementing high risk changes we:

This comment has been minimized.

@idealhack

idealhack Jan 4, 2019

Member
Suggested change Beta
- High risk changes impact a large number (<4) of SIGs, WGs, or repos, break existing contributor workflows, and are not easy to roll back. When implementing high risk changes we:
- High-risk changes impact a large number (<4) of SIGs, WGs, or repos, break existing contributor workflows, and are not easy to roll back. When implementing high-risk changes we:

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Jan 4, 2019

Contributor

fixed

- Our standard time box is 72 business hours; however, there may be situations where we need to act quickly but the time period will always be clear and upfront.

If we need funding for any reason, we approach [CNCF].
CNCF in many of the noted cases above, contributes funding to our platforms, processes, and/or programs. They do not play a day-to-day operations role and have bestowed that to our community to run as we see fit. Since they do fund some of our initatives, this means that they hold owner account privileges on certain platforms like Zoom and Slack. In these cases, such as Slack, there are at least two Contributor Experience [communication] subproject OWNERs listed as admins.

This comment has been minimized.

@idealhack

idealhack Jan 4, 2019

Member
Suggested change Beta
CNCF in many of the noted cases above, contributes funding to our platforms, processes, and/or programs. They do not play a day-to-day operations role and have bestowed that to our community to run as we see fit. Since they do fund some of our initatives, this means that they hold owner account privileges on certain platforms like Zoom and Slack. In these cases, such as Slack, there are at least two Contributor Experience [communication] subproject OWNERs listed as admins.
CNCF in many of the noted cases above, contributes funding to our platforms, processes, and/or programs. They do not play a day-to-day operations role and have bestowed that to our community to run as we see fit. Since they do fund some of our initiatives, this means that they hold owner account privileges on certain platforms like Zoom and Slack. In these cases, such as Slack, there are at least two Contributor Experience [communication] subproject OWNERs listed as admins.

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Jan 4, 2019

Contributor

fixed

We cross-cut all SIGs and WGs to deliver the following processes:

- Deploying Changes:
When implementing policy changes we strive to balance responding quickly to the needs of the community and ensuring a disruption-free experience for project contributors. As such, the amount of notice we provide and the amount of consensus we seek is driven by our estimation of risk. We don't measure risk objectively at this time, but estimate it based on these parameters:

This comment has been minimized.

@idealhack

idealhack Jan 4, 2019

Member
Suggested change Beta
When implementing policy changes we strive to balance responding quickly to the needs of the community and ensuring a disruption-free experience for project contributors. As such, the amount of notice we provide and the amount of consensus we seek is driven by our estimation of risk. We don't measure risk objectively at this time, but estimate it based on these parameters:
When implementing policy changes we strive to balance responding quickly to the needs of the community and ensuring a disruption-free experience for project contributors. As such, the amount of notice we provide and the amount of consensus we seek is driven by our estimation of risk. We don't measure risk objectively at this time, but estimate it based on these parameters:

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Jan 4, 2019

Contributor

fixed

- Deploying Changes:
When implementing policy changes we strive to balance responding quickly to the needs of the community and ensuring a disruption-free experience for project contributors. As such, the amount of notice we provide and the amount of consensus we seek is driven by our estimation of risk. We don't measure risk objectively at this time, but estimate it based on these parameters:
- Low risk changes impact a small number (<4) of SIGs, WGs, or repos, do not break existing contributor workflows, and are easy to roll back. When implementing low risk changes we:
- Socialize on kubernetes-sig-contribex@googlegroups.com and on our weekly update calls

This comment has been minimized.

@idealhack

idealhack Jan 4, 2019

Member
Suggested change Beta
- Socialize on kubernetes-sig-contribex@googlegroups.com and on our weekly update calls
- Socialize on kubernetes-sig-contribex@googlegroups.com and our weekly update calls

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Jan 4, 2019

Contributor

fixed

- High risk changes impact a large number (<4) of SIGs, WGs, or repos, break existing contributor workflows, and are not easy to roll back. When implementing high risk changes we:
- Socialize on kubernetes-sig-contribex@googlegroups.com and on our weekly update calls
- Seek [lazy consensus] with a time box of at least 72 business hours with a GitHub issue link (or proposal if not applicable) to the following mailing lists:
- [kubernetes-sig-contribex@]googlegroups.com

This comment has been minimized.

@idealhack

idealhack Jan 4, 2019

Member
Suggested change Beta
- [kubernetes-sig-contribex@]googlegroups.com
- [kubernetes-sig-contribex@]googlegroups.com

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Jan 4, 2019

Contributor

fixed

- Socialize on kubernetes-sig-contribex@googlegroups.com and on our weekly update calls
- Seek [lazy consensus] with a time box of at least 72 business hours with a GitHub issue link (or proposal if not applicable) to the following mailing lists:
- [kubernetes-sig-contribex@]googlegroups.com
- sig-leads@googlegroups.com

This comment has been minimized.

@idealhack

idealhack Jan 4, 2019

Member
Suggested change Beta
- sig-leads@googlegroups.com
- sig-leads@googlegroups.com

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Jan 4, 2019

Contributor

fixed

- Seek [lazy consensus] with a time box of at least 72 business hours with a GitHub issue link (or proposal if not applicable) to the following mailing lists:
- [kubernetes-sig-contribex@]googlegroups.com
- sig-leads@googlegroups.com
- [kubernetes-dev@]googlegroups.com with the GitHub issue link including the subject [NOTICE]: $announcement

This comment has been minimized.

@idealhack

idealhack Jan 4, 2019

Member
Suggested change Beta
- [kubernetes-dev@]googlegroups.com with the GitHub issue link including the subject [NOTICE]: $announcement
- [kubernetes-dev@]googlegroups.com with the GitHub issue link including the subject [NOTICE]: $announcement

This comment has been minimized.

@idealhack

idealhack Jan 4, 2019

Member

indent these three mailing lists

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Jan 4, 2019

Contributor

fixed

- Socialize on kubernetes-sig-contribex@googlegroups.com and on our weekly update calls
- We will go to each lead, their mailing lists, slack channel, and/or their update meetings and ask for feedback and a [lazy consensus] process. We will follow up with a post to [kubernetes-dev@]googlegroups.com mailing list
- High risk changes impact a large number (<4) of SIGs, WGs, or repos, break existing contributor workflows, and are not easy to roll back. When implementing high risk changes we:
- Socialize on kubernetes-sig-contribex@googlegroups.com and on our weekly update calls

This comment has been minimized.

@idealhack

idealhack Jan 4, 2019

Member

the same with low-risk ones?

if so:

Suggested change Beta
- Socialize on kubernetes-sig-contribex@googlegroups.com and on our weekly update calls
- Socialize on kubernetes-sig-contribex@googlegroups.com and our weekly update calls

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Jan 4, 2019

Contributor

fixed

@parispittman parispittman force-pushed the parispittman:charterv3 branch from 1e1db92 to 07a0240 Jan 4, 2019

@parispittman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

parispittman commented Jan 4, 2019

@nikhita
Copy link
Member

nikhita left a comment

Some nits, but this looks so detailed and awesome, Paris!! 💯

[DevStats]: https://k8s.cncf.devstats.io
[kubernetes-sig-contribex@]: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/kubernetes-sig-contribex
[kubernetes blog]: https://www.kubernetes.io/blog
[GitHub]: https://git.k8s.io/community/github-management

This comment has been minimized.

@nikhita

nikhita Jan 4, 2019

Member

nit: let's call this github-management instead of just GitHub? 😬

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Jan 7, 2019

Contributor

fixed

[project list]: https://github.com/orgs/kubernetes/projects/1
[Kubernetes Community meeting]: https://git.k8s.io/community/
[mentoring programs]: https://git.k8s.io/community/mentoring
[Steering Committee elections]: https://git.k8s.io/community/

This comment has been minimized.

@nikhita

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Jan 7, 2019

Contributor

fixed

- [Group Mentoring - WIP]
- [The 1:1 Hour - WIP]
- Speed Mentoring at KubeCon
We supply the moderation teams that span time zones for 24/7 coverage. This includes immediate action when dealing with code of conduct issues in a public spaces

This comment has been minimized.

@nikhita

nikhita Jan 4, 2019

Member
  • Is this for the speed mentoring session or in general? If in general, this needs to go as a sub-point under moderation, or else it renders with the Speed Mentoring point.
  • Maybe we can rephrase this as We supply moderation teams spanning multiple time zones for 24/7 coverage.?
  • s/a public spaces/public places.

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Jan 7, 2019

Contributor

fixed

- [The 1:1 Hour - WIP]
- Speed Mentoring at KubeCon
We supply the moderation teams that span time zones for 24/7 coverage. This includes immediate action when dealing with code of conduct issues in a public spaces
- Help onboard new contributors and current into the culture, workflow, and CI of our contributor experience through the [contributor guide], other related documentation, [contributor summits] and programs tailored to onboarding.

This comment has been minimized.

@nikhita

nikhita Jan 4, 2019

Member

nit: s/new contributors and current/new and current contributors

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Jan 7, 2019

Contributor

fixed

- Perform issue triage on and maintain the [kubernetes/community] repository.
- Help SIGs with being as transparent and open as possible through creating best practices, guidelines, and general administration of YouTube, Zoom, and our mailing lists where applicable
- Assist SIGs/WG Chairs and Technical Leads with organizational management operations as laid out in the [sig-governance] doc
- Distribute contributor related news on various Kubernetes channels, including Cloud Native Compute Foundation [CNCF] for posting blogs, social media, and other platforms as needed.

This comment has been minimized.

@nikhita

nikhita Jan 4, 2019

Member

nit: s/[CNCF]/([CNCF]) ... i.e. CNCF in brackets

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Jan 7, 2019

Contributor

fixed

- Low-risk changes impact a small number (<4) of SIGs, WGs, or repos, do not break existing contributor workflows, and are easy to roll back. When implementing low-risk changes we:
- Socialize on kubernetes-sig-contribex@googlegroups.com and our weekly update calls
- We will go to each lead, their mailing lists, slack channel, and/or their update meetings and ask for feedback and a [lazy consensus] process. We will follow up with a post to [kubernetes-dev@]googlegroups.com mailing list
- High-risk changes impact a large number (<4) of SIGs, WGs, or repos, break existing contributor workflows, and are not easy to roll back. When implementing high-risk changes we:

This comment has been minimized.

@nikhita

nikhita Jan 4, 2019

Member

>4 instead of <4

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Jan 7, 2019

Contributor

fixed

[CNCF]: https://cncf.io
[GitHub issues]: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/issues
[project list]: https://github.com/orgs/kubernetes/projects/1
[Kubernetes Community meeting]: https://git.k8s.io/community/

This comment has been minimized.

@nikhita

nikhita Jan 4, 2019

Member

This could point to communication#weekly-meeting

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Jan 7, 2019

Contributor

fixed

- Code for the testing and CI infrastructure - that’s SIG Testing
- [kubernetes/community] ownership of folders for KEPs and Design Proposals. Members are to follow those folders owners files and SIG leadership for the specific issue/PR in question.
- User community management. We hold office hours because contributors are a large portion of the volunteers that run that program.
- The contributor experience for repos not included in the Kubernetes [associated repositories] list.

This comment has been minimized.

@nikhita

This comment has been minimized.

@parispittman

parispittman Jan 7, 2019

Contributor

fixed


### Additional responsibilities of Chairs

Chairs SHOULD plan at least one face to face Contributor Experience meeting per year

This comment has been minimized.

@nikhita

@parispittman parispittman self-assigned this Jan 5, 2019

@parispittman parispittman force-pushed the parispittman:charterv3 branch from 07a0240 to 96e589e Jan 7, 2019

@dims dims changed the title [WIP] Contributor Experience Charter Contributor Experience Charter Jan 7, 2019

@dims

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

dims commented Jan 7, 2019

/lgtm
/hold

Please release hold when you wish. Charter looks good!

@spiffxp

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

spiffxp commented Jan 7, 2019

/approve

@parispittman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

parispittman commented Jan 7, 2019

waiting for @sarahnovotny's final go and then I'll release the hold

@sarahnovotny

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

sarahnovotny commented Jan 15, 2019

/approve

@k8s-ci-robot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

k8s-ci-robot commented Jan 15, 2019

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: cblecker, parispittman, sarahnovotny, spiffxp

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@sarahnovotny

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

sarahnovotny commented Jan 15, 2019

/hold cancel

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 8aa34f3 into kubernetes:master Jan 15, 2019

3 checks passed

cla/linuxfoundation parispittman authorized
Details
pull-community-verify Job succeeded.
Details
tide In merge pool.
Details

Contributor Experience automation moved this from In Progress to Completed Jan 15, 2019

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment