Skip to content
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

Add Code of Conduct Committee Charter #3663

Merged
merged 7 commits into from Jul 15, 2019

Conversation

@carolynvs
Copy link
Contributor

commented May 1, 2019

This is a proposed charter for the Code of Conduct Committee for review by the Steering Committee.

@carolynvs

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented May 1, 2019

/hold
/sig steering

@carolynvs

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented May 1, 2019

Oops, I am awful at assigning things to teams/sigs, never get that the first time. 😊

@michelleN Can you let the @kubernetes/steering-committee know that this is ready to review again?


Steering committee members may also act in limited cases to enforce the code of
conduct. Examples of this may be the deletion of GitHub comments, offensive
Slack messages, or the eviction of bad actors from public meetings. These

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@nikhita

nikhita May 2, 2019

Member

One small point here - the steering committee might not have powers to delete GitHub comments in some repos (github admin team can do that) or delete slack messages (slack admin team can do that).

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@timothysc

timothysc May 2, 2019

Member

Most do, but we should double check that it exists across all k8s-orgs. You may want to file an issue https://github.com/kubernetes/org

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@spiffxp

spiffxp May 3, 2019

Member

I do not agree that steering committee members should implicitly have Owner or even Admin rights across all of our orgs and all of our repos. Should steering have the ability to ask the appropriate teams to take action? Sure. But at least for all k8s orgs, we delegated the responsibilities to the GitHub Admin team, we should not subvert that. We addressed this in kubernetes/org#637

@timothysc
Copy link
Member

left a comment

Only a minor nit, this looks good.

/lgtm
/approve
/hold

Show resolved Hide resolved committee-code-of-conduct/charter.md Outdated
@spiffxp
Copy link
Member

left a comment

Some nits

members](https://git.k8s.io/community/committee-code-of-conduct) elected by the
Steering Committee based on private nomination. During an election, the two
candidates that received the most committee votes are granted 2 year terms, with
the remaining person given a one year term.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@spiffxp

spiffxp May 3, 2019

Member

I'm confused by this. I read this as:

  • year 1: A,B,C,D,E
  • year 2: A,B,C,D,F
  • year 3: G,H,I,J,K
  • year 4: G,H,I,J,L

I was expecting something more like 2-seat/3-seat elections, similar to steering's 3-seat/4-seat elections:

  • year 1: A,B,C,D,E
  • year 2: A,B,C,F,G
  • year 3: H,I,J,F,G
  • year 5: H,I,J,K,L

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@carolynvs

carolynvs May 8, 2019

Author Contributor

I don't believe that what you listed at the top is correct. Here's how I understand our term rotations and elections, you can see it already spelled out in our readme based on our own term limits: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/committee-code-of-conduct#terms. Jaice and Paris both have 2 year terms, and myself, Jennifer and Eric have 1 year terms that end this summer.

The top two winners of the election get 2 year terms, the remaining people get 1 year terms. I believe that works out to this?

  • year 1: A,B,C,D,E (A,B are 2 year terms)
  • year 2: A,B,F,G,H (F,G are 2 year terms)
  • year 3: F,G,I,J,K (I,J are 2 year terms)
  • year 4: I,J,L,M,N (L,M are 2 year terms)

The first year of the committee is the exception where multiple people received a 1 year term, but going forward, we always elect enough people to replace the departing people, so it's 3 people elected, two of them getting 2year terms, and one getting a 1year term. Giving us overlap between old and new members to preserve knowledge and continuity.

Does that help?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@spiffxp

spiffxp May 8, 2019

Member

Yes, your summary paragraph at the end is a clearer description of the intended process than what's written in the charter.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@carolynvs

carolynvs May 22, 2019

Author Contributor

I've updated the charter to attempt to clarify this with some of my wording above.

Meetings are considered at quorum when a simple majority of the members are
present. Where there are 4 or fewer members available due vacant seats or
recusal, quorum is 2. Note that many decisions are not able to be implemented in
situations where only 2 members are present.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@spiffxp

spiffxp May 3, 2019

Member

Which decisions require >2 members?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@carolynvs

carolynvs May 8, 2019

Author Contributor

@eparis I think that sentence used to make sense in an older draft. But after we trimmed down parts of the document, it isn't necessary anymore. Do you agree?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@carolynvs

carolynvs May 22, 2019

Author Contributor

I've removed the old wording since it's not needed anymore.

situations where only 2 members are present.

### Policy change ratification
Any changes to the charter require explicit LGTM or Approve from all active

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@spiffxp

spiffxp May 3, 2019

Member

what does "active" mean here?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@carolynvs

carolynvs May 8, 2019

Author Contributor

In my opinion, we don't need that word there. I believe it's a leftover from an older draft.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@carolynvs

carolynvs May 22, 2019

Author Contributor

I've removed the word active.

Show resolved Hide resolved committee-code-of-conduct/charter.md Outdated
If committee members believe that the committee is no longer able to act in
accordance with the above Mission/Purpose the committee may vote to dissolve.
The committee should specify a date of dissolution. Dissolution requires an
affirmative vote of more than 75% of committee members. If the committee is

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@spiffxp

spiffxp May 3, 2019

Member

More than 75% means it must be unanimous if the committee drops below five members. Is that intentional? Or are you trying to say dissolution is possible with 1 dissenting vote, but not more?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@eparis

eparis May 7, 2019

Member

Unanimous was my intention if there were only 4 members.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@carolynvs

carolynvs May 8, 2019

Author Contributor

Is this resolved or does the charter need the wording clarified?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@spiffxp

spiffxp May 8, 2019

Member

Personally I would be explicit that it requires unanimity if the committee drops below 5 members

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@carolynvs

carolynvs May 22, 2019

Author Contributor

I've added wording to cover the case for < 5 members.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added needs-rebase and removed lgtm labels May 8, 2019

@nikhita

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented May 17, 2019

This needs another rebase :(

carolynvs and others added some commits May 1, 2019

s/occupied/unoccupied
Co-Authored-By: carolynvs <carolyn.vanslyck@microsoft.com>
Remove unnessary wording
These were present in older drafts that had additional clarifications about
active members, etc that aren't in the current document.

@carolynvs carolynvs force-pushed the carolynvs:cocc-charter branch from ff74639 to beecffd May 22, 2019

@carolynvs

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented May 22, 2019

Thanks for the nudge @nikhita! I've rebased and addressed all the feedback that I could.

@philips

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented May 23, 2019

This LGTM. Although I haven't been following along as closely as @spiffxp

@spiffxp

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented May 30, 2019

/lgtm

@philips

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented May 31, 2019

I am going to unhold this after the Wednesday steering committee if no one has any other comments.

@dims

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented May 31, 2019

Sounds good @philips !

@spiffxp

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 4, 2019

#3353 is about spelling out an appointment/election process. This charter spells out terms, but very little details of an actual election process, such as:

  • when are candidates chosen?
  • how are candidates chosen?
  • when does voting occur?
  • how does voting occur? (I believe we used CIVS last time)

The linked issue mentions the idea of nominating candidates this month (June), a vote on candidates before the end of July, and a transition by August 7th. If you're comfortable with process described there, can we flesh out the charter to include these details? @carolynvs @jdumars

@timothysc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 4, 2019

This charter spells out terms, but very little details of an actual election process, such as:

IMO, follow on with a separate issue+doc.
Elections should typically not be part of the charter and are subject to change.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the lgtm label Jul 3, 2019

@carolynvs

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jul 3, 2019

I have updated the charter to remove the election process and moved it into a separate document (which will be filled in later, hopefully very soon!)

@timothysc
Copy link
Member

left a comment

/lgtm

I'd aim for lazy consensus for 1-week merge time.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm label Jul 8, 2019

@k8s-ci-robot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jul 8, 2019

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: carolynvs, timothysc

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

@spiffxp

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jul 10, 2019

/lgtm
August 7th is less than a month away, I question whether we're going to make that deadline.

policy document and is supported with additional references and tools as needed.
Since maintaining a safe environment is a very large part of what the committee
does, we must carefully balance transparency of process with preserving the
privacy of those who come to the committee or other community leaders with an

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@deads2k

deads2k Jul 11, 2019

Contributor

I think the code of conduct committee should also consider the privacy of those accused of causing the incident.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@eparis

eparis Jul 12, 2019

Member

We've discussed and agree this language should be more broad. We do say, further down, that we intended the privacy to be for everyone, including the accused.

We will send a followup PR (after this merges) to discuss and address this specific area.

@timothysc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jul 15, 2019

Canceling hold per timeout above.
PRs can, and should, be made to this initial draft. Other comments look like they can be addressed in that fashion.

/hold cancel
/cc @michelleN

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot requested a review from michelleN Jul 15, 2019

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit d7ce431 into kubernetes:master Jul 15, 2019

4 checks passed

cla/linuxfoundation carolynvs authorized
Details
pull-community-tempelis-check Skipped.
pull-community-verify Job succeeded.
Details
tide In merge pool.
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.