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

code of conduct: Add election document #3912

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
from

Conversation

@eparis
Copy link
Member

commented Jul 20, 2019

No description provided.

@k8s-ci-robot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jul 20, 2019

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: eparis

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot requested review from Bradamant3 and jdumars Jul 20, 2019

@eparis eparis force-pushed the eparis:election branch 3 times, most recently from 9b3b987 to 441fa03 Jul 20, 2019


Since we require commitment that all members of the committee put the interests
of the community above the interest of their employer while performing all duties
related to the CoCC we do not have a maximal corperate representation limit.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@carolynvs

carolynvs Jul 23, 2019

Contributor

s/corperate/corporate

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@eparis

eparis Jul 25, 2019

Author Member

fixed.


### Terms and Election Cycles

Code of Conduct Committee members are elected to serve two year terms.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@carolynvs

carolynvs Jul 23, 2019

Contributor

This contradicts the 2/1 year term wording under the length of terms section above. What if this section was limited to just Election Cycles and we don't repeat ourselves on term length?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@eparis

eparis Jul 25, 2019

Author Member

fixed, I hope

election will serve out the remainder of the term for the person they are
replacing, regardless of the length of that remainder.

In the event that the committee votes to disolve in it's entirety an entirely

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@carolynvs

carolynvs Jul 23, 2019

Contributor
Suggested change
In the event that the committee votes to disolve in it's entirety an entirely
In the event that the committee votes to dissolve in its entirety, an entirely

### Maximal representation

Since we require commitment that all members of the committee put the interests

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@carolynvs

carolynvs Jul 23, 2019

Contributor

It may be worth saying, "Since we require commitment... while performing all duties related to the CoCC, or they are required to recuse themselves" Or something along those lines.

Just a pointer to our charter where we explain that recusal is an option.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@eparis

eparis Jul 25, 2019

Author Member

I made a pointer to recusal. Though if a person is not able to publicly say they will put the community before their employer I don't think they belong on the committee at all.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@spiffxp

spiffxp Jul 31, 2019

Member

I'm still wary at the prospect of a mono-employer committee here. Our other two committees explicitly call this out, why not here?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@michelleN

michelleN Jul 31, 2019

Member

+1 to @spiffxp - I also think we should have the same representation requirement here as we do on the steering committee. We also expect steering to put the community's interest above all as part of their responsibility to the k8s community but still have the max representation limitations as safeguards.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@eparis

eparis Aug 1, 2019

Author Member

Do we actually write down that steering (or any leader?) must put the interest of the community over the interest of their employer? I haven't seen it, and I've looked.

Are there other open source communities that disqualify otherwise exceptional individuals from participation based solely on employment? I'm not sure of one. Certainly not the 2 largest I can think of, kernel and OpenStack.

The only reason employer based disqualification makes any sense if if the human individuals involved are acting as proxies for their employer, instead of acting in the best interest of the community. And if they are doing so they certainly don't belong on a CoCC, or in any community leadership role in my opinion.

The very idea that because 2 people work for the same large corporation that they must think or act similarly is not rational even on it's face. Especially given the size of some of the companies in question. Personally, I don't even know the names of some of the Red Hatters who work on kubernetes and we certainly don't have shared goals or direction. We don't even have a manager in common until you get to the CEO. They are no closer to me or likely to share a thought echo chamber than anyone else in the community. And they should not be disqualified from participation if they are the best.

I think the CoCC is a good place to start fixing the idea that employment and community participation should somehow be mutually exclusive. Especially since the CoCC is the most important place to keep employment politics out of the activities.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@spiffxp

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@cblecker

cblecker Aug 2, 2019

Member

I can see cases where:

  • the person reporting a CoC violation would prefer to work the case with someone who is not from the same employer as themselves, or the person they are accusing of a violation
  • the person being accused of a CoC violation would prefer that the case is worked by someone who is not of the same employer as themselves, or the person accusing them of a violation

This isn't just to protect against actual conflicts of interest, as it's very clear that individuals in this role should be placing the interests of the community above that of their employer, but it's also to protect against any perceived conflict of interest, either internally or externally.

This particular issue is only a problem if most or all of the CoCC is from the same employer. Where you have a diverse committee (in many ways, but in this case, of employer), it's easy to correct and hand a particular case off to a different individual if there is ever any concerns raised that deal with a perceived conflict of interest around the employer of a CoCC member.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jberkus

jberkus Aug 7, 2019

Contributor

There's a couple other reasons we need to have multiple companies represented:

  1. If the CoC incident is also considered an HR incident for the employer of the accused violator, then their coworkers may be legally unable to take action inside the CoCC due to employment rules. This could leave us without any members of the committee able to take action on an incident.

  2. Just about everyone has an unconscious bias towards giving their coworkers the benefit of the doubt. While CoCC members will consciously try to be impartial, in cases where the injured parties and the violator have different employers, having one of the other share an employer with the entire committee could result in partisan outcomes despite people's best efforts.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jberkus

jberkus Aug 8, 2019

Contributor

Hah, I just realized that I'm proving @eparis's point that working for the same employer doesn't mean concordence.

However ... Openstack did have employer representation rules, they just eliminated a lot of them when the project shrank and so did the pool of employers.


### Length of Terms

* The CoCC consists of 5 members. In the first election, the top 3 voted people will be appointed for 2 year terms and the other 2 members will be appointed for a 1 year term.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@carolynvs

carolynvs Jul 23, 2019

Contributor

I am fine with following the bootstrapping guide, where my seat would be 2 years instead of 1.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@eparis

eparis Jul 25, 2019

Author Member

It is the rules as written, even if the announcement of terms was mistaken.

@eparis eparis force-pushed the eparis:election branch 2 times, most recently from 9ed81ba to cb83432 Jul 25, 2019

@jdumars

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jul 26, 2019

/lgtm
thanks for getting this out there

@jdumars

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jul 26, 2019

/hold

@Bradamant3

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jul 31, 2019

/lgtm

@parispittman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jul 31, 2019

/lgtm


In the event of a resignation or other loss of an elected committee
member, the candidate with the next most votes from the previous election will
be offered the seat. This process will continue until the seat is filled.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@smarterclayton

smarterclayton Jul 31, 2019

Contributor

What are the chances this results in a member with a very small number of votes for being granted the position?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@eparis

eparis Jul 31, 2019

Author Member

the alternative being steering holds an ad-hoc vote?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@smarterclayton

smarterclayton Jul 31, 2019

Contributor

Or a snap election? Or control the depth of the election stack (i.e. first alternate / second alternate, then hold snap)?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@derekwaynecarr

derekwaynecarr Jul 31, 2019

Member

i think a special run-off election is probably the best outcome.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@eparis

eparis Aug 1, 2019

Author Member

I see 2 votes for a snap election instead of taking the next on the list (what steering does). If steering wants to potentially do more elections I'm happier with that too.

@smarterclayton

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jul 31, 2019

Just one question, otherwise LGTM.

This needs approval from quorum of steering committee, right?

@eparis

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Jul 31, 2019

This needs approval from quorum of steering committee, right?

I'm not sure. Since it's steering who has to hold these elections, I assume steering gets to decide how they do (or do not) approve this. Quorum sounds good to me.

The steering committee will announce a request for nominations some time in July from any member of the following:
* steering committee
* sig chair
* sig lead

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@michelleN

michelleN Jul 31, 2019

Member

Can we change sig lead to sig tech lead for more clarity?
Should current CoCC members be eligible to nominate people?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@eparis

eparis Jul 31, 2019

Author Member

fixed.

* sig chair
* sig lead

The committee will accept nominations for at least 3 weeks. After the announced nomination

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@michelleN

michelleN Jul 31, 2019

Member

Let's change this to accept nomination for at least 1 week and a maximum of 3 weeks. I think I originally proposed 3 weeks but now am re-thinking how much time is actually needed.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@eparis

eparis Jul 31, 2019

Author Member

Updated to say 'at least 1 week, though steering may choose to accept for longer'. the 3 is dropped entirely.

@eparis eparis force-pushed the eparis:election branch from cb83432 to 6beb34b Jul 31, 2019

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the lgtm label Jul 31, 2019

@michelleN

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jul 31, 2019

/lgtm

@michelleN

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jul 31, 2019

/hold for additional steering reviews @kubernetes/steering-committee

@derekwaynecarr

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jul 31, 2019

I prefer to always have a runoff election, but otherwise this is LGTM.

@spiffxp
Copy link
Member

left a comment

I'd like to better understand the reasoning behind some of the exceptions made here


* Candidate commits to putting the interests of the community above the interests of their employer for all Code of Conduct Committee activities.
* Is generally a responsible human
* Does not have to be part of the Kubernetes or CNCF community

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@spiffxp

spiffxp Jul 31, 2019

Member

I'd like to understand this one a little better. We expect this of our leadership roles in all other community groups, why not here?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@michelleN

michelleN Jul 31, 2019

Member

The general idea is we can leverage expertise in the area of code of conduct from other communities by not explicitly requiring someone to be part of the k8s and cncf community. For example, it'd be great if someone from the Mozilla community which has lots of experience and expertise developing CoC processes came along to be part of our CoCC. The folks that are deeply involved in Kubernetes/CNCF may not be the same people who have a background in CoC issues and removing the requirement that these people have to come from our specific community will open up the possibility to having a more diverse and well versed CoCC.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@spiffxp

spiffxp Aug 1, 2019

Member

Sourcing from outside of our echo chamber makes sense, and I agree outside perspective is a healthy check. So, for eligibility for candidacy, makes sense, LGTM

Once elected, they need to be members for all of our tooling (and ideally awareness of how this community operates), which I think we all know, I just couldn't find it spelled out anywhere. Can address in a followup.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@spiffxp

spiffxp Aug 1, 2019

Member

Also, just so I'm explicitly clear: I read this as saying steering committee membership does not prevent code of conduct committee membership (or vice-versa). The membership of the two committees is mutually exclusive today, but nothing in the charters or election docs prevents that from changing. Correct?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@eparis

eparis Aug 1, 2019

Author Member

There is nothing that I can find which says they are mutually exclusive today. I'm not sure why they need be.


### Maximal representation

Since we require commitment that all members of the committee put the interests

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@spiffxp

spiffxp Jul 31, 2019

Member

I'm still wary at the prospect of a mono-employer committee here. Our other two committees explicitly call this out, why not here?

Since we require commitment that all members of the committee put the interests
of the community above the interest of their employer, or [recuse themselves] from all
relevant proceedings, while performing all duties related to the CoCC we do not
have a maximal corporate representation limit.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jberkus

jberkus Aug 7, 2019

Contributor

I don't see anything in here about other kinds of representation. Given the job of the CoCC, I'm concerned about the possiblity that the committee could lack other kinds of diversity. For example, it's been demonstrated repeatedly that all-male CoCCs often fail to adequately empathize with women targets of harassment, and then fail to adequately investigate incidents. I feel like the CoCC, because of its special role in the community, needs to have some minimal diversity requirements that go beyond employer.

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.