update code of conduct charter to address other committee elections #6955
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
cncf-cla: yes
|
/hold |
k8s-ci-robot
added
size/XS
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
|
/assign @jeremyrickard @detiber @endocrimes @hlipsig |
salaxander
force-pushed
the
coc_charter_update
branch
2 times, most recently
from
13f6025 to
5cfadc2
Compare
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
/lgtm |
endocrimes
left a comment
endocrimes
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
/lgtm
This should greatly simplify the life-cycling and continuity of the CoCC - especially given that both elections often happen around the same time.
|
/hold Explicit hold as all charter changes require steering review |
|
@cblecker: The label(s) `/label committee/steering
In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
/committee steering Let's try that again |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
committee/steering
|
Compared to stated intent in the PR description, I'm not sure I see in the charter change a strong incentivize for that outcome. Pondering if/how we might more strongly.... |
|
@tpepper I don't think we want to stop people from doing so if that's what they desire, but want to make it less of a... "tossing the hat in the ring and then making a decision" (which is fairly disruptive to both of our election processes), but more "committing to staying on the CoCC or running for steering". |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Restating to make sure I'm reading / understanding this correctly, please correct me if not, brain is fried at the moment 🙃
-
This would effectively give a month of guaranteed transition time, should someone on CoCC opt to run for steering.
- This gives CoCC time to prepare and transition in a new member smoothly, as opposed the immediate step down when a member suddenly wins steering today.
-
It further gives pause to casually running for steering in the middle of a CoCC term, because regardless of winning you will be stepping down from CoCC.
- This is important because CoCC members have been known to win (but could lose), and the unpredictable turnover disrupts the intended staggered terms.
This seems very reasonable, and IIRC we already do not allow the opposite transition from Steering directly to CoCC.
I have one clarification ask regarding which election date we mean in the charter text.
|
To the discussion above, I might suggest updating the PR body re:
To also note the positive effect of ensuring a predictable transition period if members do go forward with running anyhow. Just for anyone coming across this later. |
I may want to add this statement to the charter as part of this too then. Currently it states "Any changes to the charter require explicit LGTM or Approve from all committee members. For pull requests, a /hold will be applied until all approvals are present. Any changes merged without consensus will be reverted". I think it makes total sense to have approval from steering as well, I just want to be sure that requirement is documented. |
salaxander
force-pushed
the
coc_charter_update
branch
from
5cfadc2 to
b0b9537
Compare
|
@salaxander Yes, it might make sense to call that out. You could link it to https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/committee-steering/governance#sig-charter-approval-process which is the relevant section in the governance docs |
committee-code-of-conduct/charter.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ### Participation in the Kubernetes steering committee | ||
| Participation in both of these committees represents a conflict of interest. | ||
| If a current code of conduct committee member chooses to run for election for |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is kind of nitpicky, but "run for election for" reads a bit off to me.
Maybe "If a current code of conduct committee member chooses to participate in the Kubernetes steering committee election"
or "If a current code of conduct committee member chooses to run for the Kubernetes steering committee"
or possibly even "If a current code of conduct committee member chooses to accept nomination for a Kubernetes steering committee election and becomes a qualified candidate, they are required to...".
In the case of the later, it would probably also be good to also specify the definitions of accepting nomination and becoming a qualified candidate come from https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/blob/main/elections.md and https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/elections/steering
salaxander
force-pushed
the
coc_charter_update
branch
from
b0b9537 to
e286398
Compare
k8s-ci-robot
added
size/S
|
Counter-argument: recruiting folks for CoCC at all is very difficult, and the pool of potential CoCC members has like 70% overlap with the pool of potential SC members. Are we sure that we want to position things so that potential candidates say "hmmm, I don't want to run for CoCC because I might want to run for SC next year"? |
I think that's a valid concern. Maybe we as the current committee need to do a better job of sourcing candidates for future roles? As it is though, the high turnover and lack of continuity ends up being quite disruptive to the code of conduct committee. I'm open to exploring other options, but we really would like to find a way to ensure that we don't find ourselves in a situation like the current one again (every member of the committee is new) |
|
The thing I’ve been trying to figure out: how do we incentivize finishing out terms? Admittedly I didn’t on CoCC myself. And while I feel like I need to go back and deliver on that commitment, it wont be easy: to stand for next year’s 2023 CoCC election I’d have to step down early from SC. Or I would need to not stand for 2023 SC reelection and and then wait ten months for 2024 CoCC (re)election. That wouldn’t be helped by first stepping off CoCC per the idea here, and like Josh notes it looses one or both bodies a volunteer. It might only be helped by us individually realizing we need to be finish commitments before aspiring to or taking on next ones. That’s hard to incentivize, especially constructively vs punitively. Still feels punitive, but would it be more effective to say committee candidacy does not include ones who did not complete a prior committee commitment in the (~1year?) lead up to the committee election? |
|
Top of head thought: would it make this problem better/worse/no change if we aligned the election cycles between the committees |
Currently, the SC elects the CoCC. So that would shift to having the "lame duck" SC elect them. Which isn't necessarily a blocker, but is a shift in who selects what. |
Chiefy0x1
left a comment
Chiefy0x1
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
/approve
LGTM it reads as do the next right thing. I like that..
| code of conduct and steering committee members | ||
| (see the [SIG charter approval process](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/committee-steering/governance#sig-charter-approval-process)). | ||
| For pull requests, a /hold will be applied until all approvals are present. Any changes merged without | ||
| consensus will be reverted. |
|
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all PRs. This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle stale |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lifecycle/stale
|
/remove-lifecycle stale |
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
lifecycle/stale
| ### Participation in the Kubernetes steering committee | ||
| Participation in both of these committees represents a conflict of interest. | ||
| If a current code of conduct committee member chooses to run for the Kubernetes steering committee, | ||
| they are required to announce their resignation from the code of conduct committee upon the | ||
| announcement of their candidacy for steering (not after the election takes place). Their resignation | ||
| would then take effect on the date the steering election concludes to allow notice time for a replacement | ||
| member to be appointed. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we break this out into a separate PR? I don't think theres any debate on this part of it and we should ideally get it merged before the actual election kicks off :x
|
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all PRs. This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle stale |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lifecycle/stale
|
@Chiefy0x1: changing LGTM is restricted to collaborators In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: Chiefy0x1, detiber, endocrimes, salaxander 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 |
|
/lifecycle frozen |
|
@endocrimes: The In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all PRs. This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle rotten |
k8s-ci-robot
added
lifecycle/rotten
|
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs. This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /close |
|
@k8s-triage-robot: Closed this PR. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
13 participants
Over the course of the code of conduct committee's existence, we have seen a number of members run for steering while serving on the committee. In the event that they are elected, they resign from code of conduct (serving on both would be a conflict of interest). This does however create the potential for high turnover on code of conduct if many members end up making that a stepping stone to steering.
I am proposing this charter change to encourage elected members to remain with code of conduct through their committed term.