Committee Conflict of Interest resolution #7468
There are no files selected for viewing
justaugustus marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@ | ||
| # Committee Conflicts of Interest | ||
|
|
||
| **Effective date**: 2023-10-03 (following the announcement of the [2023 Steering Committee election][steering-2023-election-schedule] results) | ||
|
|
||
| [steering-2023-election-schedule]: /elections/steering/2023/README.md#schedule | ||
|
|
||
| At time of writing, the only known conflict of interest for serving on | ||
| committees in the Kubernetes Community exists with the | ||
| [Steering Committee](/committee-steering/README.md) and | ||
| the [Code of Conduct Committee (CoCC)](/committee-code-of-conduct/README.md). | ||
|
|
||
| ## Steering Committee and Code of Conduct Committee | ||
|
|
||
| **_Kubernetes Community members cannot serve on both committees simultaneously._** | ||
|
|
||
| This conflict may arise in the following scenarios: | ||
|
|
||
| - A standing Steering Committee member has accepted a nomination to serve on | ||
| the Code of Conduct Committee | ||
| - A standing CoCC member has elected to run for a seat on the Steering | ||
| Committee | ||
| - A Kubernetes Community member has been nominated for candidacy for both | ||
| committees | ||
|
|
||
| There are several factors under consideration when formulating a reasonable | ||
| process for resolving this conflict of interest: | ||
|
|
||
| - The distinctness of the Steering and CoCC charters, not limited to how these | ||
| committees need to adjudicate on community matters | ||
| - The Kubernetes Community's expectation of commitment in its committee members | ||
| for duration of their terms | ||
| - Continuity of committees and the duties they discharge | ||
| - Undue burden on existing committee members to balance workload through | ||
| committee membership transitions, not limited to onboarding/offboarding | ||
| - Undue burden on Election Officers in supporting overlapping elections with | ||
| the potential to generate conflicts | ||
| - Minimization of conflict of interest edge cases not otherwise described by | ||
| this document | ||
|
|
||
| With these considerations in mind, the following rules exist to prevent or | ||
| resolve membership conflicts of interest between Steering and the CoCC: | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- TODO(committee-coi): Reflect this list in each committee's "Eligibility for candidacy" section --> | ||
|
|
||
| - Loss of committee member that occurs due to this conflict of interest will | ||
| be resolved per existing election or committee vacancy rules | ||
| - Candidates who are nominated for a seat on both Steering and CoCC within the | ||
| same 12-month period must: | ||
| - (if elected) accept a seat on the committee whose election concludes first | ||
| - be withdrawn from candidacy in second election to conclude | ||
| - Standing Steering or CoCC members must have served on their committee for a | ||
| period of twelve (12) months to be considered eligible for candidacy in the | ||
| other committee's election | ||
|
Comment on lines
+51
to
+53
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. I like this sentiment, but I see a problem with the number 12 months, specifically in how the current elections are lined up. If the elections were staggered by 6 months, this would be completely reasonable, but if the elections are close together, as they are right now, and they happen at about the same time every year, this places an unbalanced restriction on the committee that has its elections first. Whatever the candidates reasons might be for wanting to change committees in the first place (for example: wanting more/less emotional labor), I would suggest this number change to slightly less (10 or 11 months), to not be such a unidirectional disadvantage. This would also avoid even the perception of any possible artificial forcing function pushing back the annual cycle of elections.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. As I'm thinking about this, we could also say slightly longer (14 months), and still avoid the imbalance when elections are close on the calendar. |
||
| - Kubernetes Community members who have recently voluntarily vacated a seat on either | ||
| Steering or CoCC without serving the complete term will be ineligible for candidacy for a period of three (3) | ||
| months | ||
|
Comment on lines
+47
to
+56
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. So I'm going to challenge this a little bit, so I'm going to tag the folks who were suggesting something like this as I'd like their opinion (cc @katcosgrove @celestehorgan) While I completely understand that we don't want folks jumping from committee to committee on a regular basis for reasons of continuity and burden on their fellow committee members, I fear that putting these kinds of hard restrictions on the election processes will have the possible unwanted side effects:
I think in practicality, some of this could be reduced by having a greater staggering in the elections.. right now we have CoCC in August and Steering in September. If they were staggered more, then we wouldn't have any risk of concurrent election periods and less possibility of thrashing if folks move between committees. But having these long, forced ineligibility periods I feel puts strain on individuals who are serving the community in really important ways. Very open to other suggestions that might better solve these issues.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. just curious, what is the spirit of this norm and why 3 months? it seems that it tries to avoid some specific thing to happen but I can´t understand what
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Our intent with this phrasing was that no potential for conflict exists until a committee position is actually held, so a candidate would be able to run for two positions within a 12-month period assuming they were not successful in their first attempt. If that's unclear, I'm happy to be more explicit! The 3-month timeout period after voluntarily leaving your seat is there to discourage people from doing that simply to attempt to campaign for a seat on a more professionally lucrative committee. Allowing for committee hopping is especially problematic for the CoCC, where losing one member early is significantly more impactful than it is for Steering due to the much smaller committee size, but it's unfair to Steering as well and to the community at large due to the instability it causes. However, if we think the risk involved in voluntarily stepping down to run in another election the candidate may lose is deterrent enough without the 3-month timeout, I won't fight too hard to keep it. The individual should still be required to have served 12 months of their existing term before being eligible to run for a seat on another committee without first stepping down, though. Staggering the elections more would certainly help solve this issue, but how doable is that in actual practice? |
||
|
|
||
| Should this conflict of interest arise in a manner that cannot be resolved by | ||
| these rules, a non-conflicted Election Officer or, in the event that a Steering | ||
| Committee election is not active, a non-conflicted Steering Committee member | ||
| will reach out to the candidate to discuss resolution. | ||
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.