Move to community membership model closer to kubernetes one #15593

serathius · 2023-03-30T16:42:49Z

Based on https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/community-membership.md

Changes:

Extracted contributor membership to separate file
Provide more detailed requirements for each role. Base maintainers on kubernetes subproject owners.
Introduction of member role

GOVERNANCE.md

jmhbnz · 2023-03-30T17:54:27Z

Documentation/contributor-guide/contributor-membership.md

+
+### Requirements
+
+- Have made multiple contributions to the project or community.  Contribution may include, but is not limited to:


Kubernetes org puts a time box requirement on their definition of active member:

Inactive members are defined as members of one of the Kubernetes Organizations with no contributions across any organization within 18 months. This is measured by the CNCF DevStats project.

There is a whole section about it in their document but I am wondering if to keep things simple we could just say the time period as part of our requirements.

Suggested change

- Have made multiple contributions to the project or community. Contribution may include, but is not limited to:

- Have made multiple contributions to the project or community in the last 18 months. Contribution may include, but is not limited to:

Didn't want to touch removing members at this time. For maintainers we already have a process described below with 12 months deadline. For now we want to onboard new members, let's tackle removal as a follow up.

I have also this thought. "Triage" permissions is a nothing that put's organisation on risk.
If we had auto-test running -> it's something that could be used for abuse... but I wouldn't solve not existing yet problem.

jmhbnz · 2023-03-30T17:58:17Z

Documentation/contributor-guide/contributor-membership.md

+
+Contributor roles and responsibilities were written based on [Kubernetes community membership]
+
+[MAINTAINERS]: /MAINTAINERS


I wonder if at some point in the future we also want to adopt the OWNERS file approach that Kubernetes uses, and then use this to drive some more automation for Etcd. I think that should be done as a separate issue later on but curious what others think about going in this direction.

No strong opinion on this, but be good to discuss it separately.

I think that would be overkill for the project. The current structure seems good enough, but yes agree that it can be discussed separately in the future.

In my opinion using OWNERS are great for a big project to scale reviews, however I don't think etcd project will or should grow further. We are also already splitting the codebase into separate repos which allows us to avoid per directory owners.

I think that adding OWNERS is not aligned with project direction which is to simplify and reduce size of codebase.

I'm seeing OWNERS as a way to give 'approvers' privileges to less sensitive parts of the code-base like tests, tools or docs that might be an additional engagement tool.
I agree with direction to limit scope of the code-base, but even if we cut 'proxy' out of etcd-io/etcd repo and put it as etcd-io/etcd-proxy, than it might make sense (if anyone is willing to) to have separate approvers/writers for this repo (this means we would have sub-project OWNERS, but not implemented using the OWNERs file yet).

Documentation/contributor-guide/contributor-membership.md

chaochn47 · 2023-03-30T18:29:36Z

Documentation/contributor-guide/contributor-membership.md

+- Assigned test bugs related to area of expertise
+- Granted "triage access" to etcd project
+
+## Maintainers


Just curious, how does this governance rules apply to etcd-io/bbolt?

As the maintainers discussed, we will add separate Maintainer file in bbolt, probably in raft as well. cc @tbg

I think the roles enumerated in this doc should be applied to all projects under etcd-io, at least including bbolt and raft. WDYT? @hexfusion @mitake @ptabor @serathius @spzala @tbg

Documentation/contributor-guide/contributor-membership.md

ahrtr · 2023-03-31T02:51:59Z

Documentation/contributor-guide/contributor-membership.md

+- Assigned test bugs related to area of expertise
+- Granted "triage access" to etcd project
+
+## Maintainers


As the maintainers discussed, we will add separate Maintainer file in bbolt, probably in raft as well. cc @tbg

I think the roles enumerated in this doc should be applied to all projects under etcd-io, at least including bbolt and raft. WDYT? @hexfusion @mitake @ptabor @serathius @spzala @tbg

ahrtr · 2023-03-31T02:53:00Z

Documentation/contributor-guide/contributor-membership.md

+- Ensure a healthy process for discussion and decision making is in place.
+- Work with other maintainers to maintain the project's overall health and success holistically
+
+### Retiring


I think the retiring process should be applied to all roles, not just Maintainers.

We may also want to clearly request all roles (Members, Reviewers and Maintainers) to notify the community when they are going to be inactive for more than 1 week, e.g. on vacation without computer.

I wouldn't require this from Members definitely. I'm not sure about reviewers but probably not.
That make sense for maintainers, as it's likely blocking for others.

Agree with @ptabor, I'm also not super pressed to clarify process of removing members/reviewers, as we first need to nominate them :P. Let's do it in followup.

ahrtr · 2023-03-31T02:53:46Z

Documentation/contributor-guide/contributor-membership.md

+
+Contributor roles and responsibilities were written based on [Kubernetes community membership]
+
+[MAINTAINERS]: /MAINTAINERS


No strong opinion on this, but be good to discuss it separately.

Documentation/contributor-guide/contributor-membership.md

ptabor

Thank you for working on this.
Few details, but overall LGTM.

Documentation/contributor-guide/contributor-membership.md

fuweid · 2023-03-31T07:48:01Z

Documentation/contributor-guide/contributor-membership.md

+- Sponsored by two active maintainer.
+    - Sponsors must be from multiple member companies to demonstrate integration across community.
+    - With no objections from other maintainers
+- Reviewers can be removed by a supermajority of the maintainers or can resign by notifying


Do we consider to force member to enable 2FA?
I remember that the kubernetes requires this one for security reason.

And BTW github will force user to enable 2FA end of this year. https://docs.github.com/en/authentication/securing-your-account-with-two-factor-authentication-2fa

This is a great followup. I would not want to enforce this without previous discussion and preparation. Don't want to cut access to people without proper notification. There are also etcd org members for other subprojects that would be affected.

spzala

Thanks @serathius
LGTM with couple of small points:

address @ptabor comment on clarifying Member requirements mismatch "2 reviewers in the table vs one maintainer in the details"
we should provide a link to this doc in the CONTRIBUTING.doc to encourage new contributors to check membership ladder

spzala · 2023-04-02T16:39:56Z

Documentation/contributor-guide/contributor-membership.md

+
+Contributor roles and responsibilities were written based on [Kubernetes community membership]
+
+[MAINTAINERS]: /MAINTAINERS


I think that would be overkill for the project. The current structure seems good enough, but yes agree that it can be discussed separately in the future.

Documentation/contributor-guide/contributor-membership.md

ahrtr

LGTM with minor comments as summarized by @spzala + a couple of typos

Based on https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/community-membership.md Changes: * Extracted contributor membership to separate file * Provide more detailed requirements for each role. Base maintainers on kubernetes subproject owners. * Introduction of member role Signed-off-by: Marek Siarkowicz <siarkowicz@google.com>

serathius · 2023-04-03T14:45:54Z

Addressed all comments. With supermajority of maintainers (4/6) approving the PR we are ready to merge, still I will leave the PR open for couple of days to ensure everyone has time to read it again. Please take a look and feel free to file issues with follow up ideas.

ptabor

LGTM.

I hate to say that, but the only concern I have is that with the requirement of 2 active maintainers, we might risk getting 'deadlock' at some moment that might require
"breaking" the governance rules in such situation.

We might:

postpone solving the problem when it (hopefully not) happens...
declare lazy consensus, i.e. lack of disagreement of any maintainer for 2 weeks is like an agreement.
delegate solving deadlocks to e.g. k8s-leads (if they happen).

serathius · 2023-04-04T08:53:05Z

I think we should follow https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md#conflict-resolution in any case of deadlock including community membership.

serathius · 2023-04-05T10:11:27Z

Everyone involved left a thumbs up on #15593 (comment) so I assume they have familiarize with the latest version. Merging.

jmhbnz reviewed Mar 30, 2023

View reviewed changes

chaochn47 reviewed Mar 30, 2023

View reviewed changes

Documentation/contributor-guide/contributor-membership.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

ahrtr reviewed Mar 31, 2023

View reviewed changes

ptabor reviewed Mar 31, 2023

View reviewed changes

Documentation/contributor-guide/contributor-membership.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

ptabor reviewed Mar 31, 2023

View reviewed changes

Documentation/contributor-guide/contributor-membership.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

ptabor approved these changes Mar 31, 2023

View reviewed changes

fuweid reviewed Mar 31, 2023

View reviewed changes

spzala approved these changes Apr 2, 2023

View reviewed changes

ahrtr approved these changes Apr 2, 2023

View reviewed changes

serathius force-pushed the community-membership branch from adec4aa to 908c441 Compare April 3, 2023 14:39

serathius force-pushed the community-membership branch from 908c441 to b4c1fb1 Compare April 3, 2023 14:42

ptabor approved these changes Apr 3, 2023

View reviewed changes

serathius merged commit b504ac1 into etcd-io:main Apr 5, 2023

This was referenced Apr 6, 2023

Require all etcd org members to have Github 2FA enabled #15658

Closed

Grant kick off / restart github actions workflow permissions to members #15659

Closed

jmhbnz mentioned this pull request Apr 8, 2023

Fix link for maintainers role and responsibilities in readme #15671

Closed

jmhbnz mentioned this pull request May 2, 2023

Health of etcd project cncf/toc#898

Closed

fuweid mentioned this pull request May 13, 2023

ETCD as a kubernetes SIG #15875

Closed

serathius deleted the community-membership branch June 15, 2023 20:41

jmhbnz mentioned this pull request Sep 29, 2023

Improve process of reporting and resolving Github issues #13611

Closed

wenjiaswe mentioned this pull request Apr 26, 2024

Complete sig-etcd annual report for 2023 kubernetes/community#7811

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Move to community membership model closer to kubernetes one #15593

Move to community membership model closer to kubernetes one #15593

serathius commented Mar 30, 2023

jmhbnz Mar 30, 2023

serathius Apr 3, 2023

ptabor Apr 4, 2023

jmhbnz Mar 30, 2023

ahrtr Mar 31, 2023

spzala Apr 2, 2023

serathius Apr 3, 2023

ptabor Apr 4, 2023

chaochn47 Mar 30, 2023

ahrtr Mar 31, 2023

ahrtr Mar 31, 2023

ahrtr Mar 31, 2023

ahrtr Mar 31, 2023

ptabor Mar 31, 2023

serathius Apr 3, 2023

ahrtr Mar 31, 2023

ptabor left a comment

fuweid Mar 31, 2023

serathius Apr 3, 2023

spzala left a comment

spzala Apr 2, 2023

ahrtr left a comment

serathius commented Apr 3, 2023

ptabor left a comment

serathius commented Apr 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading

serathius commented Apr 5, 2023


		### Requirements

		- Have made multiple contributions to the project or community. Contribution may include, but is not limited to:


		Contributor roles and responsibilities were written based on [Kubernetes community membership]

		[MAINTAINERS]: /MAINTAINERS

Move to community membership model closer to kubernetes one #15593

Move to community membership model closer to kubernetes one #15593

Conversation

serathius commented Mar 30, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ptabor left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

spzala left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ahrtr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

serathius commented Apr 3, 2023

ptabor left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

serathius commented Apr 4, 2023 • edited Loading

serathius commented Apr 5, 2023

serathius commented Apr 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading