Add Project Owner responsibilities #520

dfarrell07 · 2021-05-24T15:31:32Z

See commit messages for details.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Farrell dfarrell@redhat.com

submariner-bot · 2021-05-24T15:31:41Z

🤖 Created branch: z_pr520/dfarrell07/add_owners_jobs

dfarrell07 · 2021-05-24T23:36:59Z

I made non-trivial changes to also define how Committers and Members are removed, so re-requested review @nyechiel.

nyechiel

LGTM, but I'd like @mangelajo @Oats87 @tpantelis @skitt to review as well

mangelajo

Looks ok to me but please make sure that all code owners are ok with L188 before merging, even if we don't have intentions to do anything like that at this time, I guess it's something we need to define as part of the governance.

skitt

PO removal seems a bit iffy to me, but I’m not sure there’s much more we can do. We’d need an oversight committee of some sort (like the TSC in other groups of projects), or perhaps company participation rules (to guarantee for example that we don’t end up with a dominant company’s employees voting to throw out a PO from another company).

dfarrell07 · 2021-05-25T16:28:27Z

PO removal seems a bit iffy to me, but I’m not sure there’s much more we can do. We’d need an oversight committee of some sort (like the TSC in other groups of projects), or perhaps company participation rules (to guarantee for example that we don’t end up with a dominant company’s employees voting to throw out a PO from another company).

Right, and we've help build systems like that in the past for OpenDaylight and other Linux Foundation Networking projects. I agree we should continue improving, especially as we mature (ie go for CNCF Incubation). For now I was just trying to get us started with something simple.

dfarrell07 · 2021-05-25T18:58:39Z

Here's the system we helped build for OpenDaylight, for example: https://wiki.opendaylight.org/display/ODL/TSC+Election+Process

I think it's very robust and fair, but complex.

Oats87 · 2021-05-26T14:48:59Z

@dfarrell07 et all: The PO removal process seems too open to "hostile takeover" to me, especially after seeing what happened with Freenode recently, I am very wary of such a process being implemented that doesn't have more barriers to prevent POs from a majority company performing a hostile takeover.

I'd be more open to a system of votes where PO votes that come from a single company would only count as one vote, but this proves to be difficult as there are only two companies on the project at this point that have POs.

Oats87 · 2021-05-26T14:49:21Z

src/content/community/contributor-roles/_index.en.md

@@ -179,6 +185,8 @@ The following apply to people who would be an owner:
  * Identifying subtle or complex issues in designs and implementation PRs
 * Directly contributed to the project through implementation and / or review

+Project Owners can be removed by stepping down or by two thirds vote of Project Owners.


This seems a bit too open to hostile takeover possibilities to me.

@Oats87 With our current PO situation, I don't think there can be a system in which a PO can be removed and hostile takeovers are prevented. If it were "by vote of all POs other than the one being removed", it'd still be the same situation.

We'd need to do something more like a TSC I think, and have Represented Groups from stakeholders that aren't Red Hat/Rancher. Open to suggestions. I'll be thinking about it.

We could just say "POs can't be removed except for Code of Conduct violations" for now, and build a TSC when we go for CNCF Incubation.

ODL is currently using only a Committer at Large (CaL) Represented Group (RG) with a company cap of 49%. That is quite simple, good for smaller communities, but also provides protection from takeovers.

https://wiki.opendaylight.org/display/ODL/TSC+Election+Process#TSCElectionProcess-TSCSeatAllocationsByRepresentedGroupforthe2021elections

I know it's complex, but tl;dr that using that system, if people from 3 different companies ran, each company would be guaranteed at least one seat and we would be protected from takeovers.

what's a TSC? :)

Does a TSC make sense in a single-project context?

Maybe it's better just to scope/call it "electing/removing project owners".

Who would we expect to be in the TSC, and how would we ensure that it wasn’t just the project owners?

I imagined that by the time we go for Incubation, we would have a fairly substantial user community from which we could elect people. I'd hope that the current POs would run and be elected, in addition to new POs from other ~companies.

what's a TSC? :)

Technical Steering Committee, elected project leadership.

I think a current solution of freezing removals except for CoC violations makes sense, although I would say a TSC is going to require additional manpower to run; if you think that there is enough bandwidth in order to run such a committee then that would be OK, but otherwise, the ODL system with a CaL RG + 49% company cap is "simplest" past the CoC violation removal.

@Oats87 Cool, yes sounds like a good path to me. I saw this a bit late to make changes to the PR before the meeting in 4m, but I'll send an update with that wording after. 👍 🙏

Okay, I sent updated wording (split into second commit). Re-requesting review from everyone.

mangelajo

let's resolve @Oats87 concerns before merging.

netlify · 2021-06-01T18:02:30Z

✔️ Deploy Preview for elated-bell-2913d9 ready!

🔨 Explore the source changes: de49f25

🔍 Inspect the deploy log: https://app.netlify.com/sites/elated-bell-2913d9/deploys/60be462c7283dd0007ad8150

😎 Browse the preview: https://deploy-preview-520--elated-bell-2913d9.netlify.app

src/content/community/contributor-roles/_index.en.md

While working through the CNCF Sandbox on-boarding process, the Open Governance checklist from opengovernance.dev recommended by CNCF highlighted these as gaps in our current governance. This specifies that Project Owners have responsibility for security disclosures, Code of Conduct violations and funds. These responsibilities should be given to dedicated groups as the Submariner community grows. Signed-off-by: Daniel Farrell <dfarrell@redhat.com>

While working through the CNCF Sandbox on-boarding process, the Open Governance checklist from opengovernance.dev recommended by CNCF highlighted removing Owners/Committers/Members as gaps in our current governance. This establishes a basic process to cover extreme cases, while protecting the project from a malicious takeover and laying out a process for moving to elected governance as a replacement for perpetual Project Owners. Signed-off-by: Daniel Farrell <dfarrell@redhat.com>

nyechiel

LGTM, @Oats87 @mangelajo @tpantelis @skitt can you review as well, please?

dfarrell07 added documentation Improvements or additions to documentation cncf labels May 24, 2021

dfarrell07 self-assigned this May 24, 2021

dfarrell07 marked this pull request as ready for review May 24, 2021 15:35

dfarrell07 requested review from mangelajo, Oats87, skitt and tpantelis as code owners May 24, 2021 15:35

dfarrell07 requested a review from nyechiel May 24, 2021 15:36

dfarrell07 mentioned this pull request May 24, 2021

Add GOVERNANCE.md, answer open gov checklist submariner-io/submariner#1327

Merged

dfarrell07 added this to the 0.10-m1 milestone May 24, 2021

dfarrell07 mentioned this pull request May 24, 2021

CNCF Sandbox Onboarding submariner-io/submariner#1297

Closed

87 tasks

nyechiel approved these changes May 24, 2021

View reviewed changes

dfarrell07 force-pushed the add_owners_jobs branch from c000625 to 77fa088 Compare May 24, 2021 23:35

dfarrell07 requested a review from nyechiel May 24, 2021 23:36

nyechiel approved these changes May 25, 2021

View reviewed changes

submariner-bot added the ready-to-test label May 25, 2021

tpantelis approved these changes May 25, 2021

View reviewed changes

dfarrell07 modified the milestones: 0.10-m1, 0.10-m2 May 25, 2021

mangelajo approved these changes May 25, 2021

View reviewed changes

skitt approved these changes May 25, 2021

View reviewed changes

Oats87 requested changes May 26, 2021

View reviewed changes

mangelajo suggested changes May 27, 2021

View reviewed changes

dfarrell07 force-pushed the add_owners_jobs branch from 77fa088 to 99d6038 Compare June 1, 2021 18:02

dfarrell07 requested review from tpantelis, nyechiel, Oats87, skitt and mangelajo June 1, 2021 18:05

skitt requested changes Jun 2, 2021

View reviewed changes

src/content/community/contributor-roles/_index.en.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

mangelajo reviewed Jun 2, 2021

View reviewed changes

src/content/community/contributor-roles/_index.en.md Show resolved Hide resolved

dfarrell07 added 2 commits June 2, 2021 10:23

dfarrell07 force-pushed the add_owners_jobs branch from 99d6038 to 8117f64 Compare June 2, 2021 14:25

dfarrell07 requested review from mangelajo and skitt June 2, 2021 14:27

nyechiel reviewed Jun 3, 2021

View reviewed changes

skitt approved these changes Jun 3, 2021

View reviewed changes

mangelajo approved these changes Jun 3, 2021

View reviewed changes

Oats87 approved these changes Jun 7, 2021

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'devel' into add_owners_jobs

de49f25

tpantelis approved these changes Jun 7, 2021

View reviewed changes

tpantelis merged commit d67e68e into submariner-io:devel Jun 7, 2021

dfarrell07 mentioned this pull request Jun 8, 2021

[SANDBOX PROJECT ONBOARDING] Submariner cncf/sandbox#244

Closed

26 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add Project Owner responsibilities #520

Add Project Owner responsibilities #520

dfarrell07 commented May 24, 2021 •

edited

Loading

submariner-bot commented May 24, 2021

dfarrell07 commented May 24, 2021

nyechiel left a comment •

edited

Loading

mangelajo left a comment

skitt left a comment

dfarrell07 commented May 25, 2021

dfarrell07 commented May 25, 2021 •

edited

Loading

Oats87 commented May 26, 2021

Oats87 May 26, 2021

dfarrell07 May 26, 2021 •

edited

Loading

dfarrell07 May 26, 2021

dfarrell07 May 26, 2021

dfarrell07 May 26, 2021 •

edited

Loading

mangelajo May 31, 2021

dfarrell07 May 31, 2021

Oats87 Jun 1, 2021

dfarrell07 Jun 1, 2021

dfarrell07 Jun 1, 2021

mangelajo left a comment

netlify bot commented Jun 1, 2021 •

edited

Loading

nyechiel left a comment

Add Project Owner responsibilities #520

Add Project Owner responsibilities #520

Conversation

dfarrell07 commented May 24, 2021 • edited Loading

submariner-bot commented May 24, 2021

dfarrell07 commented May 24, 2021

nyechiel left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mangelajo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

skitt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dfarrell07 commented May 25, 2021

dfarrell07 commented May 25, 2021 • edited Loading

Oats87 commented May 26, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dfarrell07 May 26, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dfarrell07 May 26, 2021 • edited Loading

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

mangelajo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

netlify bot commented Jun 1, 2021 • edited Loading

nyechiel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dfarrell07 commented May 24, 2021 •

edited

Loading

nyechiel left a comment •

edited

Loading

dfarrell07 commented May 25, 2021 •

edited

Loading

dfarrell07 May 26, 2021 •

edited

Loading

dfarrell07 May 26, 2021 •

edited

Loading

netlify bot commented Jun 1, 2021 •

edited

Loading