TheFoxAtWork
commented
2 months ago @jberkus @CathPag @geekygirldawn I'd like to understand if you all have any questions regarding this ask.
CC @dzolotusky @dims
Open TheFoxAtWork opened 2 months ago
TheFoxAtWork
commented
2 months ago @jberkus @CathPag @geekygirldawn I'd like to understand if you all have any questions regarding this ask.
CC @dzolotusky @dims
CathPag
commented
2 months ago Makes sense to me. I'l start a doc so we can start working on this. Thank you!
CathPag
commented
3 weeks ago Are there particular challenges in the TAG’s area, both current and foreseen for the upcoming years?
Our biggest challenges have to do with staffing, both of the projects themselves and of the TAG.
Over the last two years, a majority of technology companies have reduced staffing of many functions, including community management and project management. Most CNCF projects are now operating with fewer maintainers and less supporting contributors than they had three years ago. This means that project functions that fall into our domain, such as contributor recruitment, evolving and operating governance, and improvement of project processes, are suffering and even at risk in many projects. This is troubling for the long-term health of the overall ecosystem.
This is equally reflected in the staffing of our own TAG. We draw from the community management of CNCF projects for our contributors and have had to operate with far fewer regular participants than we had a few years ago. As you will see from the Working Group reports, we've had to discontinue some important areas of project assistance until we can staff them again.
We are tackling our own contributor issue by initiating new activities in areas where more contributors are available, such as multiple inclusiveness initiatives. This is a long-term strategy as many of these new contributors are new to the CNCF and open source as a whole and will not be ready to lead other initiatives and working groups for months or years.
TAG-CS works closely with TAG-Security and the TOC around project maturation. We also work closely with many of the CNCF staff, as the TAG's project support functions overlap with theirs.
How do you see the overall trend of innovation and new capabilities in your domain?
Hopeful. Together with the CNCF staff, we have been working on making more project management support either automated or self-service. Between CLOtributor and related applications, the development of LFX Insights v2, and our own efforts to templatize and document project knowledge, we hope to be able to provide a much more comprehensive resource center that even time-strapped maintainers can use.
Has their initial purpose been completed?
The Mentoring WG’s purpose is ongoing: encouraging cloud native adoption by growing contributors through mentorship; promoting growth and sustainability of projects; and supporting and advising CNCF projects on how best to participate in mentorship programs.
Are the WG’s artifacts and deliverables a service provided to projects or the TOC? I.e. security reviews, governance reviews, etc.
The CNCF Mentoring Stats Overview sheet is updated regularly, and information about the mentoring programs supported is provided regularly to the TOC.
Has the WG reassessed its progress towards its initial goals?
No, the goals have not been updated since the WG was started.
Is there an updated timeline for the WG to accomplish its goals?
No, as an ongoing concern, there aren’t timelines set beyond the dates set around specific programs that the CNCF is participating in (LFX, GSoC, etc.)
Does the WG feel additional effort and focus needs to be conducted to close gaps of their sub-domain within the ecosystem?
N/A
Has their initial purpose been completed?
No. CG-WG completed around half of the original documentation targets and most of the templates but then largely halted work after Carolyn's passing. At this time, the working group is suspended until new leadership wants to take it on.
Are the WG’s artifacts and deliverables a service provided to projects or the TOC? I.e. security reviews, governance reviews, etc.
Yes, originally mostly in the form of documentation and interactive advice.
Has the WG reassessed its progress towards its initial goals?
Yes, but only in the form of suspending the WG.
Is there an updated timeline for the WG to accomplish its goals?
No.
Has their initial purpose been completed?
80%. Most of the original set of documentation and templates were completed. After that, some of the goals changed.
Are the WG’s artifacts and deliverables a service provided to projects or the TOC? I.e. security reviews, governance reviews, etc.
Yes, this WG supplies governance reviews of projects.
Has the WG reassessed its progress towards its initial goals?
The WG has expanded its goals into the development of a framework to enable the TOC and projects to assess governance completeness, health, and consistency with CNCF goals. While the WG will never actually shut down – since governance reviews still need to happen – the goal is to greatly decrease the amount of contributor effort required through building more self-service offerings.
Is there an updated timeline for the WG to accomplish its goals?
No, and that's something we should really discuss.
No.
Are the WG’s artifacts and deliverables a service provided to projects or the TOC? I.e. security reviews, governance reviews, etc.
Yes, the WG's primary purpose is to schedule regular maintainer peer events.
Has the WG reassessed its progress towards its initial goals?
The WG was suspended for staffing reasons before developing a regular cadence for MC meetings. It is awaiting new contributors to resume work.
No.
Included under ABIDE (placeholder name) are:
Has their initial purpose been completed?
No, this initiative is still very much in formation.
Are the WG’s artifacts and deliverables a service provided to projects or the TOC? I.e., security reviews, governance reviews, etc.
Not directly, but the goal is to create accessibility (and possibly inclusion) best practices that also apply to projects (e.g., inclusive caption-based meetings). These will hopefully help projects become more welcoming to underrepresented groups. However, ABIDE artifacts are targeted to other audiences within the community as well, including the LF events team, employers, and community members.
Has the WG reassessed its progress toward its initial goals?
The only WG that has existed long enough to have shown progress is the DHHWG, and it has made a lot of progress:
Is there an updated timeline for the WG to accomplish its goals?
Unfortunately, it is not, but it is something we should consider. We have seen dhh attendance and presentations increase.
Does the WG feel additional effort and focus needs to be conducted to close gaps of their sub-domain within the ecosystem?
Yes, we still need to work on many more best practices docs.
Intent
The intent of this assessment is to ascertain where the ecosystem is nearing comprehensiveness, where there are opportunities of innovation, and to redirect focus of community members to active areas of interest and need by projects and adopters.
Our Request
We ask each TAG:
The TOC will review these reports prior to KubeCon North America and develop a plan of action for public review before the end of the calendar year.
Why?
The resulting State of the ecosystem will become a public report to the community and will serve to guide the TOC in restructuring our advisory groups and their working groups to address the problems of today and tomorrow against the realities of current contributions and participation in our groups and projects.
Prompt Questions
For each WG in your TAG,