Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Steering/CoCC Conflict Resolution #6243

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

tpepper
Copy link
Member

@tpepper tpepper commented Nov 20, 2021

We have a known conflict of interest potential across Steering and Code of Conduct Committee. This PR documents our current practice for resolving this and does a few other bits of cleanup on docs.

Fixes: kubernetes/steering#221

Tim Pepper added 3 commits November 19, 2021 16:56
For clarity, most of our docs refer to our project committee instances
as proper nouns.  The Kubernetes Steering Committee is the specific
instance of steering committee referenced in the Kubernetes Code of
Conduct Committee (CoCC) election document.

Signed-off-by: Tim Pepper <[email protected]>
We have a known instance of committee conflict of interest with Code of
Conduct Committee members being elected to the Steering Committee.
Based on these bodies charter, membership is mutually exclusive.  But
it has not been clearly documented that in such cases one must choose
vacate their membership in one body or the other, or how the vacancy
would be filled.

This clarifying text documents our established practice.

(Also present are couple other minor grammar clarifications)

Signed-off-by: Tim Pepper <[email protected]>
This document has useful historical context, but may cause reader
confusion relative to the enacted state of the CoCC now that we are well
past boostrapping that committee.  Most, if not all, of the information
in this document is reflected in other documents which are curated for
accuracy.  It will remain in the git history for posterity.

Signed-off-by: Tim Pepper <[email protected]>
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Nov 20, 2021
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: tpepper

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 /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Nov 20, 2021
@tpepper
Copy link
Member Author

tpepper commented Nov 20, 2021

/hold
/cc @kubernetes/steering-committee @kubernetes/code-of-conduct-committee

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Nov 20, 2021
@liggitt
Copy link
Member

liggitt commented Nov 21, 2021

/lgtm
leaving hold in place for other acks

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 21, 2021
@justaugustus
Copy link
Member

/lgtm
(remove hold once CoCC approves)

Copy link
Contributor

@celestehorgan celestehorgan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One comment!

Comment on lines +59 to +69
As project committees have unique charters, there is a possibility
for a conflict of interest to arise. While multiple scenarios may
be possible now or in the future, one known example of such conflict
of interest is where a member of the Code of Conduct Committee is
elected to the Steering Committee.

Such conflict will be resolved by the applicable election committee
reaching out to the newly-elected member and facilitating a decision
regarding on which committee the individual will continue. The
committee where that individual vacated their seat will fill that
vacancy as per existing election or committee vacancy rules.
Copy link
Contributor

@celestehorgan celestehorgan Nov 22, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
As project committees have unique charters, there is a possibility
for a conflict of interest to arise. While multiple scenarios may
be possible now or in the future, one known example of such conflict
of interest is where a member of the Code of Conduct Committee is
elected to the Steering Committee.
Such conflict will be resolved by the applicable election committee
reaching out to the newly-elected member and facilitating a decision
regarding on which committee the individual will continue. The
committee where that individual vacated their seat will fill that
vacancy as per existing election or committee vacancy rules.
At time of writing, the only known conflict of interest for Code of Conduct Committee
members and appointees is nomination to the Steering Committee.
Members should not serve on both committees simultaneously.
Upon nomination, the (Steering Committee) election committee will reach out to
the newly elected Steering Committee member and ask which committee they intend to continue with.
The committee where that individual vacated their seat will fill that
vacancy per existing election or committee vacancy rules.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"Upon nomination, the (Steering Committee) election committee will each out to"
assuming reach instead of each^^:;;

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes :D

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Members should not serve on both committees simultaneously reads too weak for me with "should".

@cblecker
Copy link
Member

/lgtm

Copy link
Member

@justaugustus justaugustus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

From https://kubernetes.slack.com/archives/CPNFRNLTS/p1636576814076600?thread_ts=1636482065.073000&cid=CPNFRNLTS:

Would be cool to be able to say, "This is how we handle elections for committees and here are some general rules that should be followed"

We now have two PRs (this one and kubernetes/steering#224) that have similar guidance, but different reviews. This is going to lead/is already leading to drift.

What about:

?

/hold

@tpepper
Copy link
Member Author

tpepper commented Nov 29, 2021

We now have two PRs (this one and kubernetes/steering#224) that have similar guidance, but different reviews. This is going to lead/is already leading to drift.

Agree. We'll need to do more though than distill conflict guidance into https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/events/elections as that document is currently focused on just Steering Committee elections, ie: "This document is a guide for Election Committee members conducting a Kubernetes Steering Committee Election."

@k8s-triage-robot
Copy link

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.

This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules:

  • After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
  • After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
  • After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the issue is closed

You can:

  • Mark this issue or PR as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
  • Mark this issue or PR as rotten with /lifecycle rotten
  • Close this issue or PR with /close
  • Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle stale

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Feb 27, 2022
@k8s-triage-robot
Copy link

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.

This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules:

  • After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
  • After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
  • After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the issue is closed

You can:

  • Mark this issue or PR as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten
  • Close this issue or PR with /close
  • Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle rotten

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added lifecycle/rotten Denotes an issue or PR that has aged beyond stale and will be auto-closed. and removed lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. labels Mar 29, 2022
@k8s-triage-robot
Copy link

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.

This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules:

  • After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
  • After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
  • After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the issue is closed

You can:

  • Reopen this issue or PR with /reopen
  • Mark this issue or PR as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten
  • Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/close

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@k8s-triage-robot: Closed this PR.

In response to this:

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.

This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules:

  • After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
  • After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
  • After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the issue is closed

You can:

  • Reopen this issue or PR with /reopen
  • Mark this issue or PR as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten
  • Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/close

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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. lifecycle/rotten Denotes an issue or PR that has aged beyond stale and will be auto-closed. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Resolving conflicts of interest with committee membership
8 participants