As per the discussion in the TOC meeting of 2025-01-07
(https://youtu.be/dTzpAw6lUT0?t=1627), add a set of
questions to the adopter interview template that will allow us to get a
better picture of how adopters see and use these maturity levels.
Signed-off-by: Ricardo Rocha <rocha.porto@gmail.com>
Why:
* the TOC has fielded feedback from maintainers and TOC members, implemented changes to address issues, and needs to update our docs to reflect this.
This change address the need by:
* re-writing the triage to align with current process
* calling out the adopter form for adopter interview collection
* detail process for projects not yet ready to move
* linking the adopter interview form in the process/README
* updating process/README to inform on triaging and not-ready applications
Signed-off-by: Emily Fox <themoxiefoxatwork@gmail.com>
Why:
* it was requested the TOC describe used competencies for their work to better inform candidates
* it was requested the TOC explicitly state minimum throughput for Due Diligence
This change address the need by:
* Adding explicit throughput on line 39 for accountability
* Establish initial competencies at line 47
Signed-off-by: Emily Fox <themoxiefoxatwork@gmail.com>
Why:
* Several TOC members have expanded the question set from past DDs
This change address the need by:
* incorporating those additional questions
* restructure the ordering for better flow
Signed-off-by: Emily Fox <themoxiefoxatwork@gmail.com>
I've simplified the wording to make it clear that the TOC can't override and the projects are responsible for their own governance.
Signed-off-by: Bill Mulligan <billmulligan516@gmail.com>
Why:
* the existing COI section in the DD does not cover impartiality needs or bias checks
This change address the need by:
* adding an Impartiality and COI section in the TOC onboarding
* adding structures to reduce bias section in TOC onboarding
* linking back to the DD-guide COI section for completeness
Signed-off-by: Emily Fox <themoxiefoxatwork@gmail.com>
Why:
* TOC members, to increase velocity, are expected to do an initial review of the project to determine if it is ready enough to continue due-diligence or if there is more work to be done.
This change address the need by:
* modifying the initial evaluation content with the new column and expectations.
Signed-off-by: Emily Fox <themoxiefoxatwork@gmail.com>
Why:
* TOC members, to increase velocity, are expected to do an initial review of the project to determine if it is ready enough to continue due-diligence or if there is more work to be done.
This change address the need by:
* modifying the initial evaluation content with the new column and expectations.
Signed-off-by: Emily Fox <themoxiefoxatwork@gmail.com>
Why:
*
This change address the need by:
* correcting the interview template request with full URLs to make copy and pasting into email easier
* correcting broken links in the DD guide (with 1 spelling correction)
Signed-off-by: Emily Fox <themoxiefoxatwork@gmail.com>
suggestions are grammatical, layout, punctuation, or other minor changes that do not change the content.
Co-authored-by: Lin Sun <lin.sun@solo.io>
Co-authored-by: Kevin Wang <kevinwzf0126@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Emily Fox <33327273+TheFoxAtWork@users.noreply.github.com>
Why:
* Need to introduce recommendations from the Moving Levels Task Force (mltf)
* Need to incorporate TOC adjustments and new streamline process
* previous PR had significant unresolvable merge conflicts
This change address the need by:
* Introduces Issue templates for graduation and incubation applications
* provides the TOC with a streamlined guide for due diligence
* move election-schedule into operations folder
* introduce TOC templates for DD process for improved consistentcy
* update the project process to a README reflecting these new changes
* remove older files that are no longer relevant or obsolete becuase of these changes
Signed-off-by: Emily Fox <themoxiefoxatwork@gmail.com>
Why:
* the moving levels task force provided recommendations to the TOC on improving the criteria clarity and overall process. This PR implements those recommendations based on TOC discussion.
Signed-off-by: Emily Fox <themoxiefoxatwork@gmail.com>
Why:
* comments called out needed clarity
* project reviews are currently undocumented and needed added
This change address the need by:
* creating a project health issue form
* providing a project health review guide for TOC
* resolving comments
Signed-off-by: Emily Fox <themoxiefoxatwork@gmail.com>
Kevin Burns
Lin Sun
Ali Ok
Ricardo Rocha
Emily Fox
Karena Angell
Bill Mulligan
Amye Scavarda Perrin
Chris Aniszczyk
Emily Fox