## December 16, 2019 [Closed Meeting]

* Bosun:
* Artifacts:
    * Note Taker: Christoph
* Steering Committee Attendees:
    * Christoph
    * Tim
    * Nikhita
    * Aaron
* Topics
    * CNCF TOC Seat Discussion
        * Will discuss on private mailing list if we wish to nominate a candidate. Christoph to send e-mail.
    * Discussion on SIG Chair responsiveness
        * Nikhita will review thread and try to summarize a problem statement as we see it today

## December 2, 2019 [Public Meeting]

* Bosun: Christoph
* Artifacts:
    * Note Taker: Paris
    * Recording: [link](https://youtu.be/yLvQXNx1tJY)
* Steering Committee Attendees:
    * Christoph
    * Dims
    * Paris
    * Aaron
    * Tim
* Topics
    * [cantbewong] Process for User Group creation in context of [pending PR](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/4156) adding Charter for new VMware User Group. The [SIG/WG lifecycle doc](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/f7826ca2ddeefa4bef9b409bae2a44c5f89862cb/sig-wg-lifecycle.md) does not actually require UGs to have a charter, but perhaps it should. As prospective co-chair of the UG I would like to have a charter and I am choosing to follow the charter process for SIGs documented [here](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/f7826ca2ddeefa4bef9b409bae2a44c5f89862cb/committee-steering/governance#sig-charter-approval-process).
        * Tim sc - context: sigs want to have dev discussions but user groups will help with hearing and listening to user concerns
        * Dims and tsc - approve
        * Steve - will open up an issue documenting the process so we can do better here so we can make documentation better here
        * Christoph - if you are going to have a charter, steering should review it; but doesn’t look like its required in this case
        * Steve - approval of the PR still seems ambiguous; ownership of approval
        * Tim SC - documentation is missing some history - will take this as an action
        * Nishi original context on UG - [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c-kAYb-80eUV5aco-cw-AlGnlEn3T90_J2XNKBBCUuU/edit?usp=sharing](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c-kAYb-80eUV5aco-cw-AlGnlEn3T90_J2XNKBBCUuU/edit?usp=sharing)
    * Dims: any feedback from panel @ kubecon?
        * Christoph: asked for it; will share later
    * Dims: any feedback from GB meeting?
        * Paris: ask Michelle to attend the public meeting after GB meetings; taking as an action
    * Tim SC: talked to Dan K - create a policy around getting a keynote slot for folks doing maintenance and hard work
        * Looking for folks to help craft the policy
        * Christoph - likes the idea of rewarding not glamorous work
        * Aaron: sounds like a bug bounty

## November 4, 2019 [Closed Meeting]

* Bosun: tsc
* Artifacts:
    * Note Taker: paris / tsc
* Steering Committee Attendees:
    * Paris
    * Tsc
    * Nikhita
    * Christoph
    * Dims
* Topics:
    * Brad’s passing what is the appropriate thing todo? [last comm from steve about memorial](https://docs.google.com/document/u/2/d/1c0IYb5XqNooztQM_y4cq3u6SW8iRnsjAkuQzURfeHJM/edit?usp=sharing&urp=gmail_link)
        * Steve created a RH google doc with folks sentiments that interacted with Brad
            * Would be cool to have something like this from the Kubernetes community
            * Would like something to be done at kubecon as a memorial and give brads family
            * Family was proud of brads technical wizardry
        * words @ sig storage f2f and intro @ kubecon (saad is planning this unless there are other suggestions)
        * Already done: Saad: Mailing list for storage and kdev
    * family wants no flowers but contributions to st judes or humane society with notes.
        * Include in keynote with links
    * Timeline
    * Send out an email to collect video snippets [~30 seconds] and statements (google-docs).
        * Send to ChrisA collect by the 13th.
    * Mention details during Sunday evening
    * Mention details in the morning
    * Full memorial 4:30 - 4:45
        * Saad wanted to spend some time to highlighting his accomplishments and how he impacted the community.
        * Moment of silence
        * (AI) Who else?
        * (AI: Chris, Paris reach out to OSMI ) Offer counseling services.
            * (AI: Steering) Reach out to those who may be struggling
    * [chris a] tuesday night keynote [5 minutes] - has time slotted already
        * The program chairs will be presenting
        * Have a set of pictures that are close to him
        * (AI: Saad schedule a zoom call) We could federate this out earlier and we could record via zoom, and piece it together.
            * It would be nice if we could get his voice intro.
            * Where to upload the videos?
                * Instructions: Private youtube and share the link with ChrisA.
            * Try to get the recordings together by Wed 13th
    * (AI: PaulM ) Blog post on the kubernetes page post KubeCon.
        * Possibly around Thanksgiving / early dec. in preparation for the family
    * Memorial page possibly on contributor site
        * Start with github for folks to be able to PR async then eventually move to a micro-site.

## October 21, 2019 [Closed Meeting]

* Bosun: timothysc
* Artifacts:
    * Note Taker: cblecker
* Steering Committee Attendees:
    * timothysc
    * parispittman
    * cblecker
    * nikhita
    * derekwaynecarr
    * dims
* Topics:
    * Follow-up on CNCF liason from Steering [owner: Derek Carr]
        * Michelle and Brandon had acted in this capacity prior
        * Ask them to come to the next meeting.
    * Code of conduct backfill, and can PR herself in [Christoph]
    * GSuite Top Level Account Transfers Offboarding
        * [https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/blob/869b7d13852d514a293b10fa82ededc270c2f40f/README.md#top-level-accounts](https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/blob/869b7d13852d514a293b10fa82ededc270c2f40f/README.md#top-level-accounts)
    * Fix calendars and zoom
        * Give out zoom credentials to at least 3 others [Paris]
        * Get a moderator for public meetings [paris]
    * Kicking out folks who are no longer on steering (slack, gsuite) [Dims]
    * Establish a steering public channel and ask CNCF for a rep on our public meetings. [Nikhita]
        * CNCF should attend based on the agenda.
    * Should we have more visibility into the service desk requests to the CNCF?
        * Open an issue against k/steering to log our efforts to encourage transparency from the CNCF
    * How do we ask for help from companies?
        * [https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/issues/141](https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/issues/141)
    * Policies around Kubernetes twitter
        * Create a policy/procedure around the content that gets posted to the @kubernetesio twitter account
    * On-boarding/off-boarding new steering committee members [nikhita]
    * Issue templates for k/steering [timothysc, derekwaynecarr, Nikhita]

## October 2, 2019 [Open Meeting]

* Bosun: pwittrock
* Artifacts:
    * Note Taker: [who]
    * Video: [link](https://youtu.be/5ETMCc9WcVI)
    * Chat: [who] [link]
* Steering Committee Attendees:
    * Pwittrock
    * Dims
    * Bgrant
    * Tsc
    * Clayton
    * Derek
    * Jbeda
    * sarahnovotny
* Topics:
    * [Zach C] Third party content in K8s docs
        * For reference, see discussion at:
            * SIG Docs issue: [https://github.com/kubernetes/website/issues/15748](https://github.com/kubernetes/website/issues/15748)
                * Example issue (Falco): [https://github.com/kubernetes/website/pull/14332](https://github.com/kubernetes/website/pull/14332)
                * Response with guidance: [https://github.com/kubernetes/website/issues/15576](https://github.com/kubernetes/website/issues/15576)
                    * Hosting vs linking (the example of rkt): [https://github.com/kubernetes/website/issues/15576#issuecomment-519254174](https://github.com/kubernetes/website/issues/15576#issuecomment-519254174)
                * Vendor pitch content:
                    * [https://github.com/kubernetes/website/pull/15582](https://github.com/kubernetes/website/pull/15582)
                    * [https://github.com/kubernetes/website/pull/9387](https://github.com/kubernetes/website/pull/9387/)
            * Steering committee mailing list: [https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/forum/#!topic/steering/8v8_IkHFX8M](https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/forum/#!topic/steering/8v8_IkHFX8M)
    * [Paris] Come to the contributor summit
        * [https://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/kubernetes-contributor-summit-north-america-2019/](https://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/kubernetes-contributor-summit-north-america-2019/)
    * [Paris] Went live with outreachy -- contrib-exp, multi-tenancy, sig-api -- shout out to RedHat and CNCF
        * Label issues as help wanted -- going to have an uptick in people claiming issues in 2-3w
    * [Stephen] Diversity scholarships -- is there an update?
        * Diversity scholarships -- announced
        * Travel scholarships for folks -- if specific sig has a need for it, let “us” (Dims) know
    * [Chris Conway] -- says hi and open for coffee

## September 4, 2019 [Open Meeting]

* Bosun: pwittrock
* Artifacts:
    * Note Taker: [who]
    * Video: [link](https://youtu.be/8prfsvQuCkQ)
    * Chat: [who] [link]
* Steering Committee Attendees:
    * Derek Carr
    * Clayton Coleman
    * Tim St Clair
    * Joe Beda
    * Sarah Novotny
    * Phil Wittrock
    * Brandon Philips
    * Davanum Srinivas
    * Brian Grant
* Topics
    * FYI, CNCF GB meeting September 13th
        * [End of term for Brandon is 2019 and Michelle Dec. 2020](https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/issues/84)
    * Q&A for those thinking of running for steering [dims]
        * [jorge] discuss deadlines again
    * Contributor Survey is under development [paris]
        * Would you like to know something about the pulse of the contributor community?
        * [https://github.com/kubernetes/community/issues/3969](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/issues/3969)
    * Contributor Summit SC plans [paris]
        * Do you want a session? Your panel has been approved on the main track. We can still have a q&a at some point during the day or forward folks to the main track session.

## August 21, 2019 [Closed Meeting]

* Bosun: Phil
* Artifacts:
    * Note Taker: Joe
    * Video: [who] [link]
    * Chat: [who] [link]
* Steering Committee Attendees:
    * Aaron
    * Joe
    * Michelle
    * Dims
    * Phil
    * Sarah
    * Derek
    * Brandon
* Topics
    * Change bosun
    * [Michelle] CoCC - how to deal with conflicts of interest
        * Questions around COA around nominating people.
        * I.e. who can stand to be on the CoCC?
        * Questions? Employment -- building software to sell to LF around CoCC management software
        * What is the bar for recusal vs. bar for not being able to be on the committee?
        * What about “grounds for removal” applied for first election?
        * One possible hole: What if committee can’t come to recusal decision? What if the whole committee is compromised?
        * Steering handles nomination process so we can apply filter there. Perhaps put guidance in the nomination form
        * AI: Need to visit recusal process in CoCC charter [Aaron? Phil?]
            * Escape hatches for backfilling CoCC positions from SC members
    * [Michelle] CoCC election check in
        * Done
    * [Aaron] Steering election check in
        * Members of standing and exception process
        * We have opinions but we are looking to delegate this to contribx. With oversight by SC?
        * [Discussion on how to identify active members and reach out to them instead of having them reach to us]
        * Our criteria for members -- do we have a good way to measure if we are hitting the right bar?
            * Some metrics: number of exceptions requested. Turnout.  Analysis of voting blocks and bad faith actors.
            * Hard to do experiments. We just have to guess and go.
        * Roll call on who is looking to run -- lots of folks are not looking to re-run.  Didn’t get exhaustive list though.
        * Questions on encouraging others to run? What are the guidelines we are holding ourselves to?
            * Can’t publicly endorse.
            * Perhaps person to person privately encourage? Seems like everyone is ok with this
            *  Idea: create forums for potential candidates to learn about what it means to be on the SC
        * AI [Dims to start the ball rolling] : Communication: Bob and George out, Brian may be the best person to reach out to
    * Please do your [bias training](https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/issues/98)
        * Keep track of who has taken it -- self report
    * When is the last day? Do we want to try and get a picture at KubeCon San Diego
    * What are our agendas for our remaining meetings.  Last meeting is Wed Oct 2.

## August 7, 2019 [Open Meeting]

* Bosun: Michelle Noorali
* Artifacts:
    * Note Taker: Josh Berkus/ Jason DeTiberus
    * Video: [link](https://youtu.be/OTejGx_FHOk)
    * Chat: [who] [link]
* Steering Committee Attendees:
    * Aaron Crickenberger
    * Michelle Noorali
    * Clayton Coleman
    * Derek Carr
    * Davanum Srinivas
    * Brian Grant
    * Joe Beda
* Topics
    * Public meetings are first wed of each month, private meetings every 3rd wed.
    * Project Board Review: August Milestones
        * Documenting Bias Training requirement: moved to August
        * Ecosystem Project governance: Did Nikita take care of this?  SC needs to decide whether it's done.  Will vote to close on ML
        * Elections Meta-Issue: 2 things needed from SC, based on last election.  Some issues still need to be addressed before we can get started on the upcoming election.  There's also an operations issue in the community repo.  May still need to review the Members of Standing process, and need to guage how many voters there should be.  SC needs to appoint the election officers before we can go further.  Michelle will follow-up.  Nobody has yet done a review of the MoS information; Brian's concern is that we have more repositories and subprojects than we used to and maybe we need to check criteria. Aaron: using last year's criteria, we will have 800+ voters.  Last year was around 700, and about 300 voted.  Devstats doesn't cover some kinds of activity, so we may be undercounting some folks.  Paris: we had around 30 exceptions last time, 50/50 legit exceptions vs. randoms.  Aaron: we could consider increasing the threshold if we want to shrink the pool.
        *
        * Need a Reminder Calendar for SC Processes: Dims item, doesn't have any ideas or updates.  Moving to August
        * Process for Travel Support for Kubernetes Contributors: folks will fill out a form.  Need to decided on what group determines who gets funding. Dims: this is for multiple events, not just for Contributor Summit, but may not qualify for the existing CNCF program. Not clear whether we'll be able to do anything in time for San Diego.  Not really prepared for funding in time for 2019; this is more for 2020.  CNCF can help with travel letters etc. if not with funding.  Jorge: we want to at least select a group of people.  Paris: Contribex can own the selection process, SC can own the funding process.  Joe: can we collect data on who could use funding for the CS?
        * Code of Conduct Docs: The Charter for the CoC committee was approved.  But does not include how people are elected to the CoCC.  There is a PR with a proposal for elections.  Aaron: needs to have representation language, can't be mono-employer. Michelle: maybe same language as SC?  Aaron: teh CoCC should decide on those rules, there should just be something.  Further discussion will happen on PRs and issues.
        * Slack User Moderation Needs a New Home: SIG-contribex is dubious about owning Slack, simply because end-users on Slack outnumber contributors, so it's not really Contribex.  This applies to other user communities.  Looking for help from the CNCF.   We could request a person; need someone to own this and write a job description.
        * Next CoCC election: Micelle to send out messages to all parties, will set date to elect 2 new members by August 15th.
    * Aaron asked whether this format for the public meeting, which mostly does milestone issues, is useful.
    * Discussion on election procedures ensued.

## July 17, 2019 [Closed Meeting]

* Bosun: who
* Artifacts:
    * Note Taker: who
    * Video: [who] [link]
    * Chat: [who] [link]
* Steering Committee Attendees:
    * Attendees here
* Topics

## July 3, 2019 [Open Meeting]

* Bosun: ?
* Artifacts:
    * Note Taker: Thank you Paris
    * Video: [link](https://youtu.be/nD829DWngZo)
    * Chat: [who] [link]
* Steering Committee Attendees:
    * Clayton
    * Brian
    * Sarah
    * Tim SC
    * Bphilips
    * dims
    * bburns
* Topics
    * [Joe] API review process/scope. [community#3864](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/issues/3864) and [email thread](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/kubernetes-sig-architecture/FTDK-90gGRA/gHq9tH_BCwAJ).
        * [Brian]: This doesn’t seem like a Steering topic
        * [Clayton] agree, should go to sig-arch first
        * [Joe]: discussing sigs that reach across other sigs
        * [Brian]: maybe some affordance needed for certain things (gave prow as example)
        * [Joe]: are we weighing in on core data model or something else? seems/might be a bottleneck
        * [Jordan]: trying to spread out knowledge, some of the conventions you have to follow to use crds; have some tooling for built in types; get some of these tools in place so that we find problems and aren’t counting on human eyeballs to catch all of these issues. Until that, doesn’t seem like a great approach to say lets - not?
        * [Tim SC] Problem is governance and autonomy; we wanted k/k bar to be high but now that bar can be which is why we created the governance model of `core/sigs/associated`.
        * [Joe]: What’s in scope for an api review? We need to make it clear during a review its ok to say that you are not following the conventions, etc. What I don’t want to happen is - I don’t like the way you modeled the solution to this problem. What should be handled as part of a larger KEP process?
        * Clayton + brian - this convo needs to be in sig arch
        * [Joe]: the question is what do we mean by api reviews in the arch charter
        * [Clayton]: never defined the grey area between sigs + others; semantics part (do we have an effective process with resolving this consumers); talk about semantics of why in sig arch
        * [Joe]: api approver does not equal architectural master
        * [Jordan]: tech leads in sigs/sig reps handle that arch stuff; tim sc will follow up
    * [Tim] CIS Benchmarks and oversight
        * Who does that report into? What’s the SIG structure? [TIM SC]
        * SIG Auth [clayton]
        * Reports for deployment benchmarks are not great [TIM SC]
        * Put a blog post and say that we reject these standards? [bphilips]
        * [https://www.cisecurity.org/benchmark/kubernetes/](https://www.cisecurity.org/benchmark/kubernetes/)
        * Discuss with SIG Auth that we are seeing issues; if folks are having trouble with standards we can discuss [bp]
    * [Paris] Contributor Summit
        * There will be a proposal by July 15
        * [https://github.com/orgs/kubernetes/projects/21](https://github.com/orgs/kubernetes/projects/21)
        * [bit.ly/contrib-summit-notes](https://bit.ly/contrib-summit-notes)
        * [https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/events/events-team](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/events/events-team)
            * Amazing open source event documentation :D
    * [Brandon] First funding request!
        * [https://github.com/kubernetes/funding/issues/3](https://github.com/kubernetes/funding/issues/3)
        * Summary of discussion [https://github.com/kubernetes/funding/issues/3](https://github.com/kubernetes/funding/issues/3)

## June 19, 2019 [Closed Meeting]

* Bosun: Michelle
* Artifacts:
    * Note Taker:  Josh Berkus (on separate notepad)
    * Video: [who] [link]
    * Chat: [who] [link]
* Steering Committee Attendees:
    * Michelle Noorali
    * Derek Carr
    * Brian Grant
    * Phil Wittrock
    * Aaron Crickenberger
    * Brandon Philips
    * Dims
    * Joe Beda
    * Clayton Coleman
    * Tim St. Clair
* Topics
    * General reminder: Please take inclusive speaker training. [Issue #98](https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/issues/98)
    * Community Experience Manager proposal
        * **AI: Ask for role description on job board**
    * Contributor Summit - how to proceed
        * [Budget deck](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1HHsjzgiwbr08DLA0mCrEhNu5JKYUFBRSJ3_mk_R5Oi0/edit#slide=id.g5b12766f2f_0_10)
        * 400-600 attendees is estimated at $100k-$250k
            * We don’t understand why it costs so much -- a detailed breakdown would be useful
        * An issue is sponsorships or not
            * Aaron: prefer not
            * Joe: don’t want to favor specfic vendors
            * Brandon: where is the line? Logo on boards? Intro during event? Logos on tshirts? We need to make it clear.
            * Joe: All goes into a big pot. Not visibility regarding where the funds go.
            * Michelle: Paris made good points (in a doc) about why it should be covered by the conference sponsorships at large.
            * Clayton: Everything less than “talks are sponsored” is fine with me
            * Joe: Don’t want to monetize the contributors
            * Brandon: [Linux Plumbers](https://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/blog/2019/registration-is-open-for-the-2019-linux-plumbers-conference/) is sponsored
        * We should understand ROI -- do we have specific goals, and are we achieving them?
            * There are contributors from other projects that have shifted effort to Kubernetes as a result of onboarding at Kubecon EU contrib. Summit
            * **AI: ask planning committee for this plan of action**
        * **AI: ask planning committee for their view on what is sponsorship and what they would/would not like to see**
        * **AI: ask planning committee for requirements around event**
        * Joe: EU summit was around new members and new contributors. Is there where focus will continue?

## June 5, 2019 [Open Meeting]

* Bosun: Michelle
* Artifacts:
    * Note Taker:  Josh Berkus (on separate notepad)
    * Video: [who] [link]
    * Chat: [who] [link]
* Steering Committee Attendees:
    * Derek Carr
    * Dims
    * Joe Beda
    * Aaron Crickenberger (@spiffxp)
    * Brandon Philips
    * Brendon Burns
    * Clayton Coleman
    * Michelle Noorali
* Observers:
    * Mike Spreitzer - IBM
    * Paris, Google
    * Jorge Castro - VMware
    * Chris hoge
* Topics
    * Moving forward with budget request [https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/pull/106](https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/pull/106)
    * [https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/3663](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/3663)
    * CoCC nominations and appointments
        * Review process [https://github.com/kubernetes/community/issues/3353](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/issues/3353)
        * The bootstrapping doc that was used last time [https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/committee-code-of-conduct/bootstrapping-process.md](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/committee-code-of-conduct/bootstrapping-process.md)
        * Select Steering liaison to help carry out the process
    * What happens when there is only one active SIG chair? [https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/3714](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/3714)
    * Follow up on Inclusivity training for steering members. LF has an option we could us and seems like a reasonable start: [https://training.linuxfoundation.org/training/inclusive-speaker-orientation/](https://training.linuxfoundation.org/training/inclusive-speaker-orientation/)
        * Should we look to complete this by the next public Steering meeting? It’s a 2hr course.
        * Where would document that we’ve completed this training?
    * Kubernetes Blog Update - shoutout to Kaitlyn
        * [https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/sig-docs/blog-subproject](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/sig-docs/blog-subproject)
    * [Transparency around KubeCon Diversity Scholarships](https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/d/msg/steering/12g6Ra1fDEs/9v07uRVDBQAJ)

Meeting Notes:

* Let's start with milestoning, a quick glance to see what's still active for June

* Slack User Moderation proposal from Paris & Jorge.  The SC needs to review & approve it so that it can go to the governing board.

* Community Resource Management: document resources.  Not sure that this actually includes a comprehensive catalog (Aaron).  Like, we called out the blog, but there may be other stuff.

  *  The Blog now has a subproject (https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/sig-docs/blog-subproject), and have just released the guidelines around it.  Bob Killen, Paris, and Jorge are involved; roles are defined.  There will be a meeting later this month (Kaitlyn), if you care about the blog you should attend.

  * Are there other channels that belong to CNCF that the community should own?  Some things are fine with the CNCF like the twitter account.

  * (Joe Beda) there are resources owned by companies that aren't clear are not community resources like the podcast. We should review these.  (several people) This was discussed on the mailing list, nobody responded.  Argument about what happened during past discussions and what we should do in the future ensued.

* Document User Group formation process.  (Aaron) this is happening, I don't know if there's paperwork left to do but people are making user groups.

* Cloud Provider SIG/SIG deprecation: (Tim) it's in progress, they're working through it.  The SC doesn't need to do anything but wait. (Aaron) It might be good to set a deadline for this, maybe set a July milestone?

* Budget Request and Approval: (Bob) right now there's no official process to ask for funding or to have it approved.  People use CNCF servicedesk.  We're documenting this, and will have a funding repo for people to post requests and gather information about it.  (Mike S) I was expecting more of an annual budget planning thing.  (Michelle) Is this just for sub-$250 requests?  No, it's for all requests, the under-250 ones have lower requirements. What about requests for non-monetary resources like contractors?  Same thing.  (Paris) Contributor Summits should be on there, but we have no idea of budget for those.  CNCF will be sharing information. (Michelle) usually we request specific items and the CNCF comes back with a spec, dollars aren't discussed specifically.

  * Will put PR up on Steering for a formal vote.

* Code of Conduct Committee:

  * First task: create a charter for the committee.  There is a PR for it, needs review.  Some discussion of charter approval process ensued.

  * The COCC needs a selection process for new members, team will follow up with a draft document for that.

  * Michelle recounted the history of how the COCC was formed, and how the charter got bootstrapped.  Discussed process for nominations and selection of committee members, which is currently that the SC nominates and the SC selects.  Maybe we should have a public nomination process? (Josh) I'm concerned that this could be a pretext for a flamewar.  (Michelle) we can have a public call for nominations, but they will go to the SC in closed session.  We can put that call out now, and have a selection by the end of July.

* (Aaron) I'd like to revoke the SC's admin privileges from the K/K repo.  I think we can trust the github admins for this. Will follow up with lazy consensus on mailing list.

* (Michelle) Steering will be taking an inclusivity training to avoid unconsious bias, given by the LF.  Please comment on this issue with what you think about this, otherwise just take it and report that you have.

* SIG Service Catalog is down to one chair.  Do they need to find another chair?  Aaron would like them to, otherwise we need to figure out if this should be a subproject.  Will submit a PR for a new chair.

* (Paris) There's a discussion, process for selecting recipients of diversity scholarships is not very transparent.  Some folks were denied funding to Barcelona.  Maybe community should be able to select people by contributor status.  (Dims) as long as we don't have two queues, people should have one application. Appeal process with steering committee needs to be discoverable. (Dan) can we talk about this privately?  We can't share the applications in public.  Also, we maybe shouldn't be doing "contributor" scholarships under the diversity program.  Further discussion of diversity scholarships ensued.

## April 24, 2019

* Bosun: Tim St. Clair
* Artifacts:
    * Note Taker: [pwittrock]
    * Video: [who] [link]
    * Chat: [who] [link]
* Steering Committee Attendees:
    * Derek Carr (first 34m only)
    * Aaron Crickenberger
    * Brandon Philips
    * Dims
    * Sarah Novotny
* Observers:
    * Rodrigo Dias - IBM
* Topics
    * Topics?
        * [pwittrock] [User Group](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/3620)
            * Do UGs fall under a SIG or do they roll up directly under SIGs?
            * What would Big Data roll up into? Apps?
            * [Aaron] For working groups it was necessary to have stakeholder SIGs because they can’t own code
            * [Bob] Example: Combining SIG AWS into cloud provider SIG - has users show up - k8s on AWS UG makes sense to propose.
            * [Aaron] We need to make sure the project isn’t blessing things in the user groups.  In favor of cloud user groups.  Unclear why we need to tie the UG to the SIG formally.
            * (having trouble hearing Tim and Brendan due to connection issues)
            * [Joe] Meta data of having a SIG may be useful
            * [Tim] Main concern with rolling into steering is timely response - only point of contention.
            * [Brian] Made bar 1 or 2 SC members and make lazy consensus after that. - don’t need a high bar - just need a sanity check
            * [Dims] 2 sponsoring SC members.
            * [pwittrock] lazy consensus + 1-2 explicit ACKs?
            * [Tim] that sounds good
            * [Dims] Want to make sure topic can be discussed in multiple user groups - no a single owner
        * Q: who sponsors? Question if it is a SIG or steering committee? What level of support? Quorum or lazy consensus?
        *
    * [Dims] [Kube-batch -> volcano](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/kubernetes-sig-scheduling/z5EPwJJgJdg)
        * Traffic going on in SIG scheduling
        * SIG scheduling owns kubebatch
        * People working on kubebatch want to expand the scope of the project
        * [Quinton] did originate out of a broader problem - solve batch related things for Big Data
            * Kubebatch was actually Phase 1 of a broader set of problems on k8s
            * App management, lifecycle, accelerators, data flow optimizations, etc
            * When you run on k8s - run into problems - tensorflow, spark, etc
            * Broader scope effort is called volcano - broader scope effort spans SIGs
        * [Derek] - has some questions on things that aren’t clear in the description
            * &lt;missed it>...accelerators, alternative container runtimes like singularity were mentioned
        * [Quinton] some stuff overlaps with sig node
            * Could be incorporated into Kubernetes overtime - e.g. container runtimes
            * Under purview of specific SIGs
            * Do it incrementally and prove its value rather than all at once
        * [Derek]
            * How do we map it back to other projects as they come up (ie. virtual kubelet)
            * With the scope as big as implied, are there other CNCF projects that could be the home
        * [Quinton]
            * Used by upstream projects
            * Could certainly be kicked up to the CNCF and out of the Kubernetes context
            * Aimed at running jobs specifically at Kubernetes - do we still kick this sort of stuff up into CNCF
        * [Bobby] In past, asked if plan to donate to CNCF - answer was “no”
            * Sounds like what Quinton just aid, that it is possible will donate
        * [Quinton] not excluding that as an option
            * What do we do about a repo that straddles multiple SIGs
        * [Bobby] if spanning multiple sigs and is a larger project - may be a separate project
        * [Joe] Also could be a working group...
        * [Quinton] Prefer to have a semantic name
        * [Dims] What is the decision making process that we need to follow - main thing **putting a hold on is the rename of the repository**
        * [Brendan] We should hold the rename - should be either WG or UG
        * [Quinton] these don’t own code
        * [Aaron] WG should figure out which groups should own code
        * [Brandon] Why does it need to go in this repo if it is a scheduling component
        * [Tim] (has some background) - does make sense, but agree that it is so broad
        * [Brendan] Do you want to be a WG - Helm for instance out grew WG and became its own project
        * [Quinton] Additional code is being added that makes the repo name no longer suitable
            * Putting in CNCF seems like the next decision to make
            * CNCF seems reasonable - it is only k8s, does it makes sense to push up to the CNCF
        * [Brandon] ToC can make that decision
        * [Brendan] Helm was in the same boat - it is k8s only
        * (Helm asked to leave the project)
        * [Joe] Helm asked to leave because of some enforcement of consistency across project
        * [Brian] Being K8s specific is 100% *not* a blocker - there are other projects like Rook that are there
            * As k8s expands there will be more projects like this
        * [Brendan] SIGs own the code - SIG scheduling should make the decision
        * [Joe] If SC thinks outside scope - then SC decision
        * [Brendan] SIG scheduling should come to SC with that if they think it is outside the cope
    * Moving on...
    * [bgrant0607] Is the velocity report useful?: [https://app.trendkite.com/report?id=70270dee-d7e1-4b1d-8948-12feec612055](https://app.trendkite.com/report?id=70270dee-d7e1-4b1d-8948-12feec612055)
        * Mailed out to maintainers list (everyone on SC should be on this)
        * Take a look - if there are things we want that are not in it we should give that feedback
        * Should decide if it is useful
        * Can decide to share more broadly within the project - world readable link - not sure who else would care
        * Slide on use cases and concerns is interesting
        * Take a look and have follow up discussion on mailing list
    * [spiffxp] update on subproject owners
        * [https://github.com/kubernetes/community/issues/1673#issuecomment-484746226](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/issues/1673#issuecomment-484746226)
        * Follow up from last time
        * SIG cloud provider - want something common across projects, but want individual projects to have technical leaders.
        * Need tighter definition of sub project owners
        * Do we want to add a new field called owners to OWNERS files.
        * Should be decentralized or centralized source of truth
        * What if assume projects owners are approvers common across OWNERS files
        * Can keep going in this direction - or can define centrally
        * Straw poll to see if anyone cares....
        * [dims] go with what you have
        * [bgrant] sig apps going through this, and they need central location - they put it in the ALIASES - need a top level approver for making changes.  Sig apimachinery is canonical example.
        * [spiffxp] … want to live in a world where this lands in github teams that can be referenced.
            * Ultimately want k8s org to have files that update team - can use PR process
            * Sigs have final say of who lands in what teams - need automation to make it happen
        * [timstclair] Have had this need for a long time.  Think its a good idea
        * [spiffxp] on key advocate - *not* add another key to the owners files.  Live with approvers and reviewers.
        * [bgrant] does that mean also not have github team for owners?
        * [spiffxp] ...can user file hierarchy. ** Subproject owners must be in fields consumed by the machinery so that they are empowered.**
        * [timstclair] affects so many people, we should have a KEP to integrate multiple people processes systems.
            * AI: Aaron to work on a KEP
        * [spiffxp] will follow up
        * [Joe] names splattered everywhere is confusing - follow up later
    * [Moving on to backlog…
    * 3 new issues
        * Leadership trainings (tim pepper)
            * [timstclair] may belongs in contribx
            * [brandon] yes contribx, but need a way to get money - tied to funding issues
            * Closing....
        * Basic governance of subprojects
            * Questions that came up for Volcano
            * What rules apply to subprojects if core depends on them
            * Basic interface projects don’t have rules
            * What about addons - if they are done as CRDs - what space do they live in
            * [bgrant]
                * Talking about the design of the interfaces - or the plugins that implement them?
            * [timstclair]
                * As we have layers that core depends up - might want to have stratification
                * Basic questions of governance w.r.t. To voting - who decides when a subproject gets created
                * Need to refine it - should have a voting mechanism
            * [aaron]
                * Voting with lazy consensus is what you start with
                * In practice everyone just goes to chairs
                * Contribx does voting
            * [timstclair]
                * Sig cluster lifecycle also does voting
                * Someone open a PR for this
                * Just because has kubernetes in name - doesn’t mean it is part of kubernetes
            * [bobby]
                * Sometimes the fact that a project is sponsored by Kubernetes brings trust worthy-ness
                * No guarantees of quality on these subprojects
                * Leadership may change over time - what happens
            * [spiffxp]
                * SIG arch should make these decisions
            * [bgrant]
                * If part of Kubernetes release - increasingly high bar
                * If clarify standard bar for the release itself - then can work with sigs to see if their subprojects meet the bar
            * [spiffxp]
                * Who is in charge of what goes into the release
            * [timstclair]
                * Pieces of governance and pieces of sig arch
            * [spiffxp]
                * Voting piece falls to steering
            * [timstclair]
                * Language of guarantees should be SC
            * [bobby]
                * If have higher bar for core vs non-core then need to explicitly say what it is
            * [Joe]
                * As we break up k/k we need to define if it is part of the core
            * [spiffxp]
                * Worthwhile to say what sponsorship implies,
            * [timstclair]
                * We can assign people to create PRs w.r.t. these bullet points
            * [Dims]
                * We tried this both ways in openstack and it was a nightmare
            * Folks who want to be involved
                * Joe
                * Aaron
                * Derek
        * Quorum (spiffxp) - merged
        * Funding and budget
            * Brandon filed PR for this - needs review - 1.5 pages - not too long to review
        * Code of conduct documentation
            * [Paris] PR coming today or tomorrow for charter
        * Slack moderation
            * [Jorge] Meeting with Michelle to talk about in an hour
        * Find home
            * Talked about docs last time - have spreadsheet about other areas
            * [Paris] List of communication channels - yet to be PRed in
            * [Aaron] description is about code and github stuff - Paris talking about github channels
            * [timstclair] need concrete list of curated things
            * [Paris] I only have communication platforms
            * [Brian] Have things that have fallen through the cracks - e.g. build system came up this morning - the original intent of the issue.  Have other things we have taken on over time that have come up since issue was filed.
            * [Aaron] Don’t have a list.  Too much work to centrally go try to find things without owners.
            * Lets close the issue  - everything listed has been resolved - new things will get new issues.

## April 10, 2019

* Bosun: Tim St. Clair
* Artifacts:
    * Note Taker: []
    * Video: [who] [[link](https://youtu.be/X3ySJ09clgQ)]
    * Chat: [who] [link]
* Steering Committee Attendees:
    * Tim St. Clair
    * Derek Carr
    * Clayton Coleman
    * Phillip Wittrock
* Observers:
    * Your name here
    * Paris Pittman
    * Alex Handy
    * Nikhita Raghunath
    * Bob Killen
    * Rahulkrishnan R A
    * Josh Berkus
* Topics
    * (10) Follow up on AIs from last meeting:
        * [Paris + Brandon & Michelle] CNCF Ticket on GSuite
            * [https://github.com/kubernetes/community/issues/3541](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/issues/3541)
            * AI: Follow up again next time.
        * [Phil] Follow up on documentation on user group formation [https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/issues/92](https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/issues/92)
            * Response has been great and folks have a draft going.
            * About ½ dozen folks were also interested.
            * Looking at the contributor latter.
            * AI: Create a follow on item
    * (5) Can WG’s have other WG’s as stakeholders ([thread](https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/d/msg/steering/sDIgMImNpgY/iWSYvgE_BQAJ))
        * Leaning No.
    * (~20) [dnishi/andrewsykim] Transitioning cloud provider SIGs as subprojects ([https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/issues/65](https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/issues/65))
        * Proposal: [https://docs.google.com/document/d/16IAOspFVbGWd3RZg6h7uE3WXlRuvWDNnjBPxwITAda4/edit#](https://docs.google.com/document/d/16IAOspFVbGWd3RZg6h7uE3WXlRuvWDNnjBPxwITAda4/edit#)
        * AI(aaron): We could follow up with a proposed best-practices model
        * When can we expect the move out of k/k?
            * Ongoing, and all the other sigs are working and aware.
        * How can ensure better documentation in the future?
            * This is P0 for 1.15 cycle.
    * (Remainder) Walking [kubernetes/steering May milestone](https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/milestone/1)
        * [jorge] Slack moderation - [https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/issues/96](https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/issues/96)
    * [spiffxp] We lack a definition of quorum [https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/issues/97](https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/issues/97)
        * Should we take this to the mailing list?

## March 27, 2019

* Bosun: Tim St. Clair
* Artifacts:
    * Note Taker: Josh Berkus []
    * Video: [set-uploader] [[link](https://youtu.be/X3ySJ09clgQ)]
    * Chat: [set-uploader] [link]
* Steering Committee Attendees:
    * Derek Carr - Red Hat
    * Brandon Philips - Red Hat
    * Tim St. Clair, Joe Beda- VMware
    * Dims
    * Phillip Wittrock [@pwittrock] - Google
    * Aaron Crickenberger [@spiffxp] - Google
    * Michelle Noorali [@michelleN] - Microsoft
    * Sarah Novotny [@sarahnovotny] - Google
* Observers
    * Paris Pittman
    * Mike Crute - AWS
    * Jason DeTiberus
    * Alex Handy [@vonguard] - Red Hat
* Topics
    *
    * Gsuite, slack, etc -> managing proprietary community infra without access to the support folks
        * Just received a Gsuite, and google support folks could help a lot.
        * We don’t seem to have appropriate line of communications with those folks.
        * Google will only talk with primary points of contact.
        * Proposal - Have a dedicated accounts for the sig-leads.
        * [Brandon] He hasn’t seen any of the service desk tickets.
            * Paris is getting the ticket links out.
        * Who is the primary on the account?
            * A person on the CNCF
            * TODO: Sharing the service desk account with key K8s folks.
            * Aren’t the 3 steering committee members admins of the GSuite account? [https://github.com/kubernetes/steering#top-level-accounts](https://github.com/kubernetes/steering#top-level-accounts)
        * - Managing proprietary infra without access to support:
        *   - Paris: thinking of getting Gsuite account, because that will get us access to support for our use of Gsuite, instead of through CNCF.  Right now we can't get help because of the indirection via the CNCF. G support won't talk to anyone except account holders.
        *   - Proposal: have dedicated account for SIG-Leads
        *   - This also means that we could give folks email addresses, so that they're not using personal emails for administration tasks
        *   - Discussion ensued around goals.  A lot of the problems are around moderation.
        *   - Next steps is to get a list of problems, then to talk to the CNCF about resolving them.
        *   - Also, add everything to the servicedesk request queue for the CNCF.  We need to document if they are being responsive.
        *
    * Walking the latest milestone.
    * - Milestone review
    *   - The SC is now doing milestones, just to set deadlines for things.  All their queue has now been grouped into milestones.
    *   - Formalize sub-projects: Tim, Dims did PRs for this.  They think it's done, but want feedback before closing.  Several voted to close; there are improvements in the pipeline but they have their own issues.
    *   - Document User Group Formation: Assigned to Phil, he's not sure what he should be doing and wants feedback from contributor management.  Aaron says that we need a document that explains what a UG is and what resources they are entitled to, and how they are different from WGs.  Phil would like someone else to take the lead on this and help formalize it, but currently there aren't any volunteers.  He'll solicit community participation on mailing lists.
    *   - Nishi and Kim will give an update next SC meeting about *Cloud Provider SIG*.  All the CPs have agreed to merge under one SIG.  Ideally, this merge should happen before Barcelona but we'll see.
    *   - Community Resouce Management: Paris feels that this is complete.  But the blog, see below.
    *   - Aaron asked about the Owners for the blog; currently the only owners are Linux Foundation staff.  Is this a problem?  The Blog is an artifact, and it's not assigned to a SIG; SIG-Docs disclaims it. Does the SC want to claim ownership? Dan says that Zack and Kaitlyn own it because they have been doing it.  This helps ensure that the content is vendor-neutral. Folks are good with it becoming a sub-project of SIG-Docs. Josh pointed out that nobody from the community is offering to help with the blog.  Joe pointed out that, something has to be under a SIG or it belongs to the SC.
    *   - Word of the day: "SIGtatorship" (thanks, Tim!)
    * [https://kubernetes.io/docs/contribute/start/#write-a-blog-post](https://kubernetes.io/docs/contribute/start/#write-a-blog-post) -> blog post submission process

    Zoom Chat --
    From Jason DeTiberus to Everyone: (01:02 PM)
    So stoked that I'm not the only one with a Closet Office

    From jberkus to Everyone: (01:02 PM)
    as usual, I'm going to take notes on a notepad

    From Michelle Noorali to Everyone: (01:03 PM)
    Wow look at Phil’s cool shadeslove your shirt Aaron

    From [steering] Aaron of SIG Beard to Everyone: (01:05 PM)
    Tim: trying to follow along, what are re running off of, k/steering milestone or project board?

    From Phillip Wittrock to Everyone: (01:13 PM)
    I suspect it will be: https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22May+2019%22

    From jberkus to Everyone: (01:13 PM)
    it looks like someone else is on notes?if so, I'm happy not to take them

    From Tim St. Clair to Everyone: (01:13 PM)
    What phil said.@josh please help, I'm doing double duty.

    From jberkus to Everyone: (01:16 PM)
    ok. I'm taking notes on a notepadgodocs is too laggy for me

    From Joe Beda to Everyone: (01:17 PM)
    We don't pay for slack or github

    From jberkus to Everyone: (01:18 PM)
    true

    From vonguard to Everyone: (01:18 PM)
    it's about administration lines

    From [steering] Aaron of SIG Beard to Everyone: (01:18 PM)
    For context here’s the steering thread where Paris first started talking about using suite https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/d/msg/steering/my_roZIKuXo/I-pjrrvrDwAJ

    From vonguard to Everyone: (01:18 PM)
    not just the $

    From [steering] Aaron of SIG Beard to Everyone: (01:19 PM)
    including a proposal https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LO46EUDzEpfd-8XUGH8a9OdJiPkqFznnkWpqO056_YE/edithttps://github.com/kubernetes/community/issues/3362 would be the closest issue I can find that mentions gsuite now

    From Paris to Everyone: (01:20 PM)
    We also pay for zoomand administer that

    From Jason DeTiberus to Everyone: (01:22 PM)
    Aaron!!!

    From Tim Pepper to Everyone: (01:22 PM)
    lolz

    From Bob Killen to Everyone: (01:22 PM)
    lol

    From Paris to Everyone: (01:23 PM)
    This is why I want to talk to someone at google

    From briangrant to Everyone: (01:25 PM)
    If SIG Contributor Experience owns the issue, I think we should delegate the decision to them

    From Me to Everyone: (01:25 PM)
    +1

    From Me to Everyone: (01:25 PM)
    I think we’re here to support the request and escalation

    From Michelle Noorali to Everyone: (01:26 PM)
    Nice!Looks greathttps://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/3174/files

    From [steering] Aaron of SIG Beard to Everyone: (01:30 PM)
    Lol awesome michelle

    From Michelle Noorali to Everyone: (01:31 PM)
    I will help spread the word and your emails to the mailing list Phil

    From Paris to Everyone: (01:31 PM)
    Cherry mx keys?

    From Bob Killen to Everyone: (01:31 PM)
    cherry reds? :P

    From Paris to Everyone: (01:31 PM)
    LOL

    From Bob Killen to Everyone: (01:31 PM)
    lol

    From Michelle Noorali to Everyone: (01:31 PM)
    lol

    From Paris to Everyone: (01:34 PM)
    https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/communicationhttps://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pmlj5nN_QJ3rRlc-HKOLfRdYY5qCWPMjnNPAdZZ22tg/edit?usp=sharing^ owners of key stuff

    From Bob Killen to Everyone: (01:35 PM)
    Kaitlyn Barnard (LF) is the general approver, she does run posts etc by other members of the community (myself and jorge)

    From Brandon Philips to Everyone: (01:36 PM)
    https://github.com/kubernetes/website/blob/4a8f9e8fd5dcdad3a08d8c1c0e21d5262f62675e/content/en/blog/OWNERS

    From jberkus to Everyone: (01:36 PM)
    also, nobody from the community has volunteered to help with review

    From Paris to Everyone: (01:36 PM)
    And this isn’t in sig docs charter?

    From Paris to Everyone: (01:36 PM)
    i thought they own the content as wellAnd then own the owners files with those peopleThey also own the style and content guideso the community owns that and can make changes to that

    From Brandon Philips to Everyone: (01:37 PM)
    Zach https://github.com/zacharysarah

    From Bob Killen to Everyone: (01:38 PM)
    It is informal, but the content is run by community members.

    From Paris to Everyone: (01:38 PM)
    seems like sig docs should own the content imo since its run by community members and they uphold a style and content guide

    From Paris to Everyone: (01:39 PM)
    And then if we have problems with eh content and style guide we file an issue against that

    From Brandon Philips to Everyone: (01:40 PM)
    https://github.com/kubernetes/website/blob/master/content/en/blog/OWNERS note that the master branch has a reduced OWNERS than what I linked

    From Michelle Noorali to Everyone: (01:40 PM)
    Good discussion topic Aaron+!+1*

    From [steering] Aaron of SIG Beard to Everyone: (01:43 PM)
    I think all I’m proposing here is to make the blog a subproject, staffable by more than LF, and to have it owned by sig-docs

    From Michelle Noorali to Everyone: (01:43 PM)
    Favorite term of 2019: “SIGtatorship”

    From Me to Everyone: (01:43 PM)
    +100

    From Brandon Philips to Everyone: (01:43 PM)
    Aaron's got this lets move on

    From Michelle Noorali to Everyone: (01:44 PM)
    +1 SarahI can help set that up.

    From Me to Everyone: (01:44 PM)
    Thank you.

    From Joe Beda to Everyone: (01:45 PM)
    https://github.com/kubernetes/website/pull/12905

    From Paris to Everyone: (01:45 PM)
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uYM7lSNPpY5THAK8vx5RndCoYLQOrYgPtWlzrlvgirA/edit

    From Joe Beda to Everyone: (01:45 PM)
    Paris -- don't have permission

    From Brandon Philips to Everyone: (01:46 PM)
    we literally have no idea, let Aaron investigateplease stop speculating everyoneNEXT TOPICS

    From Paris to Everyone: (01:46 PM)
    https://kubernetes.io/docs/contribute/start/#write-a-blog-post^^ thats the process

    From Michelle Noorali to Everyone: (01:46 PM)
    It’s cool this is what we do

    From Joe Beda to Everyone: (01:47 PM)
    that process clearly wasn't followed for the PR that I pointed to.

    From [steering] Aaron of SIG Beard to Everyone: (01:47 PM)
    I’m not sure I’ve ever seen Brandon go all-caps lol

    From Michelle Noorali to Everyone: (01:47 PM)
    lol

    From Joe Beda to Everyone: (01:47 PM)
    or maybe it was sent to the form that isn't public from what I can see

    From jberkus to Everyone: (01:51 PM)
    gah, I have to dropany further notes are up to someone else

    From Me to Everyone: (01:53 PM)
    my apologies, I have to drop now too.

    From Michelle Noorali to Everyone: (01:53 PM)
    no worriesBye have a good day

    From Michelle Noorali to Everyone: (01:53 PM)
    i have an adjacent topic

## March 13, 2019

* Bosun: Tim St. Clair
* Artifacts:
    * Note Taker: [Jeffrey Sica]
    * Video: [[link](https://youtu.be/X3ySJ09clgQ)]
    * Chat: [set-uploader] [link]
* Steering Committee Attendees:
    * Phillip Wittrock, Brian Grant - Google
    * Dims - Huawei
    * Clayton Coleman, Derek Carr - Red Hat
* Observers
    * Craig Peters - Microsoft
    * Jeffrey Sica - University of Michigan
    * Nikhita Raghunath - Loodse
* Topics
    * Contributor summit review + feedback
        * [https://docs.google.com/document/d/17GFme584-XkkwYpqpzwg__LeCHBRXY-a9SZkr1wUJFc/edit#](https://docs.google.com/document/d/17GFme584-XkkwYpqpzwg__LeCHBRXY-a9SZkr1wUJFc/edit#)
        * Missing aspect with Contributor summit for senior / experienced contributors
        * Email sent to Steering re: Summit feedback, soliciting Steering Committee
        * Lots of subprojects, summit should be a bridge to other areas.
        * We already have f2f planned, maybe try to organize hallway-tracks more
        * How many contributors going to Barcelona? We need to ramp up additional contributors in EU
            * Last contrib summit in EU was mostly Americans.
            * Thought: Make EU Contrib summit for New Contributors to ramp up additional contributors and grow our base/diversity.
        * Current plan is to have several hour long hallway track -- Sigs should have an easy way to request/set up an F2F
        * What about deep dives?
            * Deep dives don’t foster conversations, they educate in-depth a specific discussion
            * They aren’t meant to foster development/work.
        * Unconference?
        * Socials are beneficial, letting people set the agenda organically. But, not an organized working space.
    * Project Blocking
        * Tim St. Clair pruned backlog, proposes new format/process re: Milestones.
        * Make a solid milestone for May 8th
        * Clean up / Audit of WGs
            * Original spreadsheet stalled, but PRs still submitted. Do any WGs need to be pruned or addressed?
                * Two passes have already been done
            * Jorge Castro has been going through and actively engaging/pruning WGs
                * wg-ML is left
            * What about Apply?
                * Apply has gone to alpha, still needs to go to beta/GA. It’s active and helpful. Once GA, the wg should be re-evaluated.
        * Charter Meta issue
            * Should this be kept open? Most charters have been merged at this point.
            * Maybe instead open new Issues for specific charters? Nods all around.
        * Steering committee charter
            * Needs several lgtms still, see checkboxes next to names :)
        * Document Working Groups
            * Contribex already has docs on how to form/disband sig-working groups.
            * Some updates need to be done to the doc, but the issue in Steering can be closed and the remaining things tracked in the community repo
        * Formalizing sub-projects within SIGs
            * Nikhita working on remains, several questions within issue
            * We’re trying to organize people into SIGs, and code into subprojects and OWNERS files. Subprojects try to link the two.
            * Should we change the terminology for subprojects and leads?
                * Tech Leads instead of Owners?
            * A lot of subprojects don’t have their own meetings, and are discussed in the SIG meeting.
            * Subprojects need a point of contact, and the current owners files are insufficient to point someone in the right direction.
                * Add more metadata about things like: mailing lists, slack channels, and meetings.
            * Should we reach out to SIGs for them to populate this as a requirement?
                * Maybe not at first, but we should support it within sigs.yaml
                * Maybe also add projects under the /area label in GH
        * Document Process for UG formation
            * Support has been added for sigs.yaml
            * PR open to add Big-Data to it
                * No governance doc though
            * Perhaps we also put geographic meetups under User groups as well? Governance efforts overlap.
            * Ping Ihor re: CNCF and meetups
        * Elections Meta-issue
            * Prioritized because A) WE talked about it, B) It’s stale or C) We waited too long
            * Let’s start now to address some of the concerns Contribex had in the 2018 election
            * (Or should we leave as help-wanted or leave to discuss next time)
            * Paris: Additional issue is updating and documenting good members of standing
        * Funding and Budgeting
            * Right now, CNCF Charter is kind of lacking in regards to other responsibilities across the projects.
            * Lots of docs in flight. But Fund-requesting and budget processes need to be formalized and documented.
                * Under a certain amount, file directly with service desk. Over, requires steering committee approval
            * Seems like a solved problem, just not documented.
            * What about funding things like automation and development (slack stuffs)
            * Envoy project gave a TOC talk about the needs of a project, mirrors a lot of the pain points we’ve gone through.
            * What material and support can the CNCF offer to support a project? We need to organize and lay out.
        * Community Resource Management
            * Having enough people in a content area that needs help
            * How do we funnel execution priority for the project?
                * We have a mechanism for this now, we just aren’t using it a lot yet: Role Boards
            * Contribex has done a lot of work in this regards over the last several months. A lot of the work can be reused.
        * Code of Conduct documentation
            * Any thoughts? Likely leave it open for this milestone and discuss during the next meeting.
            * Most of the onus on CoCC, documentation needs to be worked through. Charter first, docs next.
        * Staffing gaps and conflict resolution
            * The difference between people resources and tech resources
            * Any action items we could possibly take?
            * Evangelize best practices with regards to role definitions
            * Sig-Contribex and Networking have been doing lots of role-building. Good model.
            * Leaving open for now.
        * Find homes for unowned areas of the project
            * Does this need to be addressed in the near term? Or just find someone who can tackle.
            * Some of those in the issue are already owned, list might not be as bad.
            * Nearing critical mass, likely take off the milestone.
    * 9 issues for the current milestone (May)
        * [pwittrock] SC Charter Update
            * PR: [https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/pull/90](https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/pull/90)
            * Authored By:
                * Phillip Wittrock
            * Approved By:
                * (Pwittrock), Derekwaynecarr, Dims, Philips, Spiffxp, Timothysc
            * Blocked On:
                * 3 more approvals, or will hit lazy consensus next week
    * Project Backlog
        * [] [Document Working Groups](https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/issues/27)
            * Owner:
                * ?
            * [pwittrock] Is this solved by Rationalize Governance?
        * [] [SC Release Authority](https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/issues/86) - Done?
            * [pwittrock] Will be resolved by the SC Charter Update item (under blocking)
        * [] Review Code of Conduct
            * Owner
                * ?
            * Status
                *
        * [] [Rationalize Governance](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/issues/1997) - Done?
            * Authored By:
                * Paris Pittman
            * Reviewed By:
                * Phillip Wittrock
                * Brian Grant
                * Arnaud M.
                * Christoph Blecker
            * PR Merged
        * [] [Cleanup Audit of working Groups](https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/issues/83)
            *
        * [] [Charters Meta Issue](https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/issues/31)
        * Could the KSC please review [https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/75444](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/75444) either now or in a future meeting?

## Feb 27, 2019

* Bosun: Aaron Crickenberger
* Note Taker: Josh Berkus
* Video: [https://youtu.be/TcX0MlglfzI](https://youtu.be/TcX0MlglfzI)
* [Zoom chat log](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zq6dmzC9hzj7bs43i09LddOdsUvOiT6lWPtu7qIpRN8/edit?usp=sharing) (steering-private@ write access, kubernetes-dev@ comment access)
* Steering Committee Attendees:
    * Phillip Wittrock, Aaron Crickenberger, Brian Grant (Google)
    * Joe Beda, Tim St. Clair (VMware)
    * Brandon Philips, Derek Carr (Red Hat)
* Observers
    * Paris Pittman (Google)
    * Josh Berkus (Red Hat)
    * Jonathan Berkhahn (IBM)
    * Bob Killen (University of Michigan)
    * Jeffrey Sica (University of Michigan)
    * Matt Baldwin (NetApp)
    * Christoph Blecker
* Topics
    * Kubernetes Slack Moderation [Jaice & Noah]
        * Added more moderator guidelines and issue template. See all communication related docs [here](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/communication)
    * [https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/projects/1](https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/projects/1)
        * <span style="text-decoration:underline;">Nothing is blocked/waiting</span>
    * - Decision to go through the board, then [talk about slack moderation](#bookmark=id.w06dhnn32gab)
    * - Updating the Steering Committee charter:
    *   - there's a discussion issue
    *   - big question: can only the SC make requests of the CNCF, or can other people?  especially for requests that require funding?
    * 	- if there's a notification mechanism, we could authorize requests under a certain amount
    * 	- further discussion on the issue, will follow up on the issue with wording
    * 	- this does not need to be part of the SC charter
    *   - Rationalize Governance?
    * 	- Paris submitted a PR, revised by Phil.
    * 	- Are we making progress on rationalizing WGs?  Some WGs are inactive or aren't really WGs.
    *   	- Big data is the one in flight, being converted to a UG
    *   	- In process of shutting down AppDevWG
    *   	- Resource Mgmt WG is talking about shutting down and folding into SIG-Node
    *   - Charters meta-issue
    * 	- Not all SIG charters have been fully reviewed and approved
    *   	- SIG-Docs just closed
    *   	- Most of them are done, but some need followup
    *   	- Some need a 2nd charter due to changes
    *   	- Cloud providers need to merge into SIG-CloudProvider
    * 	- Updated SIGs diagram, showed examples and discussion
    *   - Slack Moderation
    * 	- Noah & Jaice met with the End User community to see what the possibilities were for Slack
    * 	- They don't feel that they can get enough new End User moderators to make enforcing CoC on Slack reasonable
    *   	- we have the current moderators, and we're likely to burn them out
    * 	- Recommendation: remove end users from the Slack, because we don't have another solution
    * 	- Automation comes up as the defacto answer here, but such automation is high-maintenance, and we don't know who is going to maintain it.  There's no current lead for this.
    * 	- What about CNCF?  CNCF does not offer moderation for their communities.  Talked about motivating end user companies, but there's no really convincing way to do this.
    * 	- What about pressuring Slack?  Slack doesn't care, we are not using it the way they want us to.
    * 	- Noah has looked into automation extensively, and doesn't think that he can make it CoC-compliant
    * 	- What's the plan to make sure that contributor members are vetted?  Noah suggested kicking everyone off and let people reregister based on the new inviter which uses github oauth, but Slack may not support this.  Making a new Slack would be highly disruptive.
    * 	- Jaice: human moderation doesn't scale well enough; even if we recruited 25 new moderators, that's 2000 members per moderator.  We can't do it.
    * 	- Joe suggested using the CNCF database to validate members.
    * 	- Aaron raised the problems of segregating the community into devs and users, and will hurt contributor recruitment. Feels like we haven't actually tried to recruit moderators yet.  And maybe safety isn't the only priority.
    * 	- Paris: recruiting moderators is hard, because moderators require a certain attitude as well as quite a bit of training. I want to keep slack, but we can't keep it how it's being managed now.  We have 9000 weekly active people, and 250 channels,
    * 	- Josh: explained how moderation works on Discourse
    * 	- Derek: nobody has to agree to the CoC to join slack has been pointed out, but bad actors don't care.  Slack has been key to the project and its culture.
    * 	- Brendan: let's separate the single incident from any systemic problems.  It would be great to have data about whether or not there is a general problem.  Slack will not help us, they don't care.  How often are we kicking people off?  A lot, but don't have numbers.
    * 	- Paris: even before the incident, we didn't have enough moderators, and were unable to recruit enough moderators. There is a staffing issue.
    * 	- Maybe we should have a KEP for "how do we reopen the doors".  The first thing we need is 10 moderators.
    * 	- Christoph: Contribex itself does not have the manpower for this.
    * 	- Steering Committee will continue discussing this.  They will create a group to work on this problem.

## Feb 13, 2019

* Bosun: Brian Grant
* Note Taker: Josh Berkus
* Video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtbXVuV-TC4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtbXVuV-TC4)
* Steering Committee Attendees:
    * Phil, Sarah, Brian (Google)
    * Brendan (Microsoft)
    * Dims (Huawei)
    * Joe, Tim (VMware)
    * Clayton (Red Hat)
* Observers:
    * Melvin Hillsman (Huawei)
    * Jonathan Berkhahn, Mike Spreitzer, Rodrigo Dias (IBM)
    * Josh Berkus, Sohan Kunkerkar (Red Hat)
    * Paris Pittman, Kelsey Hightower (Google)
    * Miquel Ortega (mashme.io)
    * Noah Abrahams (Infosiftr)
    * Tim Pepper, Stephen Augustus, Jorge Castro (VMware)
    * Sam Briesemeister (Mesosphere)
    * Elijah Oyekunle (Independent)
    * Konstantinos Tsakalozos (Canonical)
* Topics:
    * Check-in on GitHub project board - [https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/projects/1](https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/projects/1)
    * CNCF SIG(s) - how can we leverage them?
        * [https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/194](https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/194)
    * Community topics
        * &lt;add your topic/question here>
        * Slack update [paris]
    * [Joe] Regular review of CNCF funded efforts?
        * monthly/quarterly review of funding
        * github.com/cncf/servicedesk
        * Regular meetings with CNCF staff?  Perhaps schedule this as part of k8s steering public meeting?
        * $$ figures
* Notes
    * Brian suggests that the reason why they're opening the meeting was to get a wider number of contributors working on the issues directly in front of the steering committee.
    * They recently inaugurated the concept of User Groups, which is like working groups but without specific technical code goals.  Like the Big Data SIG might be converted to a User Group since they don't own code.
    * Most [SIGs have charters in](https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/issues/31), at least the first version.  SIG-Docs is still [working on theirs](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/3001).
    * Next: document what working groups are and how to form and disband.  This is mostly done.  Need to add a sig-wg relationship section to sigs.yaml.  There's a PR, but waiting on some SIGs.  The SIG chairs have been asked to supply this information.
        * https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/issues/27
    * Formalize Subprojects: subprojects are created. What still needs to be done is to clean up ownership files and automate them around the defined subprojects.
    * [Work on de-duping governance docs](https://docs.google.com/document/d/192ct2e2u_yjvhg_WD-96xBtmc-f8M_FMbt4OfA9vvN4/edit?usp=sharing) ->
        * https://github.com/kubernetes/community/issues/1997
    * There are a number of Working Groups that should be either disbanded because their work is done, or should be turned into subprojects.  For example, Resource Mgmt WG reports that they are done.
        * https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/issues/83
    * Dims reported on the Licensing subproject.  Looking for tools to help with license scanning.
    *  - (licensing) we need to make sure that all upstream licenses are on the whitelist, such as Apache2 and MIT.  CNCF has updated the license whitelist. We're currently using the FOSSA scanning tool, which has the ability to have configurable policies for licenses, so we can take care of this.  The SC tracking issue can be closed, ContribEx is taking care of it.  License scanning should also probably be part of the release cycle.
        * https://github.com/kubernetes/sig-release/issues/223
    *  - A Bug Bounty is still in the TODO list, finding bug bounty vendors to launch one.  Brian said that this is done.
    *  - Dims: The CNCF is creating SIGs.  How does this affect Kubernetes? The CNCF TOC's workload for project reviews etc. has been steadily growing.  They also created a landscape plan showing the gaps in the CN landscape, but that needs updating.  So they want SIGs loosely modeled on the Kubernetes SIGs so that they can cover more ground.  An initial set has been proposed. These SIGs are for areas that are out of scope for Kubernetes, like networking.  Now they're probably moving up the stack to application deployment etc.  Dims wants to know, which things are we obligated to attend?  Also, are there SIGs where we can ask for help?  The application-oriented SIG is probably the most obvious case; Matt Farina talked a bit about how Kubernetes SIG-Apps would relate to CNCF SIG-Apps.  Matt really wants to make sure that there's not duplication of effort between the two (overlapping) groups.  Additional discussion on cooperation ensued.
    * - Brian and others talked about how other projects work with the CNCF, which is different from how Kubernetes does.   Tim suggested that a public backlog tracking for the things we've asked for are happening, because right now we don't really know.  Paris suggested that some of us attend the governing board meeting. There's also a meeting where the CNCF wants to make sure that Kubernetes feels adequately represented.  Joe wants to make sure that spending priorities align with Kubernetes project priorities -- it will be easier to have public list without exact budget amounts.
    * [https://github.com/cncf/servicedesk](https://github.com/cncf/servicedesk)
    * Community / contrib-x update from Paris
        * CNCF not providing moderators for Slack
        * Slack doesn’t officially support open communities
        * Our inviter is down due to the porn spam attack
        * Some user support activity could be directed elsewhere, such as Discourse
        * We have 60k people in slack currently
    *  - Paris reviewed the Slack vandalism incident from last Sunday, and the current status of Slack administration, such as that invites are still locked. They plan on asking some end user groups inside Kubernetes to see if we can get a lot more volunteer moderators, and then proceed from there.  The CNCF will be offering some moderators for our mailing lists, but do not do Slack.  Discussion on options for Slack, vs. moving to Discuss, ensued.
    * Public SC meetings will be biweekly.  They will take agenda items from the public in the future.  SG-PM will help the SC trawl the backlog and that updates are prepared and the right external people are at the meeting.

## Jan 30, 2019

* Bosun: Phil
* Note Taker: Phil
* Video:
* Attendees:
    * Derek Carr, Clayton Coleman (Red Hat)
    * Michelle, Brendan (Microsoft)
    * Sarah Novotny, Brian Grant, Phil Wittrock (Google)
* Topics:
    * Public meeting - 2 weeks
        * Send an email to k-dev or some group to notify folks
        * Get folks to suggest agenda items, curate ahead of time
        * Defer decision on making regular public meetings until we have done a few
            * Can do every other meeting as public, do one-offs, etc
    * User Groups (Brendan)
    * Scope of Kubernetes
        * Brian developing [documentation](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JZ6WQhBOecKViW_Fa6JMxV6jppy4ZhsJ-ULBCgH43mQ/edit?ts=5c479ea4#) around this
        * Conversation of scope of the project goes in SIG ARCH
        * Scope of a SIG within the project should be determined by SC
        * Focus on creating balance within SC, not as much focus within SIGs
        * SIG ARCH is the escalation path for most of the technical decisions people will object to
        * TODO: Create a formalized escalation path
        * Philosophical boundaries of a SIG and what it should be doing
    * [Steering Charter](https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/pull/90/files)
    * Code of Conduct Committee Charter
    * LTS working group - lgtms required
        * Require LGTMs from all sigs listed
        * What is expectation of participation from sig if lgtm’ed - that ok with the discussion moving forward not that staffing or directly participating
        * Goal of working group is not to ordain LTS but to explore release improvements
        * Update working group governance to make clear the expectations of lgtm
    * Going overboard: [https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/projects/1](https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/projects/1)
    * Bug Bounty
        * Approve recommendation
    * Kubernetes License Scanning
        * Implications to the release
        * Don’t have automation to enforce this - requires manual humans to do something
        * File request on service desk to contract this being developed
        * Enabling FOSSA - dims
        * SIG release has subproject for this stuff now!
    * Leadership expectations of Chairs - [hacker news](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19030607)
        * Lets follow up on this
* AIs:
    * SIG ARCH
        * What is it
        * What is its scope
        * Reduce need for escalation and vigilance via documentation and education
    * Scaling the project
        * **_Need project management_**
        * KEPs will help, but not there
        * Can’t have folks just watching stuff flying through the releases
        * More people on the project with more business or professional objectives
        * How do we incentivize new companies onboarding to help carry the sustaining engineering of the project
        * Hard to reason about all the changes now

## Jan 16, 2019

* Bosun: Brian
* Note Taker: spiffxp / phillips
* Video: [https://youtu.be/KCtcAApnwCU](https://youtu.be/KCtcAApnwCU)
* Attendees:
    * Aaron Crickenberger, Brian Grant, Phil Wittrock (Google)
    * Derek Carr, Clayton Coleman, Brandon Philips (Red Hat)
    * Dims (Huawei)
    * Michelle, Brendan (Microsoft)
* Topics:
    * Going over board: [https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/projects/1](https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/projects/1)
    * SIG-BigData - Sig or working group or user group?
        * [https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/sig-big-data](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/sig-big-data)
        * Should it be under CNCF? They just need a place for discussion
        * Is it similar to the machine learning working group?
        * Bgrant: in favor of creating another type of group (e.g. BOF)
        * Spiffxp: other types of SIGs that might be BOF are the single cloud provider SIGs
        * Stclair: in cluster lifecycle the subprojects are able to get along just fine
* SIG Cloud
    * Some of the older SIGs are a little unsure of the consolidation
* Consensus on SIG Cloud and BigData path forward
    * Brendan AI: Create process for user groups or support groups
        * [Add to existing governance doc](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/governance.md)
    * Migrate BigData to the above group process
    * If all goes well migrate SIG Cloud
* **AI: All steering committee members to review CoC charter**
* AI: All steering committee members review [Security Committee](https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/issues/89)
* Opening the steering meeting to more contributors
    * AI: Brian will talk to Paris about moderating and get feedback about how to do it on the mailing list
        * Done
    * AI: ??? notify ??? list about the open steering committee meeting
    * Things I forgot to file as issues [spiffxp]
        * ~~Should WG approval be LGTMs or votes [https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/forum/#!topic/steering/FC7bblZLZ_I](https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/forum/#!topic/steering/FC7bblZLZ_I)~~
            * AI: all steering committee members to LGTM [the wg-k8s-infra charter](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/2830)
        * ~~Codifying stakeholder SIGs for WGs ([a guess](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/issues/2176#issuecomment-444623488) - turned into [a PR](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/3069))~~
        * I completely fell down on the job re: taking notes or summarizing followup / AIs from our private chat, Michelle has done some good work, maybe distill for next meeting?
        * Product Security Team governance … committee?
    * Security Audit - Please read the sanitized version of proposal
        * [https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/e23e90626db87ad9c2a85785d3e02fb67b5d4d64/wg-security-audit/Atredis%20and%20Trail%20of%20Bits%20Proposal.pdf](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/e23e90626db87ad9c2a85785d3e02fb67b5d4d64/wg-security-audit/Atredis%20and%20Trail%20of%20Bits%20Proposal.pdf)
    * Q4 2018 Kubernetes media and velocity report - [ http://app.trendkite.com/report?id=5c4cf1c3-64ca-473a-a66b-081cb2f4299e](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/e23e90626db87ad9c2a85785d3e02fb67b5d4d64/wg-security-audit/Atredis%20and%20Trail%20of%20Bits%20Proposal.pdf)
