-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 220
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
CNCF Code of Conduct migration plan #614
Comments
Kubeflow CoCKubeflow currently has it's own Code of Conduct, which seems to be a mixture of https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct/ and Google's Open Source Community Guidelines. Aside from the https://github.com/kubeflow/community/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md file, in the community repo, in the Kubeflow Org there are also
I'm mentioning the |
Other CNCF Projects (Argo)Argo has the following files:
IMHO just because Argo is doing this doesn't mean we have to blindly do the same. But it was helpful for me to get an understanding of how other communities approach this, and that's why I exposed the above |
Next steps for KubeflowThe first immediate change that we can do is to update the contributing guidelines in the website to point to CNCF's CoC, instead of Kubeflow's current one https://www.kubeflow.org/docs/about/contributing/#follow-the-code-of-conduct Then we'll need to make some decisions regarding the current CoC file we have in Kubeflow and the Regarding the current CoC file in Kubeflow:
Regarding the
|
Hope the above summary will help to ensure all of us are in the same page. If you think there are other steps I missed feel free to point them out so that we can have a definitive list of items we need to track. |
Hi Kimonas, I'm not sure if this wasn't mentioned elsewhere, but we should
not migrate to CNCF Code of Conduct ahead of acceptance to CNCF.
A significant portion of CNCF CoC includes escalation processes that are
specific to the foundation, and rely on resolution bodies under CNCF
governance. Prior to acceptance, we can't have CoC incidents go through the
CNCF resolution process.
I think it's fine to think about what we should *plan* to do
post-acceptance (and maybe add this item to a list of "post-acceptance"
TODOs for the eventual Steering Committee to approve).
…On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 7:39 AM Kimonas Sotirchos ***@***.***> wrote:
Hope the above summary will help to ensure all of us are in the same page.
If you think there are other steps I missed feel free to point them out so
that we can have a definitive list of items we need to track.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#614 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABREJVNDJE672JZJXEHBN3LW25JCJANCNFSM6AAAAAAVSTVW34>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
@theadactyl we understand that we can't adopt the CNCF COC yet; however, we need to decide on where we want to list the COC and come up with a standard on how/where we list the COC going forward. Thanks. This is also another point where going to Sandbox instead of straight to Incubation makes more sense, so we are part of the CNCF then we can make these changes sooner (but I digress and should probably open another issue on this point.) CC: @kimwnasptd |
@kimwnasptd thanks for putting this together. Per your questions, I like a single file that points to the CNCF CoC. IMO, we should get this ready to go (as part of our Due Diligence). I propose this could mean voting on the options that you laid out, and then creating/putting a PR /hold (so that it is pre-approved when the transition occurs). All - Please identify your position below (+1 might be easiest if you approve this option). Thanks. Regarding the current CoC file in Kubeflow: Regarding the CONTRIBUTING.md files: |
+1 to Option A. I don't see a clear need to have a copy of CNCF CoC, which we could do later if needs arise. |
Slight preference to following k8s example here by modifying our existing code of conduct file: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/code-of-conduct.md It is fairly standard to have a separate CoC file, and that way we wouldn't break any links. Also, contributors aren't the only folks bound to the Code of Conduct, so having it be more visible/discoverable as its a standalone pointer file in /community would be better IMO. |
+1 to @theadactyl's proposal above |
Hi all, a PR #658 is open to update Kubeflow's CoC to CNCF's CoC. Based on the comments above, I kept the Kubeflow CoC doc and modified the content to point to CNCF's CoC. As for CONTRIBUTING.md, this doc contains information about how one can get started in contributing to Kubeflow. It also contains a pointer to https://www.kubeflow.org/docs/about/contributing/ which has reference to CoC, but I don't think this doc should be deleted especially for MPI-operator and Pipelines WG who have added repo-specific setup into the doc. Instead, I think we should allow each repo to have it's own as long as it has a reference to https://www.kubeflow.org/docs/about/contributing. This means, only one CONTRIBUTING.md under Pipelines repo needs to be modified to include a pointer to https://www.kubeflow.org/docs/about/contributing/ similar to https://github.com/kubeflow/mpi-operator/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md cc pipelines WG @zijianjoy @chensun |
Hi everyone, was taking a look with @akgraner on the transition requirements and we took a more detailed look on the changes that we need to make regarding the Code of Conduct.
I'm going to expose my findings by explaining what is (to my best understanding) the current state of Kubeflow, what are other CNCF projects, like Argo, doing and lastly what are some potential next steps for Kubeflow.
@jbottum @theadactyl @james-jwu my goal is to expose in a single place this context to help us decide on next steps. Looking forward to your feedback!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: