should TechLeads be mandatory (vs not combo with Chair)

[parispittman]

Broken down from issue #5855

Current state/knowns:

• 1 Chair is required for a SIG per sig-governance.md
• only two roles that are identified in sig-governance.md is TL and Chair
• 11 SIGs have explicit entries for TLs in sigs.yaml (combo=chair and TL):
  • Scale
  • Storage
  • Windows
  • Cluster life
  • ContribEx
  • Docs
  • Instrumentation
  • Release
  • ApiM - 1 chair, 1 TL, 1 combo
  • Auth - 2 chairs, 2 TLs, 1 combo
  • Cli - 2 chairs, 1 TL, 1 combo

Why:

• There is a lot of work just for a chair to do "Chairship is not about being an expert on the technical details. It's about organizing the SIG." (current chair)
• operational and community work gets neglected (example: Responsiveness of SIG Chairs needs improvement #4289) which helps build sustainabilty and meet governance
• Helps separate technical decisions from running a meeting (moderation vs ownership/technical decision maker)
• helps with contributor ladder
• people conflate chair and tech lead
• [will add more]

Notes

• will collect feedback and discussion here

[mrbobbytables]

/assign

[lavalamp]

Problems I have heard -> my recommended solution

• Lack of documentation -> document better / in better places
• Lack of succession planning -> have deputy chairs / TLs / subproject owners
• Lack of recognition for accomplishments -> OWNERs files, subproject owners, deputy roles
• Lack of formal roles within a SIG to reward/encourage contributors -> OWNERs files, subproject owners, deputy roles

I have not heard of any problem for which "require every SIG to have TLs" sounds like it could be a solution.

[k8s-triage-robot]

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

[mrbobbytables]

/lifecycle frozen

[mrbobbytables]

TLs were split in this PR: #7160

Going to go ahead and close :)

/close

[k8s-ci-robot]

@mrbobbytables: Closing this issue.

In response to this:

TLs were split in this PR: #7160

Going to go ahead and close :)

/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.