Update sigs.yaml with new sig-aws-leads

[d-nishi]

• Delete Bob Wise.
• Add Nishi Davidson.
• Update with make generate.

[cblecker]

/hold

Hi Nishi! Do you have a public record of how and where this decision was made? I skimmed through the sig-aws mailing list and the recent meeting minutes, and didn't see mention of this transition anywhere there. Thanks!

/cc @justinsb @kris-nova @countspongebob @kubernetes/steering-committee

[d-nishi]

@cblecker there was a voting done on SIG-AWS meeting on 8/10/2018 - The evidence is in the zoom recording for that meeting which I do not have access to. I was asked to raise this PR.
@kris-nova @countspongebob -- can you comment on ways in which this can be confirmed?

[countspongebob]

I nominated Nishi verbally and we had a vote conducted by Kris Nova. Kris had host/recording duties, I'll ask her to post it.

[krisnova]

Hey all - at the office today but yes we have a video, with some chat dialogue showing support from the rest of the sig. Also I chatted with @justinsb and he also thinks this is a great move for the sig.

As soon as I get back home to my linux desktop at the house I can grab the video and upload it.

[cblecker]

Thanks! Please post it when it's available.

While the governance and transition of leadership of a sig is up to the sig itself, I would encourage sig aws (as I would all sigs) to make major decisions in a transparent, and asynchronous way (typically mailing list, but github issues or otherwise are good to). This is important to keep in mind looking forward as the project is a global project, and we need to ensure we incorporate inputs from those who might not be able to make a specific meeting due to time zones.

So what I see as the path forward:

• The video of the meeting is posted (@kris-nova)
• The minutes of the meeting is updated to reflect that this happened in the meeting (someone from sig-aws)
• As sig-aws doesn't have an approved charter, I'm going to defer to steering for the final sign off that the process sig-aws followed is acceptable, or if they would like more done (like sending out notice to an e-mail list)

That work for everyone?

[countspongebob]

The purpose of the PR was to have a public record and generate comment. As it was my agenda item I updated the notes.

[cblecker]

@countspongebob Should we leave this PR open then for $time_frame in order to give sig-aws a chance to comment?

Also: I'd encourage @d-nishi to look at applying to become a member. It would make being a sig lead a lot easier :)

[calebamiles]

/ok-to-test

[krisnova]

Just wondering what we are gaining as a community by pushing back on this? Seems like overwhelming support from the sig.

Recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTxaMXlZoHg&feature=youtu.be
Chat dialogue with +1's from the sig:

09:21:43  From Kraig Amador : +1
09:21:44  From Seth Pollack : +1
09:21:48  From PeterR : +1
09:21:50  From Micah Hausler (AWS) : +1
09:21:51  From Spike Curtis : +1
09:21:52  From Ilya Dmitrichenko : +1
09:21:52  From Nick Turner (EKS) : +1
09:21:57  From Bryce Carman (Amazon EKS) : +1
09:23:06  From Kendall Miller : We enjoy your keyboard
09:23:12  From Kendall Miller : I don’t care what anyone says.

Also I kicked off an email to the sig here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/kubernetes-sig-aws/ZanncL7_h6E

As a side note, I am going to be spending time over the coming months helping get the sig up to speed with the direction that kubernetes governance is expecting. This is a good first step in that direction. So any help here would be appreciated.

[krisnova]

/approve

[cblecker]

@kris-nova To be explicitly clear, I am not pushing back on the actual change itself.

The health of the community relies heavily on having fair, open, and transparent governance.. in particular surrounding leadership. That's why there is a strong push for sig charters and the like -- that way procedures and policies around how the project is run are clear.

As sig-aws currently doesn't have a ratified charter that explicitly lays out what the process for selecting a new chair would be, I want to err on the side of being as transparent and explicit as possible.

For example, listening to the recording where this is discussed [16m10s] it's noted clearly that @justinsb isn't in attendance. It's been noted here he's in support, but if there was objections, he wouldn't have the opportunity to raise them if the only discussion is whoever happened to be in attendance for the meeting. This also doesn't appear to have been on the agenda in advance of the meeting, so nobody would have known that it was up for discussion.

So again, thank you for uploading and providing that recording. At this point, I will step back and defer to the steering committee to review this and provide guidance.

cc: @kubernetes/steering-committee

[jbeda]

Giving this a LGTM and approve from a form point of view. I'll let @cblecker remove his hold as appropriate.

/lgtm
/approve

[ghost]

LGTM. Thanks for helping to make this process transparent @cblecker, @kris-nova , @countspongebob , @d-nishi and others.

[spiffxp]

I really appreciate @cblecker's input here. I say this as someone who talked face-to-face for weeks about a SIG Testing Lead addition, but didn't have a written vote, and didn't have any mailing list traffic about it.

I skimmed through the sig-aws mailing list and the recent meeting minutes, and didn't see mention of this transition anywhere there

This also doesn't appear to have been on the agenda in advance of the meeting, so nobody would have known that it was up for discussion.

These are bad habits that can look an awful lot like back-channeling even if the best of intentions are behind them. Let's ensure our charters hold us to a higher standard and avoid legitimizing this behavior.

[countspongebob]

The SIG decided to use the PR as the public method for getting feedback, which it clearly accomplished. What back-channeling concern do you have here?

[derekwaynecarr]

LGTM

[justinsb]

Thanks for calling attention to it @cblecker. I think we do have community consensus and I'm personally in favor. As you say we have some stuff to do in the sig (e.g. the charter) and nishi has proved very capable at that sort of thing. But it's right to give everyone time to chime in.

I'm in favor of leaving this open for as long as people feel is necessary to give everyone plenty of time to comment.

[ghost]

+1 @justinsb . Any objections to leaving this open until a week has passed since first submission to allow adequate time for people to see it and comment if they want to?

[countspongebob]

As I'm having to step back one of the obligations I have as a SIG lead is to nominate a replacement to ensure project continuity. Trying to take my project obligations seriously here. If the steering committee wants to provide guidance for a time box on PRs for this kind of change that would be welcome, but in defense of our transparency here: Major project changes of all kinds are based on reviewing PRs, with no obligation that I'm aware of to ensure that those PRs are listed in advance in meeting notes.

[countspongebob]

@quinton-hoole I'm totally support of leaving this open for a week or even until the next SIG AWS meeting.

[timothysc]

/lgtm

[cblecker]

/lgtm
/approve

Thanks everyone! All my concerns here are completely addressed. Appreciate the timely review from steering.

@kris-nova @justinsb @countspongebob: Please feel free to /hold cancel this when the week comment period is up 👍

@d-nishi: I mentioned this earlier, but I'd also look into applying to become a member. This will give you the ability to be assigned things (which is important for a sig chair).

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: cblecker, jbeda, kris-nova

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [cblecker,jbeda]

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

[d-nishi]

@cblecker -- will follow up this week and close.

[justinsb]

We re-ratified this in sig-aws as well on Friday, just to ensure everyone had time to contemplate. A big outpouring of +1s again.

We've also had a week I reckon, so...

/hold cancel

Welcome @d-nishi 🎉

[d-nishi]

Thanks @justinsb @kris-nova @countspongebob and everyone else who helped this through!