Add Code of Conduct Committee Charter #3663

carolynvs · 2019-05-01T21:34:38Z

This is a proposed charter for the Code of Conduct Committee for review by the Steering Committee.

carolynvs · 2019-05-01T21:36:59Z

/hold
/sig steering

carolynvs · 2019-05-01T21:39:45Z

Oops, I am awful at assigning things to teams/sigs, never get that the first time. 😊

@michelleN Can you let the @kubernetes/steering-committee know that this is ready to review again?

nikhita · 2019-05-02T04:29:59Z

committee-code-of-conduct/charter.md

+
+Steering committee members may also act in limited cases to enforce the code of
+conduct. Examples of this may be the deletion of GitHub comments, offensive
+Slack messages, or the eviction of bad actors from public meetings. These


One small point here - the steering committee might not have powers to delete GitHub comments in some repos (github admin team can do that) or delete slack messages (slack admin team can do that).

Most do, but we should double check that it exists across all k8s-orgs. You may want to file an issue https://github.com/kubernetes/org

I do not agree that steering committee members should implicitly have Owner or even Admin rights across all of our orgs and all of our repos. Should steering have the ability to ask the appropriate teams to take action? Sure. But at least for all k8s orgs, we delegated the responsibilities to the GitHub Admin team, we should not subvert that. We addressed this in kubernetes/org#637

timothysc

Only a minor nit, this looks good.

/lgtm
/approve
/hold

committee-code-of-conduct/charter.md

spiffxp

Some nits

spiffxp · 2019-05-03T21:48:25Z

committee-code-of-conduct/charter.md

+members](https://git.k8s.io/community/committee-code-of-conduct) elected by the
+Steering Committee based on private nomination. During an election, the two
+candidates that received the most committee votes are granted 2 year terms, with
+the remaining person given a one year term. 


I'm confused by this. I read this as:

year 1: A,B,C,D,E

year 2: A,B,C,D,F

year 3: G,H,I,J,K

year 4: G,H,I,J,L

I was expecting something more like 2-seat/3-seat elections, similar to steering's 3-seat/4-seat elections:

year 1: A,B,C,D,E

year 2: A,B,C,F,G

year 3: H,I,J,F,G

year 5: H,I,J,K,L

I don't believe that what you listed at the top is correct. Here's how I understand our term rotations and elections, you can see it already spelled out in our readme based on our own term limits: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/committee-code-of-conduct#terms. Jaice and Paris both have 2 year terms, and myself, Jennifer and Eric have 1 year terms that end this summer.

The top two winners of the election get 2 year terms, the remaining people get 1 year terms. I believe that works out to this?

year 1: A,B,C,D,E (A,B are 2 year terms)

year 2: A,B,F,G,H (F,G are 2 year terms)

year 3: F,G,I,J,K (I,J are 2 year terms)

year 4: I,J,L,M,N (L,M are 2 year terms)

The first year of the committee is the exception where multiple people received a 1 year term, but going forward, we always elect enough people to replace the departing people, so it's 3 people elected, two of them getting 2year terms, and one getting a 1year term. Giving us overlap between old and new members to preserve knowledge and continuity.

Does that help?

Yes, your summary paragraph at the end is a clearer description of the intended process than what's written in the charter.

I've updated the charter to attempt to clarify this with some of my wording above.

spiffxp · 2019-05-03T21:51:58Z

committee-code-of-conduct/charter.md

+Meetings are considered at quorum when a simple majority of the members are
+present. Where there are 4 or fewer members available due vacant seats or
+recusal, quorum is 2. Note that many decisions are not able to be implemented in
+situations where only 2 members are present.


Which decisions require >2 members?

@eparis I think that sentence used to make sense in an older draft. But after we trimmed down parts of the document, it isn't necessary anymore. Do you agree?

I've removed the old wording since it's not needed anymore.

spiffxp · 2019-05-03T21:53:08Z

committee-code-of-conduct/charter.md

+situations where only 2 members are present.
+
+### Policy change ratification
+Any changes to the charter require explicit LGTM or Approve from all active


what does "active" mean here?

In my opinion, we don't need that word there. I believe it's a leftover from an older draft.

I've removed the word active.

committee-code-of-conduct/charter.md

spiffxp · 2019-05-03T21:59:11Z

committee-code-of-conduct/charter.md

+If committee members believe that the committee is no longer able to act in
+accordance with the above Mission/Purpose the committee may vote to dissolve.
+The committee should specify a date of dissolution. Dissolution requires an
+affirmative vote of more than 75% of committee members. If the committee is


More than 75% means it must be unanimous if the committee drops below five members. Is that intentional? Or are you trying to say dissolution is possible with 1 dissenting vote, but not more?

Unanimous was my intention if there were only 4 members.

Is this resolved or does the charter need the wording clarified?

Personally I would be explicit that it requires unanimity if the committee drops below 5 members

I've added wording to cover the case for < 5 members.

nikhita · 2019-05-17T07:37:53Z

This needs another rebase :(

Co-Authored-By: carolynvs <carolyn.vanslyck@microsoft.com>

These were present in older drafts that had additional clarifications about active members, etc that aren't in the current document.

carolynvs · 2019-05-22T20:35:58Z

Thanks for the nudge @nikhita! I've rebased and addressed all the feedback that I could.

philips · 2019-05-23T23:24:35Z

This LGTM. Although I haven't been following along as closely as @spiffxp

spiffxp · 2019-05-30T23:47:12Z

/lgtm

philips · 2019-05-31T19:41:20Z

I am going to unhold this after the Wednesday steering committee if no one has any other comments.

dims · 2019-05-31T19:55:38Z

Sounds good @philips !

spiffxp · 2019-06-04T16:56:50Z

#3353 is about spelling out an appointment/election process. This charter spells out terms, but very little details of an actual election process, such as:

when are candidates chosen?
how are candidates chosen?
when does voting occur?
how does voting occur? (I believe we used CIVS last time)

The linked issue mentions the idea of nominating candidates this month (June), a vote on candidates before the end of July, and a transition by August 7th. If you're comfortable with process described there, can we flesh out the charter to include these details? @carolynvs @jdumars

timothysc · 2019-06-04T18:42:41Z

This charter spells out terms, but very little details of an actual election process, such as:

IMO, follow on with a separate issue+doc.
Elections should typically not be part of the charter and are subject to change.

carolynvs · 2019-07-03T18:16:24Z

I have updated the charter to remove the election process and moved it into a separate document (which will be filled in later, hopefully very soon!)

timothysc

/lgtm

I'd aim for lazy consensus for 1-week merge time.

k8s-ci-robot · 2019-07-08T15:04:51Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: carolynvs, timothysc

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~~ [timothysc]

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

spiffxp · 2019-07-10T17:48:14Z

/lgtm
August 7th is less than a month away, I question whether we're going to make that deadline.

deads2k · 2019-07-11T19:01:35Z

committee-code-of-conduct/charter.md

+policy document and is supported with additional references and tools as needed.
+Since maintaining a safe environment is a very large part of what the committee
+does, we must carefully balance transparency of process with preserving the
+privacy of those who come to the committee or other community leaders with an


I think the code of conduct committee should also consider the privacy of those accused of causing the incident.

We've discussed and agree this language should be more broad. We do say, further down, that we intended the privacy to be for everyone, including the accused.

We will send a followup PR (after this merges) to discuss and address this specific area.

timothysc · 2019-07-15T16:01:12Z

Canceling hold per timeout above.
PRs can, and should, be made to this initial draft. Other comments look like they can be addressed in that fashion.

/hold cancel
/cc @michelleN

k8s-ci-robot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels May 1, 2019

k8s-ci-robot requested review from castrojo and eparis May 1, 2019 21:34

k8s-ci-robot added the committee/code-of-conduct Denotes an issue or PR intended to be handled by the code of conduct committee. label May 1, 2019

k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label May 1, 2019

jdumars assigned jdumars, carolynvs, parispittman, Bradamant3 and eparis May 1, 2019

jdumars added the committee/steering Denotes an issue or PR intended to be handled by the steering committee. label May 1, 2019

nikhita reviewed May 2, 2019

View reviewed changes

timothysc approved these changes May 2, 2019

View reviewed changes

committee-code-of-conduct/charter.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

k8s-ci-robot assigned timothysc May 2, 2019

k8s-ci-robot added lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. labels May 2, 2019

spiffxp reviewed May 3, 2019

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. and removed lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. labels May 8, 2019

carolynvs-msft and others added 6 commits May 22, 2019 22:15

Add Code of Conduct Committee Charter

76d80f5

s/occupied/unoccupied

e4bcfbb

Co-Authored-By: carolynvs <carolyn.vanslyck@microsoft.com>

s/concern/mission

7b6dcb8

Clarify overlapping member term lengths

829d988

Remove unnessary wording

8e2abcc

These were present in older drafts that had additional clarifications about active members, etc that aren't in the current document.

Clarify when unanimous vote is required for dissolution

beecffd

carolynvs force-pushed the cocc-charter branch from ff74639 to beecffd Compare May 22, 2019 20:32

k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label May 22, 2019

k8s-ci-robot assigned spiffxp May 30, 2019

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 30, 2019

spiffxp mentioned this pull request Jun 4, 2019

appointment/election process for new CoCC members #3353

Closed

spiffxp mentioned this pull request Jun 5, 2019

Code of Conduct documentation kubernetes/steering#38

Closed

Move election process into a separate document

01e7677

k8s-ci-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jul 3, 2019

timothysc approved these changes Jul 8, 2019

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jul 8, 2019

deads2k reviewed Jul 11, 2019

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot requested a review from michelleN July 15, 2019 16:01

k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jul 15, 2019

k8s-ci-robot merged commit d7ce431 into kubernetes:master Jul 15, 2019

Add Code of Conduct Committee Charter #3663

Add Code of Conduct Committee Charter #3663

Conversation

carolynvs commented May 1, 2019

carolynvs commented May 1, 2019

carolynvs commented May 1, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

timothysc left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

spiffxp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nikhita commented May 17, 2019

carolynvs commented May 22, 2019

philips commented May 23, 2019

spiffxp commented May 30, 2019

philips commented May 31, 2019

dims commented May 31, 2019

spiffxp commented Jun 4, 2019

timothysc commented Jun 4, 2019

carolynvs commented Jul 3, 2019

timothysc left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

k8s-ci-robot commented Jul 8, 2019

spiffxp commented Jul 10, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

timothysc commented Jul 15, 2019