5 ms·
So, also being a PTL in OpenStack I would say that the foundation design is very similar to the OpenStack one. 1 - the openstack board has 0 technical input to
by mugsie 10y ago
So, also being a PTL in OpenStack I would say that the foundation design is very similar to the OpenStack one.
1 - the openstack board has 0 technical input to projects - the way to get things done in OpenStack is still to throw developers at it.
This does somewhat push the balance of power to larger companies - they have the money to employ developers.
2 - we have "community directors" who are elected by the people who actually commit code
3 - definite improvement over the initial setup of openstack, but that is currently changing with the User Committee
One question I would have about this - how are the end user groups requirements put forward? what mechanisms is there to ensure developers work on the defined priorities?
4 - Yup - we have the equivalent with the Technical Committee (the TC in OpenStack slang)
Separation of powers is ++ - but how does that play out when the TOC decides that they want to do something that does not mesh with the boards plans?
- __monadic 10y ago"how are the end user groups requirements put forward? what mechanisms is there to ensure developers work on the defined priorities?" --> projects are run by their leads, they are not told what to work on. In this sense, CNCF operates more like IETF/ASF but with (arguably) less intrusive governance. The underlying idea here is that a well-run open source project gets plenty of strong direction from actual users, who must be interacted with directly. There is a still-forming End User Board designed to create a strong forum for some types of User-Project discussion. But overall CNCF will lean towards "voluntary" and not "mandatory" requirements.