Document TAG Roles - TAG governance template file

[leonardpahlke]

trafficstars

This PR adds a template under the toc/tags/resources/tag-formation-template to document the roles within TAGs. It also defines the structure of template-leadership-election-process.md file to enable adding references to it already. This PR adds content to the stub file structure that has been established with this PR. More PRs will follow to add content to the other template files. The original reference of the roles file is sourced from the TAG Security. But I made a couple of edits.

The proposed template includes a definition for these roles:

• Chair
• Tech Lead
• Working Group Lead
• Project Lead
• TOC Liaison
• Emeritus Lead

I have reworked the sections and tried to reduce the overall size of the document, as the TAG security role document is quite large.

I removed a couple of roles that have been mentioned in the TAG Security role doc:

• Role of STAG representatives: I think this role is not really a given for many TAGs. Usually, a Chair / TL does the comms to specific projects. For some, it might make sense at some point. Since this is a template that should also act as a getting started point, STAG representatives are not one of the core roles.
• Team Leads: Since the roles already mention projects and working groups (WG), team leads is just another variation which IMO complicates things. WG is a sub structure within the TAG to work on a continues effort (like doing security reviews), projects are short-term things like writing a White paper. Teams would be in the middle, continues projects that do not justify the structures of working groups. For some TAGs this might be useful, but as a baseline, I think this just adds governance clutter.
• Group members: AFAIK, member roles do not really exist in TAGs. Member roles do not come with any obligations to the TAG, and therefore do not really provide any value defining structures, making sure the member list is up-to-date …

Facilitation roles: I also removed this role. We want to acknowledge folks that invest time contributing to the TAG long term, being in this space of “facilitation” giving valuable input but do not have the capacity or the goal to step into one of the leadership roles. What do you all think about that? Should we include this role? I wonder if this is the same story as a “membership” role, which is not really desirable to establish (therefore I removed it for now…).

Would love to hear your thoughts.

[leonardpahlke]

ref "Implementation of an updated TAG formation process" issue: https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/1043

[TheFoxAtWork]

@leonardpahlke @nikhita is this PR being considered under https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/1283 ?

[leonardpahlke]

@leonardpahlke @nikhita is this PR being considered under https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/1283 ?

I would say, yes. @nikhita would be good to quickly sync about this PR and other similar one & the main https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/1283 issue