New mission for "TOC Contributors"

[dims]

We have a group called "TOC Contributors": https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/main/CONTRIBUTORS.md

And currently here's what we tell them: https://github.com/cncf/toc/search?q=%22toc+contributor%22

I think it may be better to associate the TOC Contributors to TAGs and WGs to make those bodies more effective as there is a list of people the leaders in those bodies can lean on for their ongoing work. This will also reduce the confusion of "oh! i am on the TOC" where someone implies that they signed up as a "TOC Contributor" by opening a PR in this repo.

WDYT?

[TheFoxAtWork]

+1. By shifting TOC contributors to the TAGs and their WGs we increase the pool of potential contributions beyond what it currently has today. Also, given the TAGs function as expertise domain areas to complement the body of knowledge within the TOC, this further aligns with the documented intent behind TOC contributors, particularly as TAGs do a large portion of project reviews, presentations, and learnings.

we would encourage CNCF member companies to designate an official TOC Contributor who is tasked with consulting internal experts and expressing a semi-official view on a given project.

[resouer]

+1 for shifting TOC contributors to TAG/WG.

[kgamanji]

+1 to the shift to TAG/WGs

[dims]

Here's what i am thinking of:

Step 1: Currently in https://github.com/cncf/people/ currently folks can add "TOC Contributor" and they will show up in https://www.cncf.io/people/technical-oversight-committee/#toc-contributors. Instead of "TOC Contributor", folks can say "TAG Security Contributor" and "TAG Runtime Contributor". Step 2: Notify folks in CONTRIBUTORS.md, that the CONTRIBUTORS.md will be taken down. and they need to do things mentioned in Step 1 Step 3: Remove references to "TOC Contributors" in https://github.com/cncf/toc and remove "TOC Contributor" related URL(s) on the website Step 4: We would generate new pages with URL(s) for each TAG

Then the TAG Chairs can keep track of who is on the TAG and helping out and help add new folks and prune folks who have stopped contributing. This will act like a roster of sorts for each TAG. We could even highlight the Chairs and TLs for the tags using the same mechanism

[halcyondude]

Some folks contribute to and/or participate in multiple TAGs as well as TOC discussions. We should ensure that our process, workflow(s), and data model accounts and allows for this.

+1 to raising visibility of TAGs and step 4 in particular. TAG’s have varying levels of engagement with the CNCF’s new community infra as well. Having a consistent set of pages/links would make the existence of these groups, and how they’re organized, more broadly understood and accessible.

The data model being implemented here:

https://github.com/cncf/landscape-graph#landscape-graph-data-model

…combined with the roadmap for having CNCF-infra-backed hosted endpoint (Suggest: graph.cncf.io (GraphQL)) might facilitate implementation as well.

[angellk]

+1 to @halcyondude's comment

Yes, to raising visibility of TAGs, however, Step 1 may serve to alienate people who would otherwise be contributing.

Also, more and more the TAG chairs sound like they are struggling with keeping up with current responsibilities. And, having them now tracking who is contributing does not take into consideration WHY people are no longer contributing.

Perhaps it would be good to keep the TOC contributors AND creating TAG/WG contributor groups.

[sdake]

As someone that is a passive “toc contributor”, I think our charter is poorly defined. I am not sure how best to allocate the limited time I have available for CNCF work.

I think this proposal has merit.

I understand the alienation problem. I always find it frustrating when I have contributed to a body of work and structural changes “vanish” those contributions. I know an EMERITUS file adds a little more maintenance, but it does serve to recognize those contributors prior to a structural change as proposed.

Cheers steve

On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 4:51 PM Karena Angell @.***> wrote:

+1 to @halcyondude https://github.com/halcyondude's comment

Yes, to raising visibility of TAGs, however, Step 1 may serve to alienate people who would otherwise be contributing.

Also, more and more the TAG chairs sound like they are struggling with keeping up with current responsibilities. And, having them now tracking who is contributing does not take into consideration WHY people are no longer contributing.

Perhaps it would be good to keep the TOC contributors AND creating TAG/WG contributor groups.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/867#issuecomment-1172788108, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFYRCOMQM7WFV2DHQLWHVLVR576RANCNFSM52MPSLUA . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

[jberkus]

+1 to all of Dim's suggested changes. Aside from that, in /people we really ought to have a way to indicate that someone is a TAG/WG lead, which currently we don't.

At least half the people currently listed under "TOC Contributors" have never actually contributed anything measurable. There was a time when you could take that badge just based on being interested in contributing. That's why there's so many students on that list.

So, if there are people there who have made substantial contributions that don't fit under a TAG or a another area (like TOC emeritus), let's discuss them individually and see how we can credit them. But there is zero value in keeping the "TOC Contributors" list the way it is.

[joshgav]

+1 to integrating TOC "contributors" with TAG contributors. We should consider TAGs to be the first-line contributors and supporters of TOC's research and decisions, so a TOC contributor should ideally by definition be a TAG contributor.

As a corollary, it would be helpful to provide a common structure for TAGs to enable them to effectively contribute to TOC. For example, we might state that when TOC needs guidance on a project they will refer it to a TAG for further research by creating and labelling an issue in the TAG's GitHub issues board, then referring to replies in that issue for findings and advice.

[jberkus]

Again, to be clear: there is no reason to believe that anyone currently listed as a "TOC Contributor" is an actual contributor of any kind. The ones that are -- TAG Chairs and emeritus TOC members -- we know and can list according to their actual status. There is no reason to retain that list.

[mrbobbytables]

Big +1 from me. We should be shining a light on the TAGs/WGs and pushing for more folk to get involved with them. I'd also like to 2nd @jberkus's comments on the TOC contributors list. The vast majority of people on the list haven't been involved in community at large, and should be removed and/or pruned significantly.

[dshaw]

+1 for shifting focus away from TOC Contributors to the TAG/WGs. My only recommendation is to comb the TAG docs for references to "TOC Contributor" status before removing it completely. As one of the co-creators of the first SIG (now TAG), I recall that TOC Contributor status was a prerequisite to taking on a leadership role. I'm so proud to see how TAGs have evolved and think its a better indicator of ongoing collaboration.

[alolita]

+1 to @dims suggestions and to @jberkus ' comments. Active participation guidelines (e.g. 3+ month inactivity) as well as not having the same person holding multiple roles (and hence not being able to spare time for any of them) could also be considered as criteria for retiring from leadership roles.

[lizrice]

I'm generally very much in favour of this, but let's make sure that however we express it, we continue to encourage people to turn up and participate directly at TOC meetings/TOC mailing list. People shouldn't feel that they have to "qualify" to attend a TOC meeting by being a representative of a TAG/WG first.

[cathyhongzhang]

I like the suggestion of @joshgav on providing a common structure for TAGs to contribute to TOC effectively when TOC needs evaluation help and suggestion on a project.

[cathyhongzhang]

@angellk raised a great point. If TAG chairs/leads are struggling with keeping up with current responsibilities and can not find contributors, we may need to take into consideration WHY people are no longer contributing to that TAG.

[dims]

ok, as i understand it so far ... let's divide this into two parts. A cleanup phase first and then a better model to bring in people to TAG + how TAGs can better support TOC.

We can start with the cleanup, first this will be: 1: Notify folks in CONTRIBUTORS.md, that the CONTRIBUTORS.md will be taken down and they are welcome to engage with TAG(s) 2: Remove references to "TOC Contributors" in https://github.com/cncf/toc and remove "TOC Contributor" related URL(s) on the website. 3: Cleanup "TOC Contributors" from https://github.com/cncf/people/blob/main/people.json

We can leave this issue open for the second phase. We can line this up for discussion again in a future CNCF TOC meeting.

[dims]

starting draft PR(s) in https://github.com/cncf/people/pull/89 and https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/885

[TheFoxAtWork]

Recommendation from today's TOC call is to replace the existing TOC Contributors listing with the TAGs and their leadership in a YAML file that allows us pull this information as needed

[TheFoxAtWork]

and listing these folks on cncf.io https://www.cncf.io/people/technical-oversight-committee/

[mauilion]

@TheFoxAtWork Looks like from reviewing this issue that the initial plan was in 3 parts.

Updating the People page to remove the toc contributors and to inform folks that they can mark themselves a tag contributor.

I see that the people and the git repo have been updated and can find a thread where folks have been notified in https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc

The remaining work is to pull together a yaml file that describes the tag chairs and ensuring they are referenced on https://www.cncf.io/people/technical-oversight-committee/ correct?

[nikhita]

The remaining work is to pull together a yaml file that describes the tag chairs and ensuring they are referenced on https://www.cncf.io/people/technical-oversight-committee/ correct?

@mauilion we will also need to clean up the references to TOC Contributors in https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Acncf%2Ftoc+%22toc+contributor%22&type=code

From https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/867#issuecomment-1216798621:

Recommendation from today's TOC call is to replace the existing TOC Contributors listing with the TAGs and their leadership in a YAML file that allows us pull this information as needed

https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/938 should help. It's on my list to complete the PR but I'm not sure if I will get to this in the next two weeks. If anyone wants to to work on it to wrap it up earlier, please go ahead.

and listing these folks on cncf.io https://www.cncf.io/people/technical-oversight-committee/

We will also need to verify what automation is used to list folks on this webpage and follow up to ensure all automation ties together.

[amye]

That's cncf/people repo! https://github.com/cncf/people/

[TheFoxAtWork]

So sounds like -

• add TAG co-chairs to the TOC on CNCF/people under a TAG section
• clean up references to TOC contributors

[TheFoxAtWork]

here are the current references to TOC Contributor: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Acncf%2Ftoc+%22TOC+Contributor%22&type=code