kubeflow
PROPOSAL - Working Group Review
As discussed in the Kubeflow community meeting on the 14th of July 2022, the community would like to ask for a review of the current Kubeflow Working Group membership and processes.
I propose the review has the following goals:
Goal 1 - Pruning inactive WG leads
- there are a number of WGs which have leads that have moved on from the project
- we really should remove their access, and remove them from lists in kubeflow/community lists
Goal 2 - Set up a quarterly VIDEO CALL between each WG and the project-steering group
- this is a great way for each WG to understand and work with the @kubeflow/project-steering-group, and ensure everyone is in-sync with what is happening
- (I think this is VERY important, as it demonstrates a commitment from the @kubeflow/project-steering-group to govern the project in a visible way)
Goal 3 - Setup a quarterly REPORT from each WG to the project-steering group
- this quarterly report to @kubeflow/project-steering-group would include things like:
- any proposed new WG leads
- the WGs roadmap for the next quarter
- an analysis of how past roadmaps are tracking
- any governance issues
- status on improvement proposals relating to their components
- these reports will be shared publically (with any potential security/personal information redacted)
Goal 4 - Enforce the agreed WG governance process
- Kubeflow adopted the Kubeflow WG governance process in 2020 that was based on the Kubernetes WG governance process. We can use this process to improve the health of our Working Groups and make the community more active and accessible for the next wave of WG leads.
- The main things we need to do are:
- enforce the minimum activity expectations for WG leads
- publicize a clear process for promoting new WG leads (beyond the logical voting requirement)
- publicize the responsibilities/privileges of a WG "chair" vs "technical lead"
- enforce the sensible limits on how many "chairs" and "technical leads" a WG can have (currently, some WGs have > 5 "chairs", which doesn't make a lot of sense)
(PS: the Kubernetes governance process we have copied might be too cumbersome for Kubeflow - especially given the difference in scale of the projects - but its at least a start)
If no other actions are taken by @kubeflow/project-steering-group, I recommend they at least facilitate a quarterly video call between each WG's leadership and the project-steering group (goal 2). Without that happening, I see no serious way for the steering group to continue governing Kubeflow.
/cc @kubeflow/wg-automl-leads @kubeflow/wg-deployment-leads @kubeflow/wg-manifests-leads @kubeflow/wg-pipeline-leads @kubeflow/wg-notebooks-leads @kubeflow/wg-training-leads
@theadactyl @james-jwu @paveldournov, I would love your thoughts on this proposal, I believe taking these actions will be very important for the health of Kubeflow as a project.
