Update the Decision-making process and transparency

[ahrtr]

Please read https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#contribution-flow.

cc @fuweid @ivanvc @jmhbnz @serathius @siyuanfoundation @spzala @wenjiaswe @jberkus

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 69.27%. Comparing base (a091a6d) to head (989dd8e).
Report is 17 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

see 27 files with indirect coverage changes

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #20033      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   69.28%   69.27%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         413      413              
  Lines       34364    34364              
==========================================
- Hits        23810    23807       -3     
- Misses       9159     9164       +5     
+ Partials     1395     1393       -2     

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update a091a6d...989dd8e. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[jberkus]

Seems fine to me, but given, we should get +1s from all leads.

[spzala]

Nice! Thanks for working on it @ahrtr as discussed on etcd leads call.
A small comment inline :) but LGTM.

[jmhbnz]

LGTM - Thanks @ahrtr

[ivanvc]

LGTM. Thanks for putting this together, Ben.

I'm a little hesitant with the third bullet point:

- Private Slack group threads involving sig-etcd leads and maintainers

I don't know if we should emphasize group, but the last paragraph mentions "After reaching rough consensus within this group", so it may be irrelevant.

[ahrtr]

LGTM. Thanks for putting this together, Ben.

I'm a little hesitant with the third bullet point:

- Private Slack group threads involving sig-etcd leads and maintainers

I don't know if we should emphasize group, but the last paragraph mentions "After reaching rough consensus within this group", so it may be irrelevant.

While these three channels are not fully open to the public, they are accessible to a well-defined group. As long as we clearly specify who should be involved in the discussions, this setup should be acceptable.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ahrtr, fuweid, ivanvc, jmhbnz, spzala

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 [ahrtr,fuweid,jmhbnz,spzala]

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

[wenjiaswe]

cc k8s steering committee @BenTheElder, Ben, could you (or point us to the right contact( please kindly take a look to make sure this comply with k8s, CNCF governance? Thanks!

[BenTheElder]

cc k8s steering committee @BenTheElder, Ben, could you (or point us to the right contact( please kindly take a look to make sure this comply with k8s, CNCF governance? Thanks!

That's an interesting question, typically SIGs would be expected to document non-standard governance in the charter's "deviations from sig governance" section: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/sig-etcd/charter.md#deviations-from-sig-governance

cc-ed the rest of the committee at https://kubernetes.slack.com/archives/CPNFRNLTS/p1748887137437919 since @kubernetes/steering-committee won't work here.

Some SIGs do have documented and approved deviations, otherwise things like leadership changes have standard documented processes like https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/chairs-and-techleads/leadership-changes.md

[ahrtr]

Some SIGs do have documented and approved deviations, otherwise things like leadership changes have standard documented processes like https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/chairs-and-techleads/leadership-changes.md

thx for pointing us to the standard document.

This guide doesn't conflict with the official guide; it supplements it instead. Essentially, it just enhance the first item "Discuss the proposed changes with the current leadership" with "Openly and transparently discuss the proposed changes with the current leadership".

Also we expect:

Any significant changes affecting the etcd community, including but not limited to
leadership transitions, governance updates, or project-wide process changes, must
first be discussed transparently within the current [OWNERS]

[ahrtr]

This guide doesn't conflict with the official guide; it supplements it instead. Essentially, it just enhance the first item "Discuss the proposed changes with the current leadership" with "Openly and transparently discuss the proposed changes with the current leadership".

I can also send a PR to update the doc as well if it's desired.

[wenjiaswe]

This guide doesn't conflict with the official guide; it supplements it instead. Essentially, it just enhance the first item "Discuss the proposed changes with the current leadership" with "Openly and transparently discuss the proposed changes with the current leadership".

I can also send a PR to update the doc as well if it's desired.

Yes, that's a good idea. We could also link this doc there. I am sure the reviewers there will let us know if anything missing too.

[wenjiaswe]

I also left some comments, will LGTM once addressed.

@BenTheElder @ahrtr we could do one of the following:

1. update both https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/sig-etcd/charter.md#deviations-from-sig-governance and this doc here
2. update this doc, and add the link of this doc to https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/sig-etcd/charter.md#deviations-from-sig-governance
3. update https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/sig-etcd/charter.md#deviations-from-sig-governance, and add the link of that doc here

I don't have a strong opinion, as long as we have clear policy that's easy to find for both etcd and kubernetes community. I am slightly in favor of either option 2 or option 3, so that we don't have to update 2 places every time.

@jmhbnz @ivanvc @serathius ?

[BenTheElder]

This guide doesn't conflict with the official guide; it supplements it instead. Essentially, it just enhance the first item "Discuss the proposed changes with the current leadership" with "Openly and transparently discuss the proposed changes with the current leadership".

I can also send a PR to update the doc as well if it's desired.

I don't think the content itself is particularly controversial, but there is an expectation for review of SIG charter and governance changes and explicitly calling out where things deviate.

I would add this content to the SIG document and update this doc to link to the SIG community directory.
That way we can also reconcile any future updates and this content is discoverable to the broader community.

But that's just my personal thought, the steering committee has documented consensus requirements:
https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/blob/main/charter.md#voting

[ahrtr]

Raised kubernetes/community#8475

[ahrtr]

The change has integrated into sig-etcd charter via kubernetes/community#8475, so updated this PR to link to SIG-etcd governance.

[ahrtr]

/test pull-etcd-e2e-arm64