Update sig-etcd charter to link to etcd's GOVERNANCE.md #8475

ahrtr · 2025-06-03T10:14:07Z

Update the sig-etcd's Deviations from [sig-governance] to link to GOVERNANCE.md

Please also refer to in etcd-io/etcd#20033.

cc @aojea @BenTheElder @saschagrunert @soltysh @pacoxu @pohly @justaugustus

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

BenTheElder · 2025-06-03T17:14:16Z

sig-etcd/charter.md

@@ -46,8 +46,10 @@ and opts-in to updates and modifications to [sig-governance].
  - Email: [etcd-dev](https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/etcd-dev).
  - Slack: [#etcd](https://kubernetes.slack.com/messages/C3HD8ARJ5/details/) channel on Kubernetes.
 - SIG etcd contributing instructions ([CONTRIBUTING.md]) be defined in etcd project.
+- SIG etcd governance instructions ([GOVERNANCE.md]) be defined in etcd project.


IMHO this needs to be defined here and the link direction reversed so it will be reviewed and approved as any other SIG charter.

I don't think we should have SIG governance out of band.

/assign @kubernetes/steering-committee

IMHO this needs to be defined here and the link direction reversed so it will be reviewed and approved as any other SIG charter.

I don't think we should have SIG governance out of band.

From SIG perspective, it's true. But etcd is also a project under CNCF. Both share the same GOVERNANCE.md. From that perspective, keeping the GOVERNANCE.md in the etcd repo might be better?

I do not think there is a dual governance model https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/sig-etcd/charter.md#deviations-from-sig-governance and that looks like an argument for fragmentation for SIGs
... At first sight I prefer am holistic and cohesive model for governance for all sigs

At first sight I prefer am holistic and cohesive model for governance for all sigs

I am OK to close this PR and etcd-io/etcd#20033 if we can update the https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/chairs-and-techleads/leadership-changes.md.

The motivation behind etcd-io/etcd#20033 is to reinforce the importance of open and transparent processes.

For any proposed leadership change within a SIG, the changes should first be discussed openly with the full current leadership team. These discussions must take place in a transparent and shared setting (e.g., a group email or slack thread or a SIG leads meeting), rather than through private or one-on-one conversations.

Private discussions are an individual's right and should not be restricted or interfered with by others. However, it is important to avoid a situation where individuals are privately consulted in isolation and the proposal is then shared with the broader community without prior open discussion among the existing SIG leads.

Such changes should be openly deliberated in advance to ensure inclusivity and maintain community trust.

Please kindly advise how to move forward.

These discussions must take place in a transparent and shared setting (e.g., a group email or slack thread or a SIG leads meeting

just one question as the words open and transparent may have different interpretation, as someone may imply "fully open" as anybody in the world can access, and other may understand "open to all the leads ONLY", that means is not technicall fully open ... can you clarify? I personally interpret this as "discuss privately with ALL leads involved at the same time"

Thanks all for the feedback.

Just to clarify — all SIG leads and etcd maintainers (approvers) reached agreement on the clarification around openness and transparency about two weeks ago, which is why I submitted the PR etcd-io/etcd#20033.

Please let me know if there are concerns about the content itself, or if it's mainly about where this should be documented.

Just to clarify — all SIG leads and etcd maintainers (approvers) reached agreement on the clarification around openness and transparency about two weeks ago, which is why I submitted the PR etcd-io/etcd#20033.

As mentioned already several times, sig-etcd being one of k8s sigs has to follow the same processes as all the other sigs. This includes having all of the governance rules specified in this repository, not outside.

As mentioned already several times, sig-etcd being one of k8s sigs has to follow the same processes as all the other sigs. This includes having all of the governance rules specified in this repository, not outside.

Then the action is to move the https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md into this repo under sig-etcd?

Correct, they should be explicitly pointed out under https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/sig-etcd/charter.md#deviations-from-sig-governance, not a separate file, please.

thx for the clarification.

Updated, PTAL

soltysh

/hold
to ensure this doesn't merge before final approval from steering

soltysh · 2025-06-04T13:12:09Z

sig-etcd/charter.md

@@ -46,8 +46,10 @@ and opts-in to updates and modifications to [sig-governance].
  - Email: [etcd-dev](https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/etcd-dev).
  - Slack: [#etcd](https://kubernetes.slack.com/messages/C3HD8ARJ5/details/) channel on Kubernetes.
 - SIG etcd contributing instructions ([CONTRIBUTING.md]) be defined in etcd project.
+- SIG etcd governance instructions ([GOVERNANCE.md]) be defined in etcd project.


The motivation behind etcd-io/etcd#20033 is to reinforce the importance of open and transparent processes.

I'm not sure what the current document is missing specifically about openness and transparency that you think should be added there. As I'm reading it the process requires to:

have a discussion both on SIG ML and k8s-dev with information who, why and what

have time for discussions, including the ability to reach out to steering (even privately, if necessary)

explicit requirements for new lead.
On top of it has a few handy organizational bits, that people frequently forget to handle while transitioning between leads. But if you think we're missing something I'd like to know what that is.

soltysh · 2025-06-04T13:12:31Z

sig-etcd/charter.md

@@ -46,8 +46,10 @@ and opts-in to updates and modifications to [sig-governance].
  - Email: [etcd-dev](https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/etcd-dev).
  - Slack: [#etcd](https://kubernetes.slack.com/messages/C3HD8ARJ5/details/) channel on Kubernetes.
 - SIG etcd contributing instructions ([CONTRIBUTING.md]) be defined in etcd project.
+- SIG etcd governance instructions ([GOVERNANCE.md]) be defined in etcd project.


I don't think we should have SIG governance out of band.

I wholeheartedly agree with Ben on this one 💯

I do not think there is a dual governance model https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/sig-etcd/charter.md#deviations-from-sig-governance and that looks like an argument for fragmentation for SIGs
... At first sight I prefer am holistic and cohesive model for governance for all sigs

And what Antonio writes as well.

…adership change Signed-off-by: Benjamin Wang <[email protected]>

ahrtr · 2025-06-06T19:30:52Z

Updated this PR per @BenTheElder 's comment etcd-io/etcd#20033 (comment) and @soltysh 's comment #8475 (comment)

PTAL, thx

BenTheElder

Thanks.
/cc @kubernetes/steering-committee

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-06-06T22:18:50Z

@BenTheElder: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: kubernetes/steering-committee.

Note that only kubernetes members and repo collaborators can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs.

In response to this:

Thanks.
/cc @kubernetes/steering-committee

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

aojea · 2025-06-07T11:26:28Z

Updated this PR per @BenTheElder 's comment etcd-io/etcd#20033 (comment) and @soltysh 's comment #8475 (comment)

PTAL, thx

/lgtm

Thank you very much @ahrtr for the constructive discussion

soltysh

Thank you!
/lgtm

pohly

/lgtm

BenTheElder · 2025-06-09T19:49:34Z

/approve
myself, @aojea, @soltysh, @pohly makes 4/7 which is sufficient for routine business

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-06-09T19:49:49Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ahrtr, BenTheElder, fuweid, soltysh, 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:

~~sig-etcd/OWNERS~~ [BenTheElder,ahrtr,soltysh]

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

aojea · 2025-06-09T20:52:42Z

/hold to ensure this doesn't merge before final approval from steering

/hold cancel

k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Jun 3, 2025

k8s-ci-robot requested review from ivanvc and jmhbnz June 3, 2025 10:14

ahrtr mentioned this pull request Jun 3, 2025

Update the Decision-making process and transparency etcd-io/etcd#20033

Merged

fuweid approved these changes Jun 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

spzala approved these changes Jun 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

BenTheElder reviewed Jun 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

soltysh reviewed Jun 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jun 4, 2025

ahrtr force-pushed the 20250603_etcd_governance branch from d378bd6 to 6934466 Compare June 6, 2025 16:02

Update sig-etcd charter to clarify openness and transparency about le…

7f04901

…adership change Signed-off-by: Benjamin Wang <[email protected]>

ahrtr force-pushed the 20250603_etcd_governance branch from 6934466 to 7f04901 Compare June 6, 2025 16:03

BenTheElder reviewed Jun 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot assigned aojea Jun 7, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 7, 2025

soltysh approved these changes Jun 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot assigned soltysh Jun 9, 2025

pohly reviewed Jun 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot assigned pohly Jun 9, 2025

k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jun 9, 2025

k8s-ci-robot merged commit a63b06a into kubernetes:master Jun 9, 2025
2 of 3 checks passed

ahrtr deleted the 20250603_etcd_governance branch June 10, 2025 08:35

Update sig-etcd charter to link to etcd's GOVERNANCE.md #8475

Update sig-etcd charter to link to etcd's GOVERNANCE.md #8475

Uh oh!

Conversation

ahrtr commented Jun 3, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aojea Jun 4, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

soltysh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ahrtr commented Jun 6, 2025

Uh oh!

BenTheElder left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Jun 6, 2025

Uh oh!

aojea commented Jun 7, 2025

Uh oh!

soltysh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pohly left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

BenTheElder commented Jun 9, 2025

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Jun 9, 2025

Uh oh!

aojea commented Jun 9, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

aojea Jun 4, 2025 •

edited

Loading