Sig Community minutes 20240902.md

Signed-off-by: Friederike <[email protected]>

sig-community/20240902.md

@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
+## 2024-09-02
+
+### Participants
+- @FriederikeZelke
+- @artificial-intelligence
+- @fkr
+
+
+### Reporting in community call and minutes transfer to repo
+- @FriederikeZelke
+
+### Topics of SIG Community
+- EOF Community Discussion (minutes by @garloff):
+- first steps to pave a sustainable way with the community (mail from @fkr)
+
+### EOF discussion
+#### Question
+
+What happens to all the repositories on github in the SCS namespace?
+
+- Issues (especially security issues) need to be acknowledged and worked on
+- PRs need to reviewed
+- Spam/Malware needs to be removed
+
+=> Repos need to be either archived or actively maintained
+
+
+ #### Discussion at the EOF
+ - Archived repos can be forked and maintained elsewhere
+     - Licenses do allow this
+     - Not the wanted situation (fragmentation)
+     - Better coordinate to keep one view on what SCS is (or used to be) - turnkey solution approach
+ - SCS namespace belongs to the OSBA, so the final oversight is there
+     - Forum won't be staffed to be maintainers for many SCS repos (and many repos are about the ref.impl. not standards)
+ - Repos only should live on (=not be archived) if there is interest
+     - Some are inactive already and should be archived right away (or removed if they are empty)
+     - Survey to find out who is using them/wants to use them
+     - Survey who is willing to invest time to take over maintainership
+- Idea of a project board
+    - Will have oversight over the repos
+    - Can coordinate efforts to fill gaps with maintainership of useful repos
+    - Forum employee should participate (may even facilitate), if forum members find that useful
+- Legal ownership/control
+    - OSBA for now, exercised by Forum
+- Why not use OSS Foundations (LinuxFoundation, CNCF, OpenInfra, Eclipse, ...)?
+    - Investigated this, two issues
+        - Complete handover of rights (including transferring trademark SCS from OSBA) to Foundation required
+        - Expensive membership fees (not cost efficient compared to OSBA forum fees)
+    - Still an option -- OSBA forum rules have language saying that the a better suited org can take over.
+- Who funds needed infrastructure (CI, ...)?
+    - artcodix and PS continue to do so
+
+### Aligned proposal
+- Cleanup is a good first step
+- Set up project board for SCS project/repo governance coordination, defining the generic approach
+- Collect interest in using and in contributing per repo
+- Identify gaps and deal with them in Project Board
+- Final call would be OSBA Forum if needed
+
+----
+
+### ProjectBoard
+
+Summary in a mail from 2024-09-15 from @fkr:
+
+Hi,
+
+at the SCS EOF event we discussed the idea of a ProjectBoard. What is the ProjectBoard?
+The ProjectBoard is the entity that will govern the overall SCS OpenSource Project (eg. what happens around https://github.com/sovereigncloudstack/) - as such the idea is that the ProjectBoard consists of people that come from the community.
+In the discussion we’ve had so far the general consensus regarding “who and what our community is” seems to be: People (and the Entities they belong to) that are registered in our github Org:
+
+https://github.com/orgs/SovereignCloudStack/teams and
+
+https://github.com/orgs/SovereignCloudStack/people
+
+How is determined who is part of the ProjectBoard? So far we’ve come up with two proposals on how this can be done (this is what we presented in the community call.
+
+Proposal 1:
+——————
+* 1 Person from the group of the CSPs
+* 1 Person from the group of implementing companies
+* 1 Person from the public sector
+* 1 Person from the companies producing SCS components
+* 1 Person from Forum SCS Standards
+* 2 Persons from the community
+
+-> People nominate themselves (also stating which group they would represent if voted for)
+-> The community (=> registered people in our GH org) are eligable to vote
+
+Proposal 2:
+——————-
+* 1 person from each involved company (CSPs, Implementation partners, vendors - as i.e. company represented in the github organization)
+* 1 person from Forum SCS (or OSBA) that is not represented by the item above
+
+
+Proposal 2 is much simpler, since no voting is involved. 
+Personally I do fear that with Proposal 2 participation in the ProjectBoard is not seen as something binding and people come and people go. 
+In my view of the ProjectBoard this would be finite list of people that feel the obligation to participate regularly and make the time for it (in order to have consistency) - if we manage that with Proposal 2 it would be awesome.
+
+We did have some discussion in the last community call - yet we want to make sure that the overall community is involved and invited to the discussion: Please make use of this and raise your voice :)
+I’d like to see this being wrapped up in the upcoming community call, I’ll bring it to the table there.
+
+Thanks and am looking forward to the discussion.
+
+
+felix
+
+### Summary
+- all in all: good event, sometimes a little to detailed in the team pitches, but a very good base for YouTube videos for a broader audience
+
+- GitHub Clean-Up: https://github.com/SovereignCloudStack/github-manager/pull/290#pullrequestreview-2306127117