From: Gustavo Padovan <gus@collabora.com>
To: "Guillaume Tucker" <gtucker@gtucker.io>
Cc: "kernelci lists.linux.dev" <kernelci@lists.linux.dev>,
"KernelCI Members" <kernelci-members@groups.io>
Subject: Re: KernelCI TSC Reset
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 16:06:30 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <197c23bd516.bfcf8d2d1396970.6608184766492335649@collabora.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <14e8ec3c-3006-484f-bc38-ca858d73fe26@gtucker.io>
---- On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 06:46:20 -0300 Guillaume Tucker <gtucker@gtucker.io> wrote ---
> Hello,
>
> On 02/06/2025 9:03 pm, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > Recently, we have been discussion the current state of the Technical Steering Committee(TSC)
> > in KernelCI. Over time, a disconnect emerged between the members of the TSC and the current
> > active contributors to the KernelCI community and we didn't act in time to correct course. That's
> > part of the pains of a growing community.
> >
> > On the flip side, it opens the door for us to rethink the TSC structure from scratch - something the
> > KernelCI Project Advisory Board jumped on and took a proposal for feedback to the weekly
> > community meeting last week. Now, we want to share it with the wide community to discuss any
> > feedback people may have before we take this to final stages.
> >
> > Of course, just having a new structure is not the solution to all problems. It
> > will require engagement and commitment from TSC members to help the community grow,
> > keep an open collaborative space, seek alignment of technical roadmap to our main goals and
> > mediate key strategic decisions.
>
> That sounds great, and very much on point about engagement and
> commitment. The TSC has grown organically from the early team of
> contributors and the hope when joining the LF was that member
> companies and kernel developers would take it to the next level.
> While part of this did happen with Collabora being a driving
> force along with Red Hat, there hasn't been the fresh influx of
> engineers anticipated. That would have naturally provided a path
> for keeping the TSC healthy in the long run with a renewal of
> active contributors. So now seems like a good time to try again.
>
> > # Proposal for the new KernelCI TSC
> >
> > The current proposal was build taking inspiration from how other TSC (eg ELISA, Zephyr, Yocto)
> > are structured today. It has two main spaces:
> > * the TSC itself
> > * the KernelCI Infrastructure Working Group(Infra WG)
> >
> > In a nutshell, the Infra WG is responsible for the core infra of the project (Maestro, KCIDB, Storage,
> > Web Dashboard) and the TSC drives the engament with the Linux kernel community, bridging the
> > gap between the user needs and infra roadmap development.
> >
> >
> > ## TSC
> >
> > * 5 members total
> > -> 4 by community vote with 1 year term
> > -> plus the KernelCI Infrastructure WG Lead
> > * Most voted person elected TSC Chair for a 1 year term
> > * Max of two employees from the same company
> > * Any of the community members listed below are eligible to vote and be voted to the KernelCI TSC:
> > -> Contributors to KernelCI git repositories
> > -> Technical members of CI systems and labs connected to KernelCI
> > -> Upstream Linux kernel maintainer who interacts with KernelCI results and/or give public feedback to the project
> >
> >
> > ## KernelCI Infrastructure WG
> >
> > * Responsible for the software projects deployed as KernelCI services
> > ->Maestro, KCIDB, Storage, Web Dashboard
> > * Manages the Sysadmin team. With the creation of the Infrastructure WG, the Sysadmin WG becomes a
> > team inside the Infrastructure WG with some people getting access to the sysadmin secrets.
> > * Initial member selection is based on key contributions and ownership
> > * WG can vote new members in and out at any time
> > * Members who haven’t contributed to the KernelCI projects for over 6 months are automatically removed from the WG
> > * WG Lead shall preside for two years
> > * Voting members for WG Lead include the WG members and TSC members
>
> That sounds like a refresh of the Sysadmin WG we used to have,
> it's great to see it come back and with a stronger structure.
>
> Out of interest, are there any plans for other Working Groups?
We are trying to keep it minimal for now and let the new TSC decide on these things.
The Web Dashboard working group would be a good candidate to continue in that sense.
>
> > ### Additional TSC responsibilities
> >
> > Beyond what is already listed in the Charter, the TSC should be responsible for:
> >
> > * Seeking feedback from the Linux kernel community and company members as driving the
> > creation of processes for improving the feedback process over time;
> > * Setting up a process (e.g. RFC, PEP, …) for decision making around important architectural
> > decisions in the project. Such a process should be used whenever consensus is not achieved
> > trivially.
>
> One important aspect to add here would be transparency, with
> public TSC meetings and public votes. This is something that has
> been discussed for a while as most other projects operate this
> way, so now seems like a good time to make it happen too.
>
> > ### Final thoughts
> >
> > For reference, today's the current TSC structure is described in the project charter[1] and any
> > modification we will make to the TSC structure will require voting by the Advisory Board.
>
> In addition to the Charter created with the LF, a number of rules
> have been voted over time by the TSC to clarify certain aspects
> and make things easier in practice:
>
> https://docs.kernelci.org/org/tsc/#rules
>
> It would seem worth going through these and consolidating things
> into the new Charter document, for example to remove ambiguity
> around votes (email vs meeting, quorum when some members abstain
> etc).
>
> Even if everything ends up being perfectly well described in the
> new Charter, keeping some documentation section about the TSC
> rules always helps in particular for people who want to learn
> about the project.
Okay. We will take a look in that docs section as well
Best,
- Gus
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-30 19:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-02 19:03 KernelCI TSC Reset Gustavo Padovan
2025-06-03 12:08 ` [kernelci-members] " Tom Gall
2025-06-27 9:46 ` Guillaume Tucker
2025-06-30 19:06 ` Gustavo Padovan [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=197c23bd516.bfcf8d2d1396970.6608184766492335649@collabora.com \
--to=gus@collabora.com \
--cc=gtucker@gtucker.io \
--cc=kernelci-members@groups.io \
--cc=kernelci@lists.linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).