https://docs.google.com/document/d/14GjeNlFB_LIlzA0wZRE3u0KnCvtIPfKgJKpwEvpDDxk/edit#
This is the proposed (about to be accpeted?) governance structure/document for the Kubeflow. Posting it as it is interesting to see how, what and why other groups organised themselves when it comes to governance.
I’d be interested to here what others think and/or links to similar governance docs (in the making). In particular: does anyone have a handy link to how the kubernetes project organises itself and working groups within it?
1 Like
Kubeflow is a new project that is getting a lot of interest from different companies, and they want some assertions that, if they invest into the project, they will have a way to be recognized and participate on the discussions regarding the direction of the project.
Kubernetes is a more mature project, that has moved to be a project at the Linux Foundation, which is a more neutral place where corporations are used to collaborate and understand the governance model. Having said that, the governance document is similar to Kubeflow, which makes sense based on the origin of these two projects.
In these two examples, the governance aspect has probably been influenced by the amount of enterprise interest that these projects have attracted.
In the Jupyter community case, we have to consider the main contributor groups (Academia and Enterprise) and start by identifying if there are any issues that needs to be addressed. And then learn from some of these examples and see how this could be applied to the Jupyter community.
Are there any known issues around Jupyter community governance?
1 Like
Note that I had been appending a long-ish list of projects on this issue in the governance repo as well:
There might be some interesting pieces of info in there too! (I added the link from this post to that list as well 
)