maintainer updates as per #1101

[h-vetinari]

Add "recently" added runc-maintainers also to runtime spec (emails taken from runc). These 3 have a proven track record of excellent work in runc, and so I feel comfortable to propose them as one batch.

They have also all agreed in #1101 to join, see this comment and below.

If someone wants to split the PR or propose their own one, I really really don't mind - I'm just trying to get the ball rolling. 🙃

CC @AkihiroSuda
CC @kolyshkin
CC @thaJeztah

Needs at least 6 approvals from the current 8 maintainers:

• crosbymichael
• cyphar
• dqminh
• giuseppe
• hqhq
• mrunalp
• tianon
• vbatts

[thaJeztah]

LGTM, thanks!

[kolyshkin]

LGTM

[AkihiroSuda]

Thanks, LGTM

[giuseppe]

LGTM

[hqhq]

LGTM

[samuelkarp]

Hey folks!

I wanted to chime in from the TOB here. It looks like the governance document for the runtime spec does not currently establish procedures for adding (or removing) maintainers. Under the current set of rules I can see two paths forward:

1. Amend the governance document per the process outlined there (motion and voting on the dev@opencontainers.org mailing list) to add rules around how maintainers can be added (or removed).
2. Or, directly move to add the new maintainers via a single vote using the same process. Note that this path doesn't address the general case of establishing rules around how maintainers are added (or removed) and eventually we'll likely need to revisit that again.

The current governance rules require a 2/3 approval for a motion to pass; with 8 current maintainers that means at least 6 must approve.

(Note: the governance document recommends voting on the mailing list with a "SHOULD" but not a "MUST" so I think it'd be reasonable to go forward with 6 approvals here if the current maintainers prefer to do that.)

Thanks!
Sam

[h-vetinari]

PTAL @crosbymichael @cyphar @dqminh @mrunalp @tianon @vbatts

[cyphar]

LGTM

[cyphar]

@samuelkarp I don't know why it's not mentioned in the governance document (the point of copy-pasting the same document was so we had rules for everything already), but adding maintainers with a 2/3rd vote is accepted practice and is covered under the general governance change rules. It would be a good idea to do a review of the governance documents for all the projects to make sure they aren't missing important information like this.

I suspect this information is missing because the rules for adding maintainers in runc were outlined in the MAINTAINERS_GUIDE.md rather than GOVERNANCE.md but runtime-spec didn't copy the former into this repo.

[h-vetinari]

Gentle ping @crosbymichael @dqminh @vbatts

[h-vetinari]

Gentle ping @crosbymichael @dqminh @vbatts

☝️

[vbatts]

LGTM

Sorry I missed this PR. And then came here as I'm trying to determine and refresh myself on the process for adding and removing maintainers :-\

I generally agree with maintaining the 2/3 quorum for topics like adding/removing maintainers. And hope to see (or create) a PR for this language in the specs projects soon.

For the record, with my vote it makes the 2/3 quorum for this vote. And effective upon merge we'll have 11 maintainers for an 7.3 majority? So, A) maybe we'll round that to 7?; B) perhaps some folks step down before being voted off?

[vbatts]

congrats and welcome @AkihiroSuda, @kolyshkin, and @thaJeztah! 🧁