Helm Org Maintainers and Deprecated Projects
| HIP | Title | Author(s) | Created | Type | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Helm Org Maintainers and Deprecated Projects | Matt Butcher matt.butcher@microsoft.com | 2020-09-24 | process | draft |
Abstract
This process proposal explains what happens to Helm organization maintainer slots when a project is deprecated.
Motivation
The current governance documents state that org maintainers may be selected from any of the official Helm projects. However, as the Helm organization matures, some projects are being deprecated. The governance docs are unclear what happens to org maintainers from deprecated projects, and whether deprecated projects may hold org maintainer seats.
Rationale
In the interest of keeping the Helm project thriving and alive, this HIP proposes that only non-deprecated projects are entitled to org maintainer seats.
Specification
To implement this, a new PR must be opened with the changes to the governance document. The changes must be adopted by 2/3 supermajority of the current org maintainers (including those maintainers who may be attached to deprecated projects).
The governance documentation for the Helm org will be updated as follows:
- All references to org maintainer seats for projects will clarify that they apply only to non-deprecated projects
- Text will clarify that when a project is deprecated, its org maintainers will
be moved to Emeritus status except where those maintainers may be able to keep their
role because of their status on another Helm project, including the
helm/helmproject. - The definition of an active maintainer will also be revised to specify that the maintained project must not be deprecated
Backwards compatibility
N/A
Security implications
N/A
How to teach this
The [governance.md] document will be updated with precise language.
Reference implementation
The [governance.md] document will contain all associated changes.
Rejected ideas
1. Allowing maintainers of deprecated projects to stay
One might argue that maintainers of deprecated projects should be allowed to stay on as org maintainers. This option was considered. But the design of the org maintainers board was intended to give projects governing input into Helm. Essentially, allowing maintainers of deprecated projects to take these slots means essentially that non-owners will be given a say in Helm's direction. It would even be possible that non-owners could have a majority voting stake in the Helm project. This did not seem right.
2. Requiring maintainers of deprecated projects to go even if they represented other projects as well
One might argue that if a maintainer was elected because of their involvement in project X, their org maintainership should be inextricably tied to X. However, as written, this proposal allows such a maintainer to simply stay on as a maintainer due to their affiliation with another project, Y.
Our intention in forming the organizational maintainers was to give interested parties a voice in steering Helm. Because such a party would still be formally affiliated with a Helm project, we believe they fill the spirit of the original organizational motivations.
Of course, this does not prevent a maintainer from voluntarily stepping down when their project is deprecated.
Open issues
N/A