Document TAG Roles - TAG governance template file

[leonardpahlke]

This PR adds a template under the toc/tags/resources/tag-formation-template to document the roles within TAGs. It also defines the structure of template-leadership-election-process.md file to enable adding references to it already. This PR adds content to the stub file structure that has been established with this PR. More PRs will follow to add content to the other template files.
The original reference of the roles file is sourced from the TAG Security. But I made a couple of edits.

The proposed template includes a definition for these roles:

• Chair
• Tech Lead
• Working Group Lead
• Project Lead
• TOC Liaison
• Emeritus Lead

I have reworked the sections and tried to reduce the overall size of the document, as the TAG security role document is quite large.

I removed a couple of roles that have been mentioned in the TAG Security role doc:

• Role of STAG representatives: I think this role is not really a given for many TAGs. Usually, a Chair / TL does the comms to specific projects. For some, it might make sense at some point. Since this is a template that should also act as a getting started point, STAG representatives are not one of the core roles.
• Team Leads: Since the roles already mention projects and working groups (WG), team leads is just another variation which IMO complicates things. WG is a sub structure within the TAG to work on a continues effort (like doing security reviews), projects are short-term things like writing a White paper. Teams would be in the middle, continues projects that do not justify the structures of working groups. For some TAGs this might be useful, but as a baseline, I think this just adds governance clutter.
• Group members: AFAIK, member roles do not really exist in TAGs. Member roles do not come with any obligations to the TAG, and therefore do not really provide any value defining structures, making sure the member list is up-to-date …

Facilitation roles: I also removed this role. We want to acknowledge folks that invest time contributing to the TAG long term, being in this space of “facilitation” giving valuable input but do not have the capacity or the goal to step into one of the leadership roles. What do you all think about that? Should we include this role? I wonder if this is the same story as a “membership” role, which is not really desirable to establish (therefore I removed it for now…).

Would love to hear your thoughts.

[TheFoxAtWork]

@leonardpahlke thank you for pulling this together! I grabbed some existing resources and references and linked them as well as provided several substantive changes given my experience liaising and contributing to several TAGs. We do have several items still in flight (i've tagged @erinaboyd on one she is currently working on) that are PRs or in progress to become PRs. Once they are merged, this will be much more complete.
I want to ensure we're aligning or adjusting the existing docs and linking back to them so we have fewer files to update as we improve these templates or add additional clarity. I've provided comments to this effect in areas were there is potential redundancy.

Thank you again for initiating this.

[TheFoxAtWork]

Suggested change

	A Chair drives the CNCF community efforts of the TAGs domain.
	Chairs are experienced leaders within the CNCF community with rooted expertise in the TAG area. Chairs serve a two-year term but may renew their term by submitting a follow-up application.
	Chair applications go through an [election process](https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/tags/cncf-tags.md#elections) with a final CNCF TOC vote.
	The [leadership election process is described here](template-leadership-election-process.md#chair).
	* Manage the operations and governance of the group.
	* Organize, host, plan and facilitate TAG meetings and events.
	* Reporting to the CNCF TOC on the status of TAG work.
	* Encouraging community members to start projects and working groups.
	* Resolve technical difficulties and decisions related to multiple sub-projects.
	* Remind the community of the scope of the TAG and point out guardrails in discussions, working groups, and projects.
	* Serve as TAG leadership representative in CNCF project discussions and at community events.
	* Evolve the TAG to reflect ongoing changes in the industry.
	* Onboard and mentor new community members.
	* Mentor community members in a leadership role within the TAG.
	* Enforce and promote diversity in TAG work.
	* Enforce and promote good communication in TAG efforts in accordance with the [CNCF CoC](https://www.cncf.io/conduct/)
	The TAG Chairs drive, guide, and coordinate the TAG's efforts within the broader CNCF ecosystem and within their TAG's community. They are supported by Technical Leads in the execution of TAG activities
	Chairs may be experienced leaders within the CNCF ecosystem and often have specialized domain expertise. Chairs have term limits, most commonly two years. Chairs continue to serve until removed either by an elected replacement or by the TOC.
	Chair applications go through an [election process](https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/tags/cncf-tags.md#elections) with a final CNCF TOC vote.
	The [leadership election process is described here](template-leadership-election-process.md#chair).
	Chair responsibilities and expectations may include the following or delegation of the following:
	* Manage the operations and governance of the group.
	* Organize, host, plan and facilitate TAG meetings and events.
	* Reporting to the CNCF TOC on the status of TAG work.
	* Encouraging community members to start projects and working groups.
	* Resolve technical difficulties and decisions related to multiple sub-projects.
	* Remind the community of the scope of the TAG and point out guardrails in discussions, working groups, and projects.
	* Serve as TAG leadership representative in CNCF project discussions and at community events.
	* Evolve the TAG to reflect ongoing changes in the industry.
	* Onboard and mentor new community members.
	* Mentor community members in a leadership role within the TAG.
	* Enforce and promote diversity in TAG work.
	* Enforce and promote good communication in TAG efforts in accordance with the [CNCF CoC](https://www.cncf.io/conduct/)
	* Embody and promote excellent leadership in accordance with the [Technical Leadership principles](https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/main/PRINCIPLES.md#technical-leadership-principles)
	For more information on TAG Chair responsibilities and expectations, please refer the to the TOC's description of [TAG Chairs](placeholder)

[TheFoxAtWork]

@erinaboyd - Leo pulled together an initial list pertinent to the specific TAG operations, I'm sure there are elements here you've already captured in your draft for Chair responsibilities. I've added a placeholder here on line 38 for when we've got them drafted in a PR. I'd think keeping our defined responsibilities and expectations separate from the template here (for use by TAGs) is reasonable. What are your thoughts?

[leonardpahlke]

Perfect. I will add the proposed suggestion already, but keep this discussion open, so we don't lose track, to update the placeholder, and add possible other suggestions.

[leonardpahlke]

@erinaboyd, if you find a bit of time, could you take at this section? Thanks! :)

@erinaboyd - Leo pulled together an initial list pertinent to the specific TAG operations, I'm sure there are elements here you've already captured in your draft for Chair responsibilities. I've added a placeholder here on line 38 for when we've got them drafted in a PR. I'd think keeping our defined responsibilities and expectations separate from the template here (for use by TAGs) is reasonable. What are your thoughts?

[TheFoxAtWork]

Let's consolidate this with the Working Group Leads under a Group Lead function. One may be time-limited/deliverable oriented, the other may be focused groups for ongoing and continual activities. So long as these are defined by the TAG, and approved by the TOC liaisons, the general responsibilities are not much different except in the specifics of implementation.

[leonardpahlke]

Yes, good idea. I will merge both sections. 👍

[leonardpahlke]

b3364b9

[AlexsJones]

One thought I'd like to share here is that it would be beneficial to have a more data driven/evidential approach to identifying tech lead candidates. The thinking here is that whilst community activities (chop wood and carry water) are valuable, having deep seated expertise is a fantastic way to build trust with projects and act as the bridge between community and contributor.

I feel a fair way to assist in this might be to ask any nominee to contribute three examples of their work within the field that demonstrate aptitude and appropriateness for the role. As part of the election process this also gives the committee more substantive information to elect the appropriate representative.

[leonardpahlke]

👍, interesting thought. We should keep it in mind for upcoming discussions. Since this PR doesn't make any other changes to this document, which templates the election process (just the headers to make the links), we'll pick this up in a follow-up PR. I will keep the discussion open nonetheless so others see it.

[TheFoxAtWork]

LGTM thank you!

[leonardpahlke]

ref "Implementation of an updated TAG formation process" issue: #1043

[TheFoxAtWork]

@leonardpahlke @nikhita is this PR being considered under #1283 ?

[leonardpahlke]

@leonardpahlke @nikhita is this PR being considered under #1283 ?

I would say, yes. @nikhita would be good to quickly sync about this PR and other similar one & the main #1283 issue