[mugsie]

So, also being a PTL in OpenStack I would say that the foundation design is very similar to the OpenStack one.

1 - the openstack board has 0 technical input to projects - the way to get things done in OpenStack is still to throw developers at it.

This does somewhat push the balance of power to larger companies - they have the money to employ developers.

2 - we have "community directors" who are elected by the people who actually commit code 3 - definite improvement over the initial setup of openstack, but that is currently changing with the User Committee

One question I would have about this - how are the end user groups requirements put forward? what mechanisms is there to ensure developers work on the defined priorities?

4 - Yup - we have the equivalent with the Technical Committee (the TC in OpenStack slang)

Separation of powers is ++ - but how does that play out when the TOC decides that they want to do something that does not mesh with the boards plans?

[__monadic]

"how are the end user groups requirements put forward? what mechanisms is there to ensure developers work on the defined priorities?" --> projects are run by their leads, they are not told what to work on. In this sense, CNCF operates more like IETF/ASF but with (arguably) less intrusive governance.

The underlying idea here is that a well-run open source project gets plenty of strong direction from actual users, who must be interacted with directly.

There is a still-forming End User Board designed to create a strong forum for some types of User-Project discussion. But overall CNCF will lean towards "voluntary" and not "mandatory" requirements.