Defining the role and activities of Alternates in the Charter

[dims]

There has been some confusion about what GB alternates can do and cannot do. This is primarily because the charter does not talk about alternates at all.

Also not all GB primary members currently have alternates. Example the Developer Representatives (as defined in https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/main/maintainers-election-policy.md) do not have alternates.

As a result, alternates do not really know when they can do things and what they are allowed to do. The problem is compounded because since they are out of discussions the only way they know what is happening is through their primaries which makes things difficult.

The concept of the alternates is a good one. Having alternates who are plugged in fully is a bonus for us all. Alternates will help ensure primaries if they have to go for a vacation or are sick. Alternates ensure that entities do not forfeit their voice.

Currently the lack of definition ends up with taking ad hoc decisions, which makes folks feel that uneasy about how that decision was taken. We should make sure we define who can have alternates and what the alternates can and cannot do. Where they are allowed to participate and when do they step in etc.

Let us codify the current rules in force at least as a starting point!

thanks,
Dims

[dims]

cc @parispittman @RichiH (as developer reps)

[krook]

Thanks, Dims. I spoke to Joanna about this. To avoid making the CNCF Charter unnecessarily lengthy by including GB internal operational rules in them, we've addressed this by documenting the rules for alternates in materials that are now provided to GB members when they are onboarded to the GB.

[dims]

@krook so by documenting the rules for alternates in materials .. do our developer + kubernetes reps, do they get to specify an alternate or not? can you please explicitly clarify and state for the record?