[all] Add new helm-charts admins

[SuperQ]

Hello existing @prometheus-community/helm-charts-admins

I would like to propose expanding the admins of this repo to additional maintainers. Over the last couple years we have had several new active maintainers. I would propose they would be excellent new admins for the helm-charts repo.

[SuperQ]

CC @DrFaust92 @zanhsieh @zeritti @jkroepke

If you would like to become part of the admin team, please reply YES.

[jkroepke]

YES

[zeritti]

YES

[DrFaust92]

YES

[SuperQ]

@scottrigby @monotek @torstenwalter, as current admins, please respond with APPROVE if you would like to invite these new admins.

[zanhsieh]

YES

[torstenwalter]

@monotek @scottrigby I'd be in favour of adding new admins.

[scottrigby]

I think it's good to have new folks who have been active. Just making sure, is it clear to everyone what the admin responsibilities are?

An important note is a number of charts in this repo are seen as trusted infrastructure for many production clusters around the world. We've been very careful to ensure this repo is set up securely, and all administrative changes are transparently communicated and documented (for example, see https://github.com/prometheus-community/helm-charts/blob/main/PROCESSES.md#github-settings). Is this something you all agree to and do you have a good communication protocol in place before making administrative changes to the repo?

[jkroepke]

Hi @scottrigby

I can just talk for myself. I'm aware of the criticality of this repository. I have got advanced experience as maintainer on other community projects, e.g. windows_exporter or personal project like helm-secrets.

@SuperQ recently created a Slack Channel related to helm-charts in order to establish a communication channel.

However, the responsibilities of an admin are not entirely clear. I understand that an admin is responsible for onboarding new maintainers, managing new Helm charts, and handling other repository-related settings. However, there are no documented rules or criteria for accepting new maintainers or charts.

Additionally, there don't appear to be any formal decision-making rules. As far as I can tell, decisions are currently made through informal consensus, which I find acceptable since it is still a community-driven repository.

[SuperQ]

Technically, as the project is part of the Prometheus Community, it falls under the Prometheus Governance rules.

But none of these really conflict with how an individual project/repo wants to conduct technical decision making.

[scottrigby]

@jkroepke, thanks, definitely satisfies what i was asking 👍

Just for due diligence, it would be good to hear a response to this question from the others nominated too. @SuperQ you may have had that chat with them elsewhere-do you mind if we move that here or hear from the others here too?

Re slack, where is that-do you want to invite us to that as well?

[SuperQ]

The slack channel is on the CNCF Slack, listed on https://prometheus.io/community/

[DrFaust92]

Makes sense to me, similar to other maintainers I have several projects that are widely used and lots of companies production depends on those in the terraform space.

The aforementioned slack channel (prom-helm-charts) sounds like a great place to update on changes/get consensus

[SuperQ]

@scottrigby @monotek @torstenwalter, since there's no formal process for adding new admins we have a couple simple options we could use here.

• Majority vote
• Rough consensus

For a majority vote, how about replying to the thread with APPROVE @username?

For rough consensus, we can give this as a week and if nobody objects to specific users, they can be added.

[scottrigby]

APPROVE @jkroepke @DrFaust92
waiting to hear from others re #5137 (comment)
gotcha, will see you all in CNCF slack 😄

[scottrigby]

@SuperQ Re slack, from contributing guide there is CNCF #prometheus & #prometheus-dev
@DrFaust92 there's also #prometheus-helm-charts, created just a few days ago. Guessing this is the one you mean? If that's a new place for this repo, we should prob add to https://github.com/prometheus-community/helm-charts/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md

[SuperQ]

Yes, I created #prometheus-helm-charts on the CNCF slack for a more dedicated topic area.

[scottrigby]

@SuperQ re decision making, I like the idea of generally following how prometheus governance works—rough consensus for most things, but majority for new maintainers and governance changes (if we had it) etc. For this repo there are @prometheus-community/helm-charts-admins, and @prometheus-community/helm-charts-maintainers. I think admins can do the above, while charts maintainers can handle each chart how that chart's maintainers see fit (unless there's ever a need to escalate to admins). WDYT?

[scottrigby]

Yes, I created #prometheus-helm-charts on the CNCF slack for a more dedicated topic area.

SGTM, thanks! 👏 I joined

[scottrigby]

@SuperQ re decision making, I like the idea of generally following how prometheus governance works—rough consensus for most things, but majority for new maintainers and governance changes (if we had it) etc. For this repo there are @prometheus-community/helm-charts-admins, and @prometheus-community/helm-charts-maintainers. I think admins can do the above, while charts maintainers can handle each chart how that chart's maintainers see fit (unless there's ever a need to escalate to admins). WDYT?

I'd be down to include something like this in the https://github.com/prometheus-community/helm-charts/blob/main/PROCESSES.md doc if you think it would help clarify for future. Fun note is we've gotten on pretty well without this, so IMO we could keep it pretty simple, in the same spirit as the rest. If it helps, we could change the filename to GOVERNANCE.md, and just move the GitHub settings documentation into a separate file

[SuperQ]

As long as it doesn't conflict with the official governance, I don't see an issue.

FYI, Prometheus-Team is working on a new iteration of the official governance that should improve things.

[zeritti]

Hello, @scottrigby, and apologies for my coming a bit late. I have maintained a few charts in this repository for some time now. I also contribute occasionally in other projects related to Helm charts and microservices. As I maintain and support Kubernetes clusters in various conditions, I also choose to support users of the repository's charts whenever I can.

You mention specific documents in your previous comments. Maintaining the core reprository's documents and processes also is in my opinion something that certainly falls under the admins' responsibility and regular activities - probably the main ones. Another area is innovation, e.g. workflows improvements, quality and security properties and indicators of the project and its artefacts (I like what OpenSSF does in this respect, actually). I understand all of this must result from a consensus amongst the repository admins, and drawing from the Prometheus project makes sense to me. The topic of inactive maintainers should also be addressed regularly. Could the Prometheus project's stance apply?

A maintainer with no project activity for a year is considered to have resigned

[monotek]

APPROVE for @jkroepke

To be honest I haven't worked together with the other guys so far. Have seen the activity on this repo though.

[SuperQ]

Ok, that's 2/3 approval for @jkroepke. I will start the onboarding process.

[jkroepke]

Thanks to everyone!

[jkroepke]

I review a ton of PRs from @DrFaust92, and the quality meets my expectations. However, before becoming an admin, I would like to recommend becoming a maintainer first. Maybe I miss something, but I can't find the user on the CODEOWNERS files.