A governance board in an open source project typically defines how the community operates—its decision-making rules, roles, conflict resolution, and contribution expectations—soC(“Outline the project's terms of engagement”) is correct. In large cloud-native projects (Kubernetes being a prime example), clear governance is essential to coordinate many contributors, companies, and stakeholders. Governance establishes the “rules of the road” that keep collaboration productive and fair.
“Terms of engagement” commonly includes: how maintainers are selected, how proposals are reviewed (e.g., enhancement processes), how meetings and SIGs operate, what constitutes consensus, how voting works when consensus fails, and what code-of-conduct expectations apply. It also defines escalation and dispute resolution paths so technical disagreements don’t become community-breaking conflicts. In other words, governance is about ensuring the project has durable, transparent processes that outlive any individual contributor and support vendor-neutral decision making.
Option B (reviewing pull requests) is usually the responsibility of maintainers and SIG owners, not a governance board. The governance body may define the structure that empowers maintainers, but it generally does not do day-to-day code review. Option A (marketing strategy) is often handled by foundations, steering committees, or separate outreach groups, not governance boards as their primary responsibility. Option D (defining the license) is usually decided early and may be influenced by a foundation or legal process; while governance can shape legal/policy direction, the core governance responsibility is broader community operating rules rather than selecting a license.
In cloud-native ecosystems, strong governance supports sustainability: it encourages contributions, protects neutrality, and provides predictable processes for evolution. Therefore, the best verified answer isC.
=========
