Repository navigation
Proposal to form a Governance Working Group #383
Description
Governance is a hard topic that requires research and iteration. It is political, people work, far from the technical work many of our collaborators are here for. The project has grown immensely over the last couple years and we are at an inflection point where we need to put in the time and effort to research solutions and bring a proposal before the TSC to be ratified.
At Collab Summit 2017, Sara Novotny shared how the Kubernetes project bootstrapped their governance process. One of the key details of that process was the Special Interest Group (SIG, analogous to our Working Groups) created by their Steering Committee, empowered and entrusted with creating the proposal. I think a similar process would benefit us at this time.
Proposed strategy:
- Invite a small team (3-5 people) who have the interests and skillset to represent us
- Confirm that they have time
- Ensure we have diverse representation amongst the individuals participating
- Seek out advisors to support these efforts if there are capabilities and/or representation gaps
- Empower them to work on our behalf
- Align on the acceptance criteria up-front
- Set expectations for timeline and sharing progress
Activity
dshaw commentedon Oct 15, 2017
@mhdawson This is the "tsc-agenda" item I suggested. Process feedback and guidance appreciated.
mcollina commentedon Oct 15, 2017
I am 👍 to this proposal. I would like to be part of the effort, but I will be sporadically available between now and December, and I cannot guarantee consistent output.
jasnell commentedon Oct 15, 2017
I'm +1 on this and would definitely be willing to participate in the effort.
mhdawson commentedon Oct 16, 2017
+1 and I'm willing to participate.
geek commentedon Oct 16, 2017
Great idea. We should place limits on the number of representatives who can participate from a single company. Otherwise we risk having a governance proposal that favors the dominant participants.
MylesBorins commentedon Oct 16, 2017
I have very mixed feelings about this. I think having a temporary interest group to come up with some definitive governance suggestions is a positive thing to do, but I am concerned that a working group could have the affect of removing governance responsibilities from the TSC.
At Node Interactive we discussed putting together more specific guidelines around the expectations of a member of the TSC, and involvement in governance is one of those expectations.
I have been advocating for finding ways to further empower our collaborators to have more control over the technical management of the project, if we are able to be successful in this there should not be a need for individuals to be on the TSC for purely technical reasons.
dshaw commentedon Oct 16, 2017
In the Kubernetes case, they chose to create a group that terminated its mandate at the completion of the initial governance work. We can choose to go that route. We also may want to consider a broader charter for our needs.
I held a role in High School student government called "Parliamentarian". The responsibility of this role was to be well versed in the established procedures and facilitate debate and decision making.
Care taking and assessing governance process and procedures does not necessarily equate to the actions required by project leaders to represent, administer, and decide.
rvagg commentedon Oct 18, 2017
Who is "us" in here? What is the scope of "governance" in this context and how broad are the stakeholders that would make an "us"?
Depending on scope, "3-5 people" might be a challenge to get proper representation.
I'd like clarity on what kind of empowerment is being proposed here. "empowered and entrusted with creating the proposal" sounds a bit fishy because nobody needs to be empowered or entrusted to make proposals, if you have a proposal then bring it! This seems like a pre-blessing on whatever they produce and I'd like to see clarity that it's not. Whatever the results of such a process it it's going to need broad buy-in to avoid further division.
dshaw commentedon Oct 18, 2017
@rvagg The need for broad buy-in to the outcome and the heavy investment of time and effort are exactly why I am recommending that the TSC put in some effort up front to establish a committee of folks who can research, iterate and present a proposal for ratification.
sarahnovotny commentedon Oct 18, 2017
I am also happy to participate in whatever way is useful to node.js.
Fishrock123 commentedon Oct 18, 2017
Do keep in mind: we are already past initial governance work, by two years at that.
MylesBorins commentedon Oct 18, 2017
I would like to propose that we plan for a co-located in person multi-day meeting to discuss governance goals and steps to get us towards.
Any member of the committee who is unable to attend a colocation in person could attend digitally
Current suggested locations are Google NYC + Google Munich. We could theoretically also do something at Google in SF / Mountain View to cover the west coast.
MylesBorins commentedon Oct 18, 2017
I would like to propose re-naming this effort as a
Node.js Governance Working Session. It should include the entire TSC and invited observers. I apologize for the bike shedding on this but I think the framing here is very important. Framing it as a working session open to all TSC members, and a responsibility of all TSC members is extremely important to ensure that everyone can remain engaged.edit: The idea is that this would be ongoing. Perhaps run every other week with current TSC meeting
refack commentedon Oct 18, 2017
I was confused by the terminology as well. Who's the "us" who's the "them", and does this issue fall directly under the TSC privy? I keep thinking of the TSC as the Technical steering committee, and this seems orthogonal to Technical.
IMHO having a SIG that is not comprised by TSC members, but rather by a "diverse representation amongst the individuals participating" is better way to go.
P.S. I would rather this thread be shelved, and moved to
nodejs/nodeboth for visibility, and because this repo has somewhat of a deterring effect on community members, and even Collaborators.12 remaining items
mcollina commentedon Oct 26, 2017
I'm willing to partecipate if I am available.
hackygolucky commentedon Oct 26, 2017
I think I'm a little confused just because there's been a lot of folks mentioned, but the scope of this is just TSC governance, yes?
jasnell commentedon Oct 26, 2017
Yes, TSC governance.
All... I've expanded the doodle out to include more dates and times across the next few weeks, keeping in mind that several of us are going to be tied up at NodeConfEU in just over a week. If you have already weighed in, please update your availability.
ping @nodejs/tsc
MylesBorins commentedon Oct 26, 2017
@jasnell would you be open to making a new doodle that has time zones? I have a fear that it isn't obvious that it is pst only and will lead to miscommunication
dshaw commentedon Oct 27, 2017
Thank you, @jasnell. Updated my availability.
https://doodle.com/poll/imwnmz98uad846p9
Fishrock123 commentedon Nov 1, 2017
Just updated mine.
MylesBorins commentedon Nov 14, 2017
@jasnell any word on a date for this?
MylesBorins commentedon Nov 15, 2017
On monday I head to asia for two weeks making my availabiltiy a bit harder to lock down
I believe @mcollina is about to leave town as well.
@jasnell please let me know if you want me to pick up scheduling this meeting
jasnell commentedon Nov 15, 2017
Go for it. My availability is quickly dwindling down to nothing as well
Fishrock123 commentedon Nov 15, 2017
Removing from the agenda as there is no progress to discuss.
dshaw commentedon Dec 6, 2017
@MylesBorins Would you like to try to kick this offer before the end of the year?
MylesBorins commentedon Dec 11, 2017
@dshaw in a previous TSC meeting it was decided that we didn't need to move forward with this in the immediate future. I think it makes sense to kick off an initial meeting in the new year when people are back from various vacations. Perhaps we can start a call for a date now?
jasnell commentedon Feb 17, 2018
This appears to have stalled. Closing for now. Can reopen if any progress is made on moving forward on this.