A suggestion on governance changes

[atheriel]

One thing I don't see mentioned in the letter but is tied up with a call for improved governance: in my view, CRAN should establish a formal channel by which community members can become CRAN administrators -- perhaps with a shadow program or mentorship obligation.

[MilesMcBain]

Yeah. Good point. By contrast, the R foundation lays out this out very clearly in its charter.

I'll try to include this in the petition. Do you have any examples I could point to?

[atheriel]

I'm very inspired by the success of the shadow program for Kubernetes releases, which has churned out dozens of new highly-informed release team members in the last few years.

[MilesMcBain]

Wow that example is very inspiring, thankyou!

[atheriel]

@MilesMcBain Yes, I heard a couple interviews with Kubernetes release leads and it really made me realize how much better governance could be in the R ecosystem.

[wlandau]

On reflection, I think governance precedes most of the 11 service-related implementation-level reforms proposed in the letter. CRAN is not run sustainably. If it continues to be managed by a small number of volunteers long-term, some of whom are emeritus, we face severe problems a couple of decades down the road. The incidents we see now are likely to be symptoms. But in a way, governance is the most sensitive issue of all, and I do not see the discussion going well if we directly petition CRAN about it. So as I mention in #27 (comment), it might be best to initiate dialogue with different folks in equally high places.

[atheriel]

@wlandau I too think that direct discussion is a more likely route to change. But I also think starting those discussions with a very concrete set of goals and proposals in mind is a good idea, and that's one thing this kind of format provides.