Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Governance document #456

Merged
merged 79 commits into from
Nov 28, 2023
Merged

Conversation

Relequestual
Copy link
Member

Related to #325

During the review and revise process, PR 325 split content from the Charter document into a Governance document. Working out what should live in which was challenging.

Ultimatly, the two files needed to be added in two separate PRs to help streamline the review process.

See #325 (comment)

I made a number of changes to migrate some content back to the Charter document from the Governance document, with assistance from @Julian.
I then removed the Governance document, capturing that file and all the same changes from this PR, into a new PR (pending), to simplify and streamline this PR.

Otherwise, the history is maintained. This seemed easeir and more history preserving than any alternatives that came to mind.

Relequestual and others added 30 commits February 10, 2023 15:21
…k to discussion while the document is being drafted
…estions. Out-of-scope only has a suggestion to be left blank.
Add that quorum is required for a vote by default.
Use full "Any Decision Record" naming for ADR

Co-authored-by: Greg Dennis <gregsdennis@yahoo.com>
No one suggests linting isn't critical.
@Relequestual Relequestual changed the title Governance doc Governance document Jul 25, 2023
@Relequestual Relequestual mentioned this pull request Jul 25, 2023
16 tasks
@Relequestual Relequestual requested a review from a team July 25, 2023 12:34
Copy link
Collaborator

@benjagm benjagm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for putting this together. Great work.

Copy link
Contributor

@mcollina mcollina left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm

GOVERNANCE.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
GOVERNANCE.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Jason Desrosiers <jdesrosi@gmail.com>
Copy link
Collaborator

@benjagm benjagm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have been thinking lately about this and I do think that we should add a clause to limit the number of members of the TSC working for the same employer to make sure there is balance and equity in all decisions and also to make sure there is a positive external perception of all decision.

It is true that we are a small group, however I do think this is the right time to adopt an approach like this.

GOVERNANCE.md Show resolved Hide resolved
@benjagm
Copy link
Collaborator

benjagm commented Oct 5, 2023

@Relequestual I think we should add the role&responsibilities of the Executive director/chair. An example here

@Relequestual
Copy link
Member Author

@Relequestual I think we should add the role&responsibilities of the Executive director/chair. An example here

I've made a new issue for this so we can proceed to test the governance process, as this will take some time. We may also want to defer defining the role given the current climate.

@Relequestual Relequestual dismissed benjagm’s stale review November 28, 2023 14:17

Moved concern to a new issue: #548

@Relequestual
Copy link
Member Author

I'm merging this PR containing the governance process, in order to allow us to trial run/test the process for #521, per #423.

The notice that this governance process is not ratified remains intact at the top of the document.

While this PR has not itself received lots of reviews, its contense has by proxy of #325. The content of this PR was pulled out from #325.

This does not mean the current document is set in stone, but more that we almost all agree it's a good starting point, and we should evaluate how it functions in practice in order to correct or replace it.

@Relequestual Relequestual merged commit 48e6d9c into json-schema-org:main Nov 28, 2023
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants