governance: remove target size for CTC #5879
Conversation
But there are 18 now. |
|
@ChALkeR Right. My thinking was: It's a target size, not an upper limit. Go for a modest, incremental move in the right direction. If there's consensus around |
|
The lower boundary of "50% group attendance" for consensus makes sense to me. My LGTM probably doesn't matter here, but I think this is the right approach. |
| However, the expected target is between 6 and 12, to ensure adequate | ||
| coverage of important areas of expertise, balanced with the ability to | ||
| However, the expected target is between 9 and 15 to ensure adequate | ||
| coverage of important areas of expertise balanced with the ability to | ||
| make decisions efficiently. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would just take the bound out entirely...
CTC seats are not time-limited. While there is no fixed size of the CTC,
it is expected to contain adequate membership to ensure coverage of
important areas of expertise with the ability to make decisions efficiently.
jasnell
added
the
meta
|
Based on @jasnell's suggestion, I removed the material about size of the CTC entirely. PTAL |
|
LGTM |
2 similar comments
|
LGTM |
|
LGTM |
|
@nodejs/ctc |
|
LGTM |
| @@ -64,10 +64,6 @@ A guide for Collaborators is maintained in | |||
| ## CTC Membership | |||
|
|
|||
| CTC seats are not time-limited. There is no fixed size of the CTC. | |||
| However, the expected target is between 6 and 12, to ensure adequate | |||
| coverage of important areas of expertise, balanced with the ability to | |||
| make decisions efficiently. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I Would keep in the
(Attempts to) ensure adequate coverage of important areas of expertise, balanced with the ability to make decisions efficiently.
Or something of the like.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Fishrock123 If others agree strongly with that, then sure. I took it out for three reasons, from least important to most important:
- All other things being equal, less text is better than more.
- I feel like what's stated there is a given and so doesn't need to be stated explicitly. Of course we're looking to cover all important areas of expertise. Of course we want to be able to operate efficiently.
- I also want to avoid the possible misunderstanding that things listed there are the only factors to be considered. Let's imagine the CTC were hypothetically composed of only Americans in San Francisco, Austin, and New York. Even if all areas of expertise were covered, and even if it hampers operational efficiency, it would (in this purely hypothetical situation) be worthwhile to seek out voices from other parts of the world. But that's not covered (or at least it isn't if you infer "important areas of expertise" to be strictly technical, which I suspect most readers do).
So those were my reasons, but again, if others feel strongly that it ought to remain, then that's fine. There are other considerations and that one sentence of text is not something I want to have a prolonged discussion about, certainly not at this time when all I'm really trying to do is fix the number of members part.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel like what's stated there is a given and so doesn't need to be stated explicitly. Of course we're looking to cover all important areas of expertise. Of course we want to be able to operate efficiently.
If it's not stated, it becomes assumptions. I don't have an immediate suggestion on how to make it better though, other than also covering "use-cases".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about:
There is no fixed size of the CTC. The goal is to ensure
adequate coverage of important areas of expertise and
diversity of representation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's always the option of some "including, but not limited to, X, Y, and Z" language....
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm restoring the original language and just removing the part about target size. We can alter the original language, I suppose, but hopefully it can be agreed that that would be a separate issue from simply removing the target sizes.
|
I've restored some text that @Fishrock123 and perhaps others thought shouldn't be removed. Effectively, this now only removes the target size information. If I can get a few LGTMs (repeat or new), that would be swell. |
| coverage of important areas of expertise, balanced with the ability to | ||
| make decisions efficiently. | ||
| CTC seats are not time-limited. There is no fixed size of the CTC. The CTC | ||
| should be of such a size as to ensure adequate coverage of important areas of |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
... should be of such a size and diversity to ensure... ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we want to add diversity as a consideration, I support that. But it was not in the original text and I think it should go in as a separate PR. This PR is for getting rid of the obsolete target size.
|
LGTM with a minor nit. |
Trott
changed the title
|
LGTM |
1 similar comment
|
LGTM |
|
Landed in bb28770 |
PR-URL: #5879 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com>
PR-URL: #5879 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com>
PR-URL: #5879 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com>
PR-URL: #5879 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com>
Pull Request check-list
make -j8 test(UNIX) orvcbuild test nosign(Windows) pass withthis change (including linting)?
test (or a benchmark) included?
existing APIs, or introduces new ones)?
Affected core subsystem(s)
doc
Description of change
CTC target size of 6 to 12 seems out of date. Proposing increase to 9 to 15.
Refs: #5866