governance: expand use of CTC issue tracker #8945

Trott · 2016-10-06T03:59:22Z

Checklist

documentation is changed or added
commit message follows commit guidelines

Affected core subsystem(s)

Description of change

As the CTC grows and has representation from more time zones, we need to
embrace asynchronous decision making and rely less on the actual
meeting. This change is a proposal for that which, ironically, probably
has to be approved at a meeting.

/cc @nodejs/ctc

thefourtheye · 2016-10-06T04:20:09Z

GOVERNANCE.md

+[the CTC issue tracker](https://github.com/nodejs/CTC/issues). The process in
+the issue tracker is:
+
+* A CTC member opens an issue explaining the propoosal/issue and @-mentions


thefourtheye · 2016-10-06T04:21:30Z

GOVERNANCE.md

@@ -112,7 +107,7 @@ Typical activities of a CTC member include:
 Note that CTC members are also Collaborators and therefore typically perform
 Collaborator activities as well.

-### CTC Meetings
+### CTC Meetings 


Is there a whitespace at the end of the line?

addaleax

SGTM!

bnoordhuis

LGTM modulo what @thefourtheye pointed out.

bnoordhuis · 2016-10-06T10:54:07Z

GOVERNANCE.md

-individuals are identified by the CTC and their addition as
-Collaborators is discussed during the weekly CTC meeting.
+Individuals identified by the CTC as making significant and valuable
+contributions are made Collaborators and given commit-access to the project.


Tiny nit but isn't it spelled 'commit access', no dash?

mhdawson · 2016-10-06T13:11:17Z

LGTM subject to comments identified by others.

cjihrig

LGTM. Again, with the nits addressed.

Fishrock123 · 2016-10-06T14:16:11Z

GOVERNANCE.md

+* A CTC member opens an issue explaining the propoosal/issue and @-mentions
+  @nodejs/ctc.
+* After 72 hours, if there are two or more `LGTM`s from other CTC members and no
+  explicit opposition from other CTC members, then the proposal is approved.


Seems a bit tight for ensuring consensus imo

Seems a bit tight for ensuring consensus imo

What would seem a better duration in your opinion? I chose 72 hours because that seemed like a duration for an issue on the tracker that was more likely to actually map to real consensus than a conversation at a meeting attended by maybe 10 of the CTC's 18 members. Arguably, that's not a high bar, but it's what we have now, so that's what I used as an approximate metric. Totally open to other ideas. What did you have in mind?

jasnell · 2016-10-06T18:26:14Z

This LGTM with nits addressed.
I have been wondering if a separate ctc-review label would be useful for distinguishing between things that just require CTC review vs. things that need to be escalated to a meeting.

As the CTC grows and has representation from more time zones, we need to embrace asynchronous decision making and rely less on the actual meeting. This change is a proposal for that which, ironically, probably has to be approved at a meeting.

Trott · 2016-10-07T02:32:13Z

Nits addressed, rebased, force pushed.

jasnell · 2016-10-10T18:03:31Z

Does this still need to be on the ctc-agenda?

Trott · 2016-10-10T23:57:02Z

Does this still need to be on the ctc-agenda?

Yes.

Trott · 2016-10-12T03:25:28Z

It would be great if CTC folks could read the new paragraph and the bullet points and weighed in before the meeting. I'd be happy to not have to bring this to the meeting.

CTC folks who have not offered an opinion yet:

rvagg · 2016-10-12T10:16:40Z

ctc-review might be a good idea, however it's really at the discretion of the meeting chair whether something goes on the agenda or not and some things can be left off as required.

This lgtm for now. I'm hesitant with the 72-hours two-only requirement for passing major things, but we can only see how it goes and adjust if enough of us are unhappy with the process. My main concern is simply with the workload of GitHub notifications and I'm constantly behind these days. I'll just have to make sure I tune in to nodejs/ctc tagged items!

evanlucas · 2016-10-12T13:17:59Z

lgtm. I'd be +1 to a ctc-review label. I think it would make it a lot easier to see what issues need attention.

ChALkeR · 2016-10-12T16:19:52Z

+1 in general, but with splitting a «CTC should take a look at this» with «this escalated to voting».

The moment when it has been escalated to voting should be clearly visible. That is probably a separate thing from ctc-review (review needed by the CTC) and ctc-agenda (consensus-seeking). ctc-vote, perhaps?

Currently ctc-review and ctc-agenda labels are present or proposed. Could we codify both of those?

misterdjules

LGTM

MylesBorins · 2016-10-12T16:58:58Z

I want to echo @rvagg's hesitation on the 72 hour + 2 ctc minimum for moving things forward. Obviously this will be a case by case basis... but if something is controversial I do thing we need to have a bit of a wider consensus on it. I think a hard rule here may miss the point, but I feel we may need more time + opinions on it. I'm +1 on everything but that nit.

ofrobots · 2016-10-12T22:10:13Z

LGTM w/ the same hesitation as @thealphanerd and @rvagg.

Trott · 2016-10-13T04:02:07Z

ctc-review might be a good idea, however it's really at the discretion of the meeting chair whether something goes on the agenda or not and some things can be left off as required.

That may be true in practice, but it is in contradiction of our GOVERNANCE.md doc which says of the CTC agenda:

The moderator and the CTC cannot veto or remove items.

Trott · 2016-10-13T04:13:00Z

I've created the ctc-review label. Documenting it in GOVERNANCE.md will be in a subsequent pull request.

Trott · 2016-10-13T04:14:22Z

I count at least 11 (and possibly as many as 14) approvals from current CTC members.

The approvals as I see it come from:

addaleax
bnoordhuis
cjihrig
evanlucas
jasnell
mhdawson
misterdjules
rvagg
shigeki
trott

There are also maybe-approvals-I'm-not-sure from:

chalker
ofrobots
thealphanerd

So I think this can land.

I'll create a ctc-agenda issue for discussion of how this is working or not working. We can probably leave that on the meeting agenda for two or three weeks. If nothing else, people can give feedback on whether 72 hours is working or not.

As the CTC grows and has representation from more time zones, we need to embrace asynchronous decision making and rely less on the actual meeting. This change is a proposal for that which, ironically, probably has to be approved at a meeting. PR-URL: nodejs#8945 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net> Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Julien Gilli <jgilli@nodejs.org> Reviewed-By: Rod Vagg <rod@vagg.org> Reviewed-By: Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@ohtsu.org>

Trott · 2016-10-13T04:18:40Z

Landed in b899140. Thanks, everyone.

As the CTC grows and has representation from more time zones, we need to embrace asynchronous decision making and rely less on the actual meeting. This change is a proposal for that which, ironically, probably has to be approved at a meeting. PR-URL: #8945 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net> Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Julien Gilli <jgilli@nodejs.org> Reviewed-By: Rod Vagg <rod@vagg.org> Reviewed-By: Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@ohtsu.org>

Trott added doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. meta Issues and PRs related to the general management of the project. ctc-agenda labels Oct 6, 2016

nodejs-github-bot added the meta Issues and PRs related to the general management of the project. label Oct 6, 2016

thefourtheye reviewed Oct 6, 2016

View reviewed changes

addaleax approved these changes Oct 6, 2016

View reviewed changes

bnoordhuis approved these changes Oct 6, 2016

View reviewed changes

cjihrig approved these changes Oct 6, 2016

View reviewed changes

Fishrock123 reviewed Oct 6, 2016

View reviewed changes

Trott added 2 commits October 6, 2016 19:31

governance: expand use of CTC issue tracker

b247618

As the CTC grows and has representation from more time zones, we need to embrace asynchronous decision making and rely less on the actual meeting. This change is a proposal for that which, ironically, probably has to be approved at a meeting.

squash: nits

a7485d1

Trott force-pushed the ctc-agenda branch from c0ad262 to a7485d1 Compare October 7, 2016 02:32

Trott mentioned this pull request Oct 11, 2016

Node.js Foundation Core Technical Committee (CTC) Meeting 2016-10-12 #9020

Closed

thefourtheye approved these changes Oct 12, 2016

View reviewed changes

shigeki approved these changes Oct 12, 2016

View reviewed changes

misterdjules approved these changes Oct 12, 2016

View reviewed changes

Trott closed this Oct 13, 2016

Trott mentioned this pull request Oct 13, 2016

Review how ctc-review process is working nodejs/CTC#20

Closed

ChALkeR mentioned this pull request Oct 13, 2016

Consider changing TSC membership structure. nodejs/TSC#146

Closed

Trott removed the ctc-agenda label Oct 20, 2016

MylesBorins added land-on-v4.x labels Nov 11, 2016

This was referenced Nov 22, 2016

v6.9.2 proposal #9735

Merged

v4.7.0 proposal #9736

Merged

Trott deleted the ctc-agenda branch January 13, 2022 22:44

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

governance: expand use of CTC issue tracker #8945

governance: expand use of CTC issue tracker #8945

Trott commented Oct 6, 2016

thefourtheye Oct 6, 2016

thefourtheye Oct 6, 2016

addaleax left a comment

bnoordhuis left a comment

bnoordhuis Oct 6, 2016

mhdawson commented Oct 6, 2016

cjihrig left a comment

Fishrock123 Oct 6, 2016

Trott Oct 7, 2016

jasnell commented Oct 6, 2016

Trott commented Oct 7, 2016

jasnell commented Oct 10, 2016

Trott commented Oct 10, 2016

Trott commented Oct 12, 2016

rvagg commented Oct 12, 2016

evanlucas commented Oct 12, 2016

ChALkeR commented Oct 12, 2016 •

edited

Loading

misterdjules left a comment

MylesBorins commented Oct 12, 2016

ofrobots commented Oct 12, 2016

Trott commented Oct 13, 2016

Trott commented Oct 13, 2016

Trott commented Oct 13, 2016

Trott commented Oct 13, 2016

governance: expand use of CTC issue tracker #8945

governance: expand use of CTC issue tracker #8945

Conversation

Trott commented Oct 6, 2016

Checklist

Affected core subsystem(s)

Description of change

thefourtheye Oct 6, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

thefourtheye Oct 6, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

addaleax left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bnoordhuis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bnoordhuis Oct 6, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mhdawson commented Oct 6, 2016

cjihrig left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Fishrock123 Oct 6, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Trott Oct 7, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jasnell commented Oct 6, 2016

Trott commented Oct 7, 2016

jasnell commented Oct 10, 2016

Trott commented Oct 10, 2016

Trott commented Oct 12, 2016

rvagg commented Oct 12, 2016

evanlucas commented Oct 12, 2016

ChALkeR commented Oct 12, 2016 • edited Loading

misterdjules left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

MylesBorins commented Oct 12, 2016

ofrobots commented Oct 12, 2016

Trott commented Oct 13, 2016

Trott commented Oct 13, 2016

Trott commented Oct 13, 2016

Trott commented Oct 13, 2016

ChALkeR commented Oct 12, 2016 •

edited

Loading