WIP - Improvements toward Addressing #173 #240
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| @@ -1,31 +1,58 @@ | ||||||||||
| # Working Group Member Expectations | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| All participants in OpenJS Foundation projects and Working Groups must follow the [Code of Conduct](https://github.com/openjs-foundation/cross-project-council/blob/HEAD/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md). Standards Working Group Members are expected to participate in discussions related to OpenJS Foundation Projects, open source software, and the standards and specifications that bear on them. They are also expected to educate and mentor newcomers to the field of standardization, lending support and advice to projects pursuing specification development. Finally, they are expected to help export OpenJS Foundation values to the standards communities they work with in order to make standards bodies nicer places to do work. | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| There are further expectations for [OpenJS Foundation Representatives](https://github.com/openjs-foundation/standards/blob/main/MEMBER_REPRESENTATION.md) to standards and liaison organizations (hereafter called Representatives). | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| ## Expectations for Representatives | ||||||||||
| It is understood that Representatives may form opinions based on the needs of their employers, personal projects, or other experiences. While representing the Foundation, however, Representatives should participate based on what is in the best interest of the Foundation and its projects. If there is a conflict (e.g. between the Foundation, its projects, and/or personal or company positions), the Representative should be explicit about which perspective they are speaking from given the issue at hand. | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| Representatives must also conduct themselves in a professional and respectful manner. General guidelines include: | ||||||||||
| * Avoid invoking multiple "roles" when discussing challenging topics. This helps avoid [appeals to authority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority) or the allusion that one's opinion is fully shared by multiple groups. | ||||||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. I'm a little confused about this first bullet point. My initial reaction was to try and spin it the other way round, e.g.: "Always be specific about whose position you are representing." But that then is just a repeat of the first paragraph of this section. Furthermore, if you are representing the consensus of multiple groups, or there is documented consensus that you can point to, that seems valuable information to share. So I guess what you're alluding to is listing your titles and then trying to pass personal opinion as somehow shared by these different organizations? That's just so unethical. I don't even know where to begin. Could we maybe reaffirm (1) being explicit about whose position is being represented, (2) not speculating about other group's position, (3) never, in any circumstances trying to pass personal or employer-held positions as group consensus? There was a problem hiding this comment. This addresses the importance of avoiding "pulling rank" and misrepresenting others' positions. You're right that there's nothing wrong with "documented consensus that you can point to" and this can help clarify things and/or prevent bikeshedding. |
||||||||||
| * If conflict arises, aim to remediate first and then discuss. If other members of the group express concerns about actions, acknowledge their concerns by stopping the actions in question and then discuss within the group to come to a common agreement. | ||||||||||
| * Treat all community members with respect, consideration, and highest standards of ethical conduct. Build trust by clearly communicating and keeping your promises. | ||||||||||
| * Be the model of accountability and leadership. Provide the example of ownership and stewardship that everyone can follow to success. | ||||||||||
| * Commit to ongoing development and governance best practices. Contribute good ideas, successful policies, better workflows, and other lessons learned back to the Working Group. | ||||||||||
| * Follow the contribution guidelines of the organization or project to which you are contributing. | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| ### Building Consensus | ||||||||||
| Representatives may belong to one or more projects in the Foundation, and as such should feel free to discuss topics with each relevant group. In the case of conflicting opinions between Foundation projects, the Representative may raise an issue to the Standards Working Group for support. | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| Representatives or Working Group Members may also call for an ad-hoc meeting to discuss controversial topics, or topics wherein a general consensus view has not yet emerged. Representatives are strongly encouraged to schedule ad-hoc meetings to refine thinking and inform stakeholders prior to plenary or liaison meetings where they will be discussed. Representatives should focus on developing and sharing the consensus of the Foundation and the projects impacted by the topic at hand. | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| ### Representatives and Decision-making | ||||||||||
| Some of OpenJS Foundation's memberships and liaison relationships permit Representatives to participate in their formal decision-making processes (e.g. voting). Representatives should disclose any vote to the Standards Working Group, and provide a recommendation. If the Representative has an objection or plans to cast a dissenting vote, they should express it as early as possible to ensure there is ample time to discuss and reach consensus on the intended approach. | ||||||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. I think it's important to make a distinction between whether the person casting the vote is operating as a representative of OpenJSF in that particular vote or in a personal capacity. For example, W3C's AC rep voting in an AC vote is representing OpenJSF's position and should honor the group's consensus. If they dissent and refuse to cast that vote, they should resign from them position or be demoted. On the other hand, if the same AC rep is then further elected in an individual capacity to say an AB or TAG role, votes they may cast in that context aren't subject to this group consensus. Actually, this group might not even be privy to the content of the vote. There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
There was a problem hiding this comment. That a good step forward. I'd be a little more prescriptive:
Suggested change
I feel that this covers dissent (as the WG won't reach consensus in case the Rep disagrees with the majority). There was a problem hiding this comment. I'm a bit confused. While wearing the Foundation hat, we've already discussed and decided on how objections work - brought to Standards beforehand, and if it can't be for any reason, best judgement can be used and may need defending at the next Standards meeting. While not representing the Foundation, an individual is under no obligation to interact with the Standards group about objections, even if they're a member of the Standards group. There was a problem hiding this comment. I think I understand the source of confusion. Following some of the discussion and proposed changes in #239, I was using the term Representative in a much narrower way, i.e. to specifically mean when a person is representing OpenJSF (e.g. "@jorydotcom is OpenJSF's W3C Representative") but not when a person is operating in a working group in more of an Invited Expert capacity. Would it make sense to distinguish these roles more precisely? I think @rginn used the term subject matter expert (SME) in a related issue which is more common than Invited Expert. Would that work for folks? There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, I didn't see this documented anywhere. To be clear, I much prefer this as a solution. I think trusting that people will do the right thing and be proactive about building consensus if the topic feels more contentious is the right thing to do. However, I don't think it is acceptable for a Representative of the OpenJSF in the narrow sense (i.e. not an SME), to vote against the consensus of the WG (and if the WG can't get to consensus, the Rep should abstain).
100%. We should also make very clear that the persons is acting in an SME capacity in that case and not representing OpenJSF. There was a problem hiding this comment. Sorry, your last comment didn't show up until I finished writing the above.
I think we're saying the same thing but don't agree on terms. I'm suggesting there are two kinds of roles:
There was a problem hiding this comment. Awesome. I wasn't aware of that thread. Thanks for sharing. I don't really care what the terms are either. It would just be good if we could avoid them creating more confusion by overlapping with common terms already used by SDOs (e.g. delegate which means completely different things for Ecma and OSI). There was a problem hiding this comment. it does seem like we need a mapping table 😄 |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| ### Responsibilities of Representatives | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| Representatives are expected to: | ||||||||||
| * Abide by the code of conduct of both the Open JS Foundation _and_ the liaison organization in which they are participating. | ||||||||||
| * Keep the [OpenJS Foundation Standards Calendar](https://calendar.openjsf.org) current with upcoming liaison meetings, conferences, events, or other deadlines. | ||||||||||
| * Notify the Standards Working Group of any discussion points, issues, topics, or opportunities for collaboration by opening an issue on this repo. | ||||||||||
| * Gather input from other Members, OpenJS Foundation Staff, Project Maintainers, and community members on topics and discussion points relevant to OpenJS Foundation and its projects. | ||||||||||
| * Provide liaison update reports to the Standards Working Group following liaison meetings. In the case that there are multiple Representatives participating in a meeting, only one needs to provide an update. | ||||||||||
| * Help develop and circulate positions on key issues from among relevant OpenJS Foundation projects and stakeholders. Where differences of opinion exist among Foundation participants, Representatives should work to establish a consensus opinion, and/or represent the opposing viewpoints as clearly as possible. | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| ### Becoming a Representative | ||||||||||
| Community members who would like to officially represent the Foundation or their Project to an external organization should file an issue with the following information: | ||||||||||
| * The OpenJS Foundation's current relationship to this standards organization | ||||||||||
| * The scope of the work they plan to participate in (specific technical committees, proposals, interest groups, etc.) | ||||||||||
| * The relevance and potential impact of the work to OpenJS Foundation Projects | ||||||||||
| * Any participation costs (e.g. membership dues) needed | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| Note that new liaisons or memberships must be discussed with OpenJS Foundation Executive Director Robin Ginn and must be approved by the Board of Directors. | ||||||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
My understanding is this role is actually delegated to the CPC via its charter (see § 5.15)
There was a problem hiding this comment. Update this: this group is empowered to decide whether to participate; ED will be required if a signature on legal agreement; Board approval may be required if $$ is required for the membership. |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| ## Guidance for Attending External Standards Meetings | ||||||||||
| Representatives may attend any meeting(s) of the organization they liaise with on behalf of the Foundation. Meetings should be disclosed and later summarized as outlined in [Responsibilities of Representatives](/MEMBER_EXPECTATIONS.md#responsibilities-of-representatives). In-person meetings requiring Travel Fund support should be disclosed as early as possible; note that travel support must be requested in advance and is not guaranteed. | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| From time to time, non-Representative community members may be asked to participate in a standards meeting as a function of their OpenJS Foundation project, for example as an invited expert. Whether in-person or virtual, any OpenJS community member who will be representing the viewpoint of their Foundation project to an external body should inform the Standards Working Group by filing an issue on this repo. Taking this step helps the Standards Working Group and OpenJS Foundation staff better support you and your project. Please include: | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| * The meeting or series of meetings you wish to attend | ||||||||||
| * Topic(s) or proposals you'll be discussing | ||||||||||
| * The date and location of the meeting or meetings | ||||||||||
| * If they will be attending in person or remotely | ||||||||||
| * If you plan to request travel assistance | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| Non-Representative community members shall not claim to represent the Foundation without prior approval of the Standards Working Group, and should not claim to wholly represent the viewpoint of a Foundation project without the agreement of the project's TSC or leadership group. | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| **In all cases, it is your responsibility to ensure you have the consent of your employer to participate in any standards organization or project.** | ||||||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could we consider starting off by saying that consensus of the Standards WG allows a Representative to represent the position of OpenJSF as a whole on a particular topic? And that conversely, unless Rep has said consensus, you're not in a capacity to represent OpenJSF's position on that topic?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
tl;dr: this would effectively prevent participation
This would be a very high bar to meet. Organization representatives are practically always representing their organization's positions on topics. For example, where participants in W3C working groups or delegates in Ecma committees represent an organization, those are the terms of their participation. Strictly speaking, they do not participate in a personal capacity at all, so, at least in matters pertaining to normative topics, they are unable to represent a personal position, and as such are exclusively representing the position of their organization.
The OpenJS standards group does not have time to get consensus on all topics that may come up at standards bodies, and would very often find it difficult to even get a quorum of members that could speak to a given proposal. We also typically only know topics one or two weeks in advance, if that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
having read some of your comments further below, it sounds like you may be referring to things at, for example, the AC (W3C) or GA (Ecma) level rather than at the WG or TC level. I think this section on member representation of the OpenJS standards group refers to participation in WGs/TCs.
in any case, it's good to be on the same page one way or the other