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

❤ ️A new governance model for AMP #1

Merged
merged 4 commits into from Nov 27, 2018

Conversation

Projects
None yet
6 participants
@cramforce
Member

cramforce commented Sep 18, 2018

This is the proposal for a new governance model for AMP as announced on the blog.

Goals

For more details on the motivation, please see this blog post. Here is an excerpt from that post mentioning the goals:

  • Encourage a wider variety of voices at all levels of contribution, including code contributions, setting the future direction of AMP and deciding which features and bug fixes should be worked on. This also means ensuring that the voices of those who do not contribute with code, but are nonetheless impacted by AMP, get heard.
  • Make it more clear how an individual and a company can have a voice in AMP, from approving code changes to setting AMP's technical and product roadmap.
  • Avoid slowing down day-to-day work on AMP due to the governance model. The net effect of changes to the way people work on AMP should be neutral to positive in terms of productivity.
  • Learn from what's worked and what hasn't worked for other open source projects. To this end the AMP team talked to people from projects such as Node.js and Kubernetes, looked at governance philosophies from places like the JS Foundation and reviewed a wide variety of other open source and web standards governance documents.

Timeline

We’re looking forward to working with you all to refine the governance proposal, including at next week's AMP Contributor Summit. We encourage you to review and comment on the proposal and attend the design review that has been scheduled to discuss the proposal. The review period for the proposal will end on October 25, 2018 with a goal of implementing the new governance model shortly thereafter.

Housekeeping

Please use this PR primarily to discuss specific wording or to request small clarifications.

If you’d like to propose a bigger change or expect significant discussion, please instead create a new issue in this repository and post a link to the issue as a comment here. Moderators may move comment threads on this PR into issues if comment threads get too extensive.

Major changes will need to be discussed during the scheduled design review.

Please stay civil

When people care, discussions can sometimes become heated. We understand. But as always though, please stay respectful and courteous, and remember to abide by our code of conduct. Thank you! 🙏

This pull request was created in collaboration with @tobie, @mrjoro, and many others.

@mnot

This comment has been minimized.

mnot commented Sep 18, 2018

See #2.

@mnot

This comment has been minimized.

mnot commented Sep 18, 2018

... and #3.

@mnot

This comment has been minimized.

mnot commented Sep 18, 2018

... and finally (for now), #4. Thanks!

@triblondon

I welcome increased transparency and accountability from the AMP project. I think the policy could be improved in a few areas:

  • Define what AMP 'is', legally: Define the legal status of AMP. In the blog post accompanying this governance model, it says "Additionally, we’re exploring moving AMP to a foundation in the future". So currently, decisions made 'by AMP' are expressing the will of what entity? And when it does move to a foundation, of course it is equally important to document that structure.
  • Be transparent about funding: Again to quote the blog: "This is real work, and we want to pay for it if it isn’t covered by your day job". Who is 'we' and where does that money come from? I suggest that all individuals who work on AMP for more than 50% of their working hours, should be disclosed and funding sources indicated.
  • Include AMP's vision statement: There is a reference in the model to "AMP's vision and goals" but it is not explicitly called out or linked to.
  • Assuming that AMP's vision is as an expression of the future capabilities of the web platform, then it is a de-facto polyfill, and the governance policy should commit AMP to contributing to and supporting the development of the standards that it promotes, where there remains a gap between what is supported by AMP and what can be done without it.
  • Clarify whether participants in the AC should only be those who agree with the vision, or whether it can include those who don't. ie. does joining the AC or any other AMP group signal your agreement to the overall goals of the AMP project?
  • Expand the description of the AC's role to include detail on how exactly it advises the TSC. For example, can the AC issue written findings? If they do, does the TSC have to adhere to them?

It's a great start, and I'm looking forward to seeing the trend toward openness continue as AMP evolves!


* **End-users**. People who consume content distributed using the AMP format.

* **Owners**. People who are most familiar with a particular set of code and who have been granted the power (by Owners at a higher level) for approving changes to that code. AMP will use a system similar to [Chromium's OWNERS](https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs/code_reviews.md#OWNERS-files) system. The AMP Project will follow Chromium's [expectation for owners](https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs/code_reviews.md#expectations-of-owners).

This comment has been minimized.

@triblondon

triblondon Sep 18, 2018

"Similar to" seems a little vague for a governance policy

This comment has been minimized.

@cramforce

cramforce Sep 20, 2018

Member

We're working on the actual software. @mrjoro Maybe we can at least say when we can define this more definitely?

This comment has been minimized.

@mrjoro

mrjoro Sep 20, 2018

Member

@rsimha and @erwinmombay are working on getting the details of how this will work published soon (well before the governance review period is done). We'll add a link here when it's done.

Arguably we could just leave this line out of the governance proposal, since it's not really about the governance exactly, and we can leave it to the discretion of the TSC how to actually enforce this.

We should also fix the parenthetical to be "(by the TSC or Owners at a higher level)" since the TSC is the one that provides this power.

This comment has been minimized.

@cramforce

cramforce Sep 20, 2018

Member

There may also be different policies in place between repositories. The owner process makes sense for amphtml but other lower traffic repositories may opt for something simpler.

This comment has been minimized.

@tobie

tobie Sep 20, 2018

Contributor

Agree with @mrjoro that the specifics of how Owners are implemented should be left to the discretion of the TSC. It's still useful to have the high-level concept detailed in the same document as Contributors and Collaborator so that the progress ladder is easily discoverable and understandable.

Might be worth prefixing it with "In certain repositories…" or the like, to adress @cramforce's point.

This comment has been minimized.

@tobie

tobie Sep 20, 2018

Contributor

And while we're at it, we should probably fold in and adapt the requirements listed on the Chromium website and reference that page informationally only (i.e. in a non-binding way).

@cramforce

This comment has been minimized.

Member

cramforce commented Sep 18, 2018

Quick response on the funding side: We don't have this mapped out and it will depend on the individual requirements. What we have been discussing is for Google to fund an the AMP OpenCollective project out of which the AC would fund its members. With a transition to foundation this would then be taken over by it naturally.

The first bullet is a dupe of #2. We should probably use the incorporation of the vision, and AC-TSC relationship into their own issue. The membership related points are related to #4, or at least should be spelled out while answering that issue.

@cramforce

This comment has been minimized.

Member

cramforce commented Sep 19, 2018

4dc7e25 links to vision/mission, roadmap, guidelines.

@azimrazvi azimrazvi referenced this pull request Sep 28, 2018

Closed

AMP Pages Ranking Down #6


* **Technical Steering Committee (TSC).** A group of people who set AMP's technical & product direction.

* **Working Group Facilitator.** A member of the Working Group designated by the TSC who is responsible for facilitating the consensus-based decision making process and acting as a representative to the TSC from the Working Group.

This comment has been minimized.

@tobie

tobie Oct 10, 2018

Contributor

The AC and TSC will also have a facilitator. The language needs to account for this.

This comment has been minimized.

@cramforce

cramforce Oct 11, 2018

Member

Changed this to just be "Facilitator" since the more specific roles are discussed under the respective sections.

* Membership on the Advisory Committee is not time limited.
* The target size of the Advisory Committee is 6-12 members, but there is no fixed size.
* Once established the Advisory Committee sets its own membership through the consensus-based process.
* No more than ⅓ of the Advisory Committee should be from one employer.

This comment has been minimized.

@tobie

tobie Oct 10, 2018

Contributor

Do we need to specify here what happens in case this ratio is no longer respected due to affiliation change of a member, or do we want to leave that as the AC's prerogative?

This comment has been minimized.

@cramforce

cramforce Oct 11, 2018

Member

I think we should not define this. This bullet point here is invariant to that.

@cramforce

This comment has been minimized.

Member

cramforce commented Oct 10, 2018

From review: Add the goals from the PR description into the README of the meta repo


* **End-users**. People who consume content distributed using the AMP format.

* **Owners**. People who are most familiar with a particular set of code and who have been granted the power (by Owners at a higher level) for approving changes to that code. AMP will use a system similar to [Chromium's OWNERS](https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs/code_reviews.md#OWNERS-files) system. The AMP Project will follow Chromium's [expectation for owners](https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs/code_reviews.md#expectations-of-owners).

This comment has been minimized.

@erwinmombay

erwinmombay Oct 10, 2018

Member

@cramforce can we clarify here that owners will be a "github collaborator".

also my question earlier in hangout, do collaborators also get "master merge" access

my current implementation is that, they do not have "master merge" access and that they only turn a status check to green and a "collaborator" (one who has approver status) merges the PR for them if they are not a "collaborator"

This comment has been minimized.

@tobie

tobie Oct 10, 2018

Contributor

also my question earlier in hangout, do collaborators also get "master merge" access

No they shouldn't.

my current implementation is that, they do not have "master merge" access and that they only turn a status check to green and a "collaborator" (one who has approver status) merges the PR for them if they are not a "collaborator"

Yeah, that sounds good.

These are technicalities, however, which you might want to be able to change as needed without having to go through a governance document modification. We want to make sure not too specify this in too much details here.

@mrjoro

This comment has been minimized.

Member

mrjoro commented Oct 10, 2018

Notes from the design review discussing this proposal are here: ampproject/amphtml#17924

@tobie tobie referenced this pull request Oct 10, 2018

Open

Transparency around funding #7

@tobie

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

tobie commented Oct 10, 2018

@triblondon: opened issues #7, #8, #9, #10, added your comment to issue #2, and your last bullet point has already been fixed by 4dc7e25.

@cramforce

Pushed some clarifications to the glossary.

* Membership on the Advisory Committee is not time limited.
* The target size of the Advisory Committee is 6-12 members, but there is no fixed size.
* Once established the Advisory Committee sets its own membership through the consensus-based process.
* No more than ⅓ of the Advisory Committee should be from one employer.

This comment has been minimized.

@cramforce

cramforce Oct 11, 2018

Member

I think we should not define this. This bullet point here is invariant to that.


* **Advisory Committee (AC).** A group of people with representation from a variety of AMP's constituencies including Users, End-users and Collaborators who provide advice to the Technical Steering Committee.

* **Collaborators.** People who have been granted write-access to ampproject repositories.

This comment has been minimized.

@erwinmombay

erwinmombay Oct 15, 2018

Member

@cramforce can we clarify here if collaborators will have merge access? (since a person can be a github collaborator but not part of the amphtml master mergers group which you need to be in to have merge access)

This comment has been minimized.

@cramforce

cramforce Oct 30, 2018

Member

Clarified. The amphtml master mergers concept is going away and is being replaced by the Owners mechanism.

@tobie tobie referenced this pull request Oct 21, 2018

Open

AMP #44

@mrjoro

mrjoro approved these changes Nov 27, 2018

The proposal looks good to me, and I think this is ready to merge and go into effect. Thanks @cramforce and the other people who have provided feedback through this process.

@cramforce

This comment has been minimized.

Member

cramforce commented Nov 27, 2018

@mrjoro Thanks! Agree, and looking forward to the first TSC meeting on Thursday!

@cramforce cramforce merged commit 7affcca into ampproject:master Nov 27, 2018

1 check passed

cla/google All necessary CLAs are signed

@cramforce cramforce deleted the cramforce:new-governance branch Nov 27, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment