Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
❤ ️A new governance model for AMP #1
This is the proposal for a new governance model for AMP as announced on the blog.
For more details on the motivation, please see this blog post. Here is an excerpt from that post mentioning the goals:
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.
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!
referenced this pull request
Sep 18, 2018
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!
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.