MSC1779: Proposal for Open Governance for Matrix.org (v2) #1779
Conversation
ara4n
changed the title
Co-Authored-By: ara4n <matthew@arasphere.net>
…rix-doc into matthew/msc1779
this was originally a todo for MSC1779, but belongs better in proposals.rst
| Guardians may resign at any time, with notification to the board. | ||
|
|
||
| Guardians may be removed due to serious breach of the guiding principles with | ||
| approval by 75% of the other current Guardians, or if absent from 3 consecutive |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For the spec core team the 75% is inclusive of the member to be removed, for Guardians 75% applies only to the other Guardians. Would it be better to make the sense the same (and adjust the % accordingly).
(I don't feel strongly on this, just seemed like a strange inconsistency)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i think it stems from the dynamics being different, with fewer guardians than spec core team.
| "Greater benefit" is defined as maximising: | ||
|
|
||
| * the number of Matrix-native end-users reachable on the open Matrix network. | ||
| * the number of regular users on the Matrix network (e.g. 30-day retained federated users). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I first read 'regular' to mean normal, but I think it is intended to mean someone who regularly accesses the service. This could confuse others.
mscbot
added
finished-final-comment-period
and removed
final-comment-period
|
The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the review above, is now complete. |
| Please see [MSC1779](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/blob/matthew/msc1779/proposals/1779-open-governance.md) | ||
| for full details of the project's Guiding Principles. | ||
|
|
||
| Technical notes |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I hope these technical notes (and the rest as well) can be merged soon! (I occasionally try to find them on the live site, only to eventually remember they're only in this PR.)
|
Trying to refer to this as the "accepted" governance model, and cannot - when does this get merged? |
|
The final steps on this are:
As of today we have the final legal drafts of the updated AoA and Rules, so at the expense of abusing this PR, I suggest we now switch back to reviewing Google Docs one last time. The changes should only be of interest to those of a legal persuasion. The only significant (deliberate) change is to have clarified that membership of the Code Core Team (i.e. commit access to the public github.com/matrix-org repositories) should technically be approved/disapproved by 75% of the members of the Spec Core Team (to avoid commit access being left hanging as completely ill-defined). If anyone has concerns, please yell here or comment on the Google Docs below, otherwise I'll take silence as approval. Rules: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MhqsuIUxPc7Vf_y8D250mKZlLeQS6E39DPY6Azpc2NY Updated AoA: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lGl2_WjMC-0mwBWFb9ewGhD3r0VYtlvKCzo0NigQBhc |
turt2live
added
proposal-pr
spec-pr-in-review
|
@ara4n was there any updates for this, I think you mentioned stuff had progressed? |
|
it got somewhat lost behind security hell. however it got unblocked last week, the asset transfer happened; all the other bulletpoints should now follow next week. |
|
I'm going to merge this, so I can link to it from the upcoming foundation website copy |
turt2live
added
merged
Rendered
Some of the spec-process specific clarifications ended up being refactored in to
proposals_intro.rst: please see the Guiding Principles and Technical Notes section here: RenderedObsoletes #1318