Add scope of responsibility for TSC ("Define Node Core" cont.) #144

rvagg · 2016-09-22T12:23:07Z

Continuing on from #84 and #113. Here's my proposal for some wording to pin this stuff down. Fire away.

jasnell

Generally LGTM with a couple of nits

jasnell · 2016-09-22T14:34:24Z

README.md

+* https://github.com/nodejs/benchmarking
+* https://github.com/nodejs/readable-stream
+* https://github.com/nodejs/secrets (private, administered by build)
+* https://github.com/libuv/libuv (currently under Incubation)


nit: alphabetical order? Will make the list easier to curate later.

jasnell · 2016-09-22T14:36:37Z

README.md

+* https://github.com/nodejs/nan
+* https://github.com/nodejs/nodereport
+* https://github.com/nodejs/node-gyp
+


Where do repositories such as node-chakracore and http2 fit in? I'm thinking they should be handled as dependent projects.

done, tried to be pretty exhaustive in latest version

nebrius · 2016-09-22T19:40:27Z

README.md

+
+### Responsibilities
+
+In being responsible for these projects and resources, the TSC exercises autonomy to set up management and administrative structures for the purpose of:


We should also add a bullet point on community management that clarifies we have the ability to a) moderate harmful actions/spam/etc and b) elect people of our choosing to be collaborators/CTC members/TSC members/etc. Right now, I don't think either of these fall under the below points, and I don't think we want to surrender that autonomy.

Agreed. I was curious about adding something about the Moderation repo. Maybe we don't want to broadcast it's existence though.

I would prefer to avoid mentioning the moderation repo specifically, if only because we may switch to some other mechanism in the future that involves a different repo or something.

done, sort of, see latest version and let me know if you're happy with the wording

Fishrock123 · 2016-09-22T20:14:01Z

Seems good to me.

(Minus aforementioned nits)

williamkapke

Wow @rvagg this is great work. I really like it.

williamkapke · 2016-09-24T07:38:46Z

README.md

+
+Additional projects fall within the TSC's scope of responsibility which are dependents of Node.js Core in that they are required to plan, test, build, document and ship Node.js releases, yet _are significant enough to require independent management and administration_. These projects are located in the following repositories:
+
+* https://github.com/nodejs/nodejs.org


In my ongoing quest make sure the I18N groups get recognition for their hard work, can we add something like this to the end of this line: "and all the i18n sites"

they're not strictly i18n groups, some of them are just language interest groups, but I've worked that into the latest version

mhdawson · 2016-09-26T19:09:15Z

LGTM from me.

Fishrock123 · 2016-09-28T14:07:44Z

README.md

@@ -6,7 +6,61 @@ For more details read the [TSC Charter](https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/maste

 If your project is interested in joining the Node.js Foundation please read the [Project Lifecycle.md](./Project-Lifecycle.md) documentation.

+## TSC Scope of Responsibility
+
+**The TSC is responsible for Node.js Core project, a number of projects depended upon by Node.js Core and a number of projects adjacent to Node.js Core.**


Fishrock123 · 2016-09-28T14:08:39Z

README.md

+
+### Node.js Core
+
+Node.js Core is defined as the code project existing in the repository located at <https://github.com/nodejs/node> _minus_ the vendored projects included in the codebase, specifically those located in the [deps](https://github.com/nodejs/node/tree/master/deps) and [tools](https://github.com/nodejs/node/tree/master/tools) directories that are copied in from externally maintained repositories.


(which the node executable is built from)

Fishrock123 · 2016-09-28T14:12:20Z

lgtm with nits, let's do the "take it to the board thing" next board meeting!

williamkapke · 2016-11-17T03:40:44Z

@rvagg the Sept 22nd meeting, was the last time this was discussed which just said "we can work out the rest of the details on GitHub and then take it to the board."

Can you incorporate the nits and collect the final signoffs? We have started to say this has been finished-- but it isn't. :/

When is the next opportunity to take to the board then?

williamkapke · 2016-11-17T05:12:42Z

README.md

+* https://github.com/nodejs/docker-node
+* https://github.com/nodejs/benchmarking
+* https://github.com/nodejs/readable-stream
+* https://github.com/nodejs/secrets (private, administered by build)


by ~~build~~ the Build Working Group.

rvagg · 2016-11-17T11:19:43Z

Ah yes, I had planned on finishing this off before today's TSC meeting but I've failed .. again. Next board meeting is at Node Interactive, let's shoot for that.

rvagg · 2016-11-23T12:32:40Z

@nodejs/tsc see my latest revision, I did some reworking in ebd9d11. Mainly I tried to be pretty exhaustive in listing repos that we have, I've skipped a few that are in limbo and I'm unsure if we really want to list everything because some repos are obviously temporary or testing-grounds. I've got almost all of them now though. I've also listed how responsibility is delegated to the various groups, leaving the TSC with very little that it's directly responsible for (good!).

I got rid of an awkward category of project, the distinction was supposed to be "these projects are dependencies of core but don't have management structures around them" and "these projects are dependencies but they do have their own management structures". The line was a bit too hard to draw nicely so they're just in two categories now: "dependencies" and "adjacent projects" (i.e. everything else). Seems much more obvious now.

In the list of responsibilities I've added a couple of items in response to @nebrius' suggestions for moderation and managing governance/group-membership.

I'm going to get this onto the board meeting agenda for next week, I'll hand this version off for the preliminary meeting deck but will send an updated version before the meeting. So @nodejs/tsc, you have a few days to give feedback on this and sign-off! Then we can move forward, finally. /cc @Trott @williamkapke @joshgav @addaleax @mhdawson and anyone else who maintains an interest in these things (sorry if I've left you off the list!).

bnoordhuis

Basically LGTM.

bnoordhuis · 2016-11-23T12:55:00Z

README.md

+* https://github.com/nodejs/Intl — administration delegated to the Intl Working Group
+* https://github.com/nodejs/llnode — administration delegated to the Core Technical Committee
+* https://github.com/nodejs/nan — administration delegated to the Addon API Working Group
+* https://github.com/nodejs/node-addon-examples — administration delegated to the Addon API WorkingGroup)


Typo: s/WorkingGroup)/Working Group/

williamkapke · 2016-11-23T17:35:17Z

README.md

+* https://github.com/nodejs/education
+* https://github.com/nodejs/email — administration delegated to the Build Working Group
+* https://github.com/nodejs/evangelism — administration delegated to the Evangelism Working Group
+* https://github.com/nodejs/github-bot — administration delegated to the Core Technical Committee


It is delegated to the GitHub Bot Team ... but officially the TSC according to GOVERNANCE.md since it can cover more areas than the CTC does.

I would argue that this one is quickly becoming a dependent project if not already when you consider the labeling and backport work it does. It's valuable similar to how citgm is.

williamkapke · 2016-11-23T17:37:14Z

README.md

+* https://github.com/nodejs/email — administration delegated to the Build Working Group
+* https://github.com/nodejs/evangelism — administration delegated to the Evangelism Working Group
+* https://github.com/nodejs/github-bot — administration delegated to the Core Technical Committee
+* https://github.com/nodejs/help — administration delegated to the Core Technical Committee


This comment says Help belongs to the Evangelism Working Group

@williamkapke is this based on how it's managed? I haven't paid close attention to who actively administers it.

williamkapke · 2016-11-23T17:43:23Z

README.md

+These projects are located in the following repositories:
+
+* https://github.com/nodejs/build — administration delegated to the Build Working Group
+* https://github.com/nodejs/citgm — administration delegated to the Core Technical Committee


I'm probably wrong here- but I thought this was delegated to the Build Working Group

Ambiguous so I said CTC, could be Build, could be Testing, could even be LTS or it a whole new Smoke Testing group!

@thealphanerd what say you?

williamkapke · 2016-11-23T17:45:27Z

README.md

+* https://github.com/nodejs/CTC — administration delegated to the Core Technical Committee
+* https://github.com/nodejs/docker-node — administration delegated to the Docker Working Group
+* https://github.com/nodejs/http-parser — administration delegated to the Core Technical Committee
+* https://github.com/nodejs/LTS — administration delegated to the LTS Working Group


LTS isn't a Working Group ...yet

williamkapke · 2016-11-23T17:48:21Z

README.md

+* https://github.com/nodejs/testing — administration delegated to the Testing Working Group
+* _And_ various language and resource translation groups under https://github.com/nodejs/
+
+### Responsibilities


The is a bit confusing with the "## TSC Scope of Responsibility" section above. Consider consolidating.

Changed titles to be more clear

williamkapke · 2016-11-23T18:16:25Z

README.md

+* Creating new repositories and projects under the _nodejs_ GitHub organization as required
+* Setting overall technical direction for the Node.js Core project, including high-level goals and low-level specifics regarding features and functionality
+* Setting and maintaining appropriate standards for community discourse via the various mediums under TSC control
+* Setting and maintaining governance rules for the conduct and make-up of the TSC, CTC, Working Groups and other bodies under the TSC


To avoid the Top Down view of the Org- we could try to avoid the word "under"... instead use "within the TSC's domain" or similar.

joshgav

LGTM, thank you for collecting and organizing this Rod. One minor comment on delegation of llnode.

joshgav · 2016-11-23T18:58:49Z

README.md

+* https://github.com/nodejs/iojs.org — administration delegated to the Website Working Group
+* https://github.com/nodejs/installer — administration delegated to the Core Technical Committee
+* https://github.com/nodejs/Intl — administration delegated to the Intl Working Group
+* https://github.com/nodejs/llnode — administration delegated to the Core Technical Committee


I think this is managed by the Post-Mortem WG.

Can y'all clarify this please, /cc @indutny
I see it in GOVERNANCE.md (LICENSE.md says nodereport btw) but the GitHub permissions suggest that it's its own group. Should we fix GitHub to be nodejs/port-mortem? Or are there extra people involved in this that aren't in post-mortem?

mhdawson · 2016-11-23T22:19:33Z

README.md

+* https://github.com/nodejs/promises — administration delegated to the Promises Working Group
+* https://github.com/nodejs/readable-stream — administration delegated to the Streams Working Group
+* https://github.com/nodejs/summit
+* https://github.com/nodejs/testing — administration delegated to the Testing Working Group


probably need to add

https://github.com/nodejs/abi-stable-node - administration delegated to the API Working Group
https://github.com/nodejs/abi-stable-node-addon-examples - administration delegated to the API Working Group

rvagg · 2016-11-30T16:47:54Z

Hey all, I presented this to the board yesterday and it went down really well. We're all nicely aligned on everything.

The only thing that came up was the case of a project that the board wants to bring in and how that might be handled. An example of this right now is the Node.js Security Project, which has been largely negotiated by the executive on behalf of the board and we're just adopting it by default (we should formally sign off on that as a TSC assuming there are no disagreements!). If you think larger than that, though, things get interesting. There may be a situation where the Board wants to expand technical scope of the foundation but the existing TSC doesn't want to expand in that way.

So we have three obvious possible outcomes of a scope-expanding project coming in via the Board:

TSC agrees and expands its scope
TSC disagrees and Board doesn't force it
TSC disagrees and a new technical body is set up with its own TSC reporting directly to the board

I don't think that anything we have in this PR conflicts with any of that but I think it's worth noting at least that scope expansion can also happen at the instigation of the board and approval of the TSC.

Fishrock123 · 2016-11-30T16:50:43Z

Sounds good, do we just need to sign off on this now?

rvagg · 2016-11-30T16:52:32Z

@Fishrock123 yes, in our hands. I have some nits to finish off here but can't do that today but we can get this closed and move.

rvagg · 2017-01-12T11:49:55Z

pushed a new commit with outstanding nits addressed and a line that says: "If the Node.js Foundation Board wishes to adopt an existing project, it must seek agreement from the TSC that such adoption is appropriate and that any changes to scope that it entails are acceptable."

Ready for merging if everyone agrees with the current state.

williamkapke · 2017-01-12T17:42:51Z

README.md

@@ -24,10 +24,10 @@ These projects are located in the following repositories:

 * https://github.com/nodejs/build — administration delegated to the Build Working Group
 * https://github.com/nodejs/citgm — administration delegated to the Core Technical Committee
-* https://github.com/nodejs/CTC — administration delegated to the Core Technical Committee
+* https://github.com/nodejs/CTC — administration delegated to the Core Technical Committee, managed by the Smoke Testing Team


~~Maybe this change was supposed to be 1 line up (on CitGM)?~~

Yeah- I see the prior comment now. This needs to move up to CitGM.

jasnell · 2017-01-12T20:10:13Z

README.md

+* https://github.com/nodejs/evangelism — administration delegated to the Evangelism Working Group
+* https://github.com/nodejs/github-bot — administration delegated to the Core Technical Committee, managed by the GitHub Bot Team
+* https://github.com/nodejs/help — administration delegated to the Evangelism Working Group
+* https://github.com/nodejs/http — administration delegated to the HTTP Working Group


HTTP WG has been dechartered. This should fall back to CTC

nebrius

LGTM

rvagg · 2017-01-12T20:36:20Z

remaining nits fixed, last chance for review or this will land after the weekend, agreed in TSC meeting

mhdawson

LGTM

williamkapke · 2017-01-18T06:29:45Z

Please add node-inspect to the list now that it has been accepted

williamkapke · 2017-01-18T18:02:25Z

Also: they're working to rename nodereport to node-report.

nodejs/node-report#35

joshgav · 2017-01-23T21:23:28Z

README.md

+* https://github.com/nodejs/nodejs.org — administration delegated to the Website Working Group
+* https://github.com/nodejs/secrets — _private_, administration delegated to the Build Working Group
+* https://github.com/libuv/libuv — currently under Incubation
+


Per #190 need to add: https://github.com/nodejs/node-inspect - administration delegated to the Diagnostics Working Group

PR-URL: #144

joshgav · 2017-01-26T15:43:59Z

🎉 🎉 🎉

FYI for others: landed in 18e478d

rvagg added the tsc-agenda label Sep 22, 2016

rvagg mentioned this pull request Sep 22, 2016

Node.js Foundation Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting 2016-09-22 #143

Closed

jasnell approved these changes Sep 22, 2016

View reviewed changes

nebrius reviewed Sep 22, 2016

View reviewed changes

cjihrig approved these changes Sep 22, 2016

View reviewed changes

williamkapke approved these changes Sep 24, 2016

View reviewed changes

Fishrock123 reviewed Sep 28, 2016

View reviewed changes

rvagg mentioned this pull request Oct 6, 2016

Node.js Foundation Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting 2016-10-06 #152

Closed

williamkapke mentioned this pull request Nov 17, 2016

Define "Node.js core" - Mark II #113

Closed

williamkapke reviewed Nov 17, 2016

View reviewed changes

This was referenced Nov 17, 2016

Node.js Foundation Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting 2016-11-17 #167

Closed

Consider changing TSC membership structure. #146

Closed

add scope of responsibility for TSC

53d6f35

rvagg force-pushed the core-scope branch from a2d59cf to 54dcbce Compare November 23, 2016 12:22

scope tweakage

ebd9d11

rvagg force-pushed the core-scope branch from 54dcbce to ebd9d11 Compare November 23, 2016 12:29

bnoordhuis reviewed Nov 23, 2016

View reviewed changes

williamkapke suggested changes Nov 23, 2016

View reviewed changes

joshgav approved these changes Nov 23, 2016

View reviewed changes

mhdawson reviewed Nov 23, 2016

View reviewed changes

rvagg mentioned this pull request Dec 15, 2016

Node.js Foundation Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting 2016-12-15 #177

Closed

fix nits, add board project adoption note

2fd367f

rvagg mentioned this pull request Jan 12, 2017

Node.js Foundation Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting 2017-01-12 #194

Closed

williamkapke reviewed Jan 12, 2017

View reviewed changes

jasnell reviewed Jan 12, 2017

View reviewed changes

fixed nits and added some teams

64b1fdf

jasnell approved these changes Jan 12, 2017

View reviewed changes

nebrius approved these changes Jan 12, 2017

View reviewed changes

williamkapke approved these changes Jan 12, 2017

View reviewed changes

mhdawson approved these changes Jan 12, 2017

View reviewed changes

bnoordhuis approved these changes Jan 13, 2017

View reviewed changes

williamkapke mentioned this pull request Jan 18, 2017

Bring 'node-inspect' (CLI Debugger) under the Foundation #190

Closed

joshgav mentioned this pull request Jan 20, 2017

What IS this security initiative? nodejs/security-wg#11

Closed

joshgav reviewed Jan 23, 2017

View reviewed changes

rvagg added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 26, 2017

add scope of responsibility for TSC

18e478d

PR-URL: #144

rvagg closed this Jan 26, 2017

rvagg deleted the core-scope branch January 26, 2017 12:46

rvagg removed the tsc-agenda label Jan 26, 2017


		### Responsibilities

		In being responsible for these projects and resources, the TSC exercises autonomy to set up management and administrative structures for the purpose of:


		Additional projects fall within the TSC's scope of responsibility which are dependents of Node.js Core in that they are required to plan, test, build, document and ship Node.js releases, yet _are significant enough to require independent management and administration_. These projects are located in the following repositories:

		* https://github.com/nodejs/nodejs.org


		### Node.js Core

		Node.js Core is defined as the code project existing in the repository located at <https://github.com/nodejs/node> _minus_ the vendored projects included in the codebase, specifically those located in the [deps](https://github.com/nodejs/node/tree/master/deps) and [tools](https://github.com/nodejs/node/tree/master/tools) directories that are copied in from externally maintained repositories.

Add scope of responsibility for TSC ("Define Node Core" cont.) #144

Add scope of responsibility for TSC ("Define Node Core" cont.) #144

Conversation

rvagg commented Sep 22, 2016

jasnell left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nebrius Sep 22, 2016 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Fishrock123 commented Sep 22, 2016 • edited Loading

williamkapke left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mhdawson commented Sep 26, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Fishrock123 commented Sep 28, 2016

williamkapke commented Nov 17, 2016 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rvagg commented Nov 17, 2016

rvagg commented Nov 23, 2016

bnoordhuis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

joshgav left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rvagg commented Nov 30, 2016

Fishrock123 commented Nov 30, 2016

rvagg commented Nov 30, 2016

rvagg commented Jan 12, 2017

williamkapke Jan 12, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nebrius left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rvagg commented Jan 12, 2017

mhdawson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

williamkapke commented Jan 18, 2017

williamkapke commented Jan 18, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

joshgav commented Jan 26, 2017

nebrius Sep 22, 2016 •

edited

Loading

Fishrock123 commented Sep 22, 2016 •

edited

Loading

williamkapke commented Nov 17, 2016 •

edited

Loading

williamkapke Jan 12, 2017 •

edited

Loading