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

meta: merge the TSC and CTC back into a single entity #317

Merged
merged 4 commits into from Aug 29, 2017

Conversation

@jasnell
Member

jasnell commented Aug 22, 2017

Merge the CTC and TSC back into a single body. Effectively dissolves the CTC and merges it's existing membership into to the TSC.

Not covered by this PR: Once this goes through, I propose that a new election for the TSC Chair and TSC Director positions should be held to reflect the consensus of the larger body.

This requires sign off from both the @nodejs/tsc and @nodejs/ctc members.

@addaleax, @MylesBorins and @Fishrock123 ... you will need to decide if your resignation from the TSC would still apply if this goes through since all three of you are currently still members of the CTC.

@MylesBorins

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MylesBorins

MylesBorins Aug 22, 2017

Member

+1 you have my support.

I am more than happy to be a part of the new committee. Thank you for putting this together

Member

MylesBorins commented Aug 22, 2017

+1 you have my support.

I am more than happy to be a part of the new committee. Thank you for putting this together

@mcollina

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mcollina

mcollina Aug 22, 2017

Member

LGTM

Member

mcollina commented Aug 22, 2017

LGTM

@indutny

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@indutny

indutny Aug 22, 2017

Member

LGTM

Member

indutny commented Aug 22, 2017

LGTM

Show outdated Hide outdated TSC-Charter.md Outdated
@evanlucas

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@evanlucas

evanlucas Aug 22, 2017

Member

LGTM. I support this

Member

evanlucas commented Aug 22, 2017

LGTM. I support this

@Fishrock123

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Fishrock123

Fishrock123 Aug 22, 2017

Member

I resigned from the TSC as it stands today, not from the CTC.

I support this, I think it would be better for everyone than the TSC before or after yesterday.

Member

Fishrock123 commented Aug 22, 2017

I resigned from the TSC as it stands today, not from the CTC.

I support this, I think it would be better for everyone than the TSC before or after yesterday.

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasnell

jasnell Aug 22, 2017

Member

@nodejs/ctc members. Voicing support for this is fine, but using the Approve/Request Changes workflow is better. This action requires sign off from both the CTC and TSC.

@Fishrock123 ... you and @addaleax would both need to make clear indications about whether your resignation from the TSC would continue to apply after this merge. Otherwise, you both both automatically added back on to the TSC once this landed.

Member

jasnell commented Aug 22, 2017

@nodejs/ctc members. Voicing support for this is fine, but using the Approve/Request Changes workflow is better. This action requires sign off from both the CTC and TSC.

@Fishrock123 ... you and @addaleax would both need to make clear indications about whether your resignation from the TSC would continue to apply after this merge. Otherwise, you both both automatically added back on to the TSC once this landed.

@Fishrock123

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Fishrock123

Fishrock123 Aug 22, 2017

Member

I thought I made that clear but: I resigned from the, as it stands today, pre-merge (as it may be) TSC.

A post merge TSC will not be the same body and, as CTC members, I expect that we would be part of that merge.

Member

Fishrock123 commented Aug 22, 2017

I thought I made that clear but: I resigned from the, as it stands today, pre-merge (as it may be) TSC.

A post merge TSC will not be the same body and, as CTC members, I expect that we would be part of that merge.

@addaleax

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@addaleax

addaleax Aug 22, 2017

Member

The same goes for me.

Member

addaleax commented Aug 22, 2017

The same goes for me.

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasnell

jasnell Aug 22, 2017

Member

It wasn't clear based on your original statement. Thank you for clarifying. We would need @addaleax to also make her own statement. Thank you @addaleax ... messages crossed.

Member

jasnell commented Aug 22, 2017

It wasn't clear based on your original statement. Thank you for clarifying. We would need @addaleax to also make her own statement. Thank you @addaleax ... messages crossed.

@Fishrock123

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Fishrock123

Fishrock123 Aug 22, 2017

Member

I suspect the same will also go for Myles.

As he may not be around, I think the only reasonable and fair option (in the case of a merge) (to begin with) would be to merge the groups as they stand at the time of the merge and then let people act as they would for these sort of things.

Edit: ah, thanks for pointing out that he already commented.

Member

Fishrock123 commented Aug 22, 2017

I suspect the same will also go for Myles.

As he may not be around, I think the only reasonable and fair option (in the case of a merge) (to begin with) would be to merge the groups as they stand at the time of the merge and then let people act as they would for these sort of things.

Edit: ah, thanks for pointing out that he already commented.

@ljharb

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment

ljharb commented Aug 22, 2017

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasnell

jasnell Aug 22, 2017

Member

ah right... I forgot momentarily that myles had also resigned.

I do not believe that the action should be automatic given that, presumably, there is (A) a reason y'all resigned and (B) the circumstances leading to those resignations will not have changed given that (C) even if the individual in question voluntarily resigns from the TSC today, they are also a member of the CTC and would also automatically be made a member of the merged TSC again, which -- presumably, would put us right back in the original position with no forward progress made.

Therefore, I prefer for the intention of those of you who have resigned to be very specifically stated going in.

Member

jasnell commented Aug 22, 2017

ah right... I forgot momentarily that myles had also resigned.

I do not believe that the action should be automatic given that, presumably, there is (A) a reason y'all resigned and (B) the circumstances leading to those resignations will not have changed given that (C) even if the individual in question voluntarily resigns from the TSC today, they are also a member of the CTC and would also automatically be made a member of the merged TSC again, which -- presumably, would put us right back in the original position with no forward progress made.

Therefore, I prefer for the intention of those of you who have resigned to be very specifically stated going in.

@fhinkel

Lgtm

@mhdawson

LGTM

Show outdated Hide outdated BasePolicies/Charter.md Outdated
@stephenburgess8

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@stephenburgess8

stephenburgess8 Aug 22, 2017

First comment at Node 🙌 In #219 a reference to CTC is added to Github-Org-Management-Policy.md. You may want to change that here if it is merged first. I'm learning a lot from reading these docs, thanks.

EDIT: added why I am bringing it up.

stephenburgess8 commented Aug 22, 2017

First comment at Node 🙌 In #219 a reference to CTC is added to Github-Org-Management-Policy.md. You may want to change that here if it is merged first. I'm learning a lot from reading these docs, thanks.

EDIT: added why I am bringing it up.

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasnell

jasnell Aug 22, 2017

Member

@stephenburgess8 ... Yes, such references would be updated. there are lots of PRs here with lots of moving pieces and there would be reconciliation required.

Member

jasnell commented Aug 22, 2017

@stephenburgess8 ... Yes, such references would be updated. there are lots of PRs here with lots of moving pieces and there would be reconciliation required.

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasnell

jasnell Aug 22, 2017

Member

btw, welcome :-)

Member

jasnell commented Aug 22, 2017

btw, welcome :-)

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasnell

jasnell Aug 23, 2017

Member

Ping @nodejs/ctc and @nodejs/tsc members... please weigh in on this. For those of you who have already weighed in / signed off, thank you. Ideally we would have at least a simple majority of CTC/TSC members signing off before progressing with this. However, as per our process, if there are no objections posted within a reasonable period of time, I will assume there is consent and will get this landed.

Member

jasnell commented Aug 23, 2017

Ping @nodejs/ctc and @nodejs/tsc members... please weigh in on this. For those of you who have already weighed in / signed off, thank you. Ideally we would have at least a simple majority of CTC/TSC members signing off before progressing with this. However, as per our process, if there are no objections posted within a reasonable period of time, I will assume there is consent and will get this landed.

Show outdated Hide outdated README.md Outdated
Show outdated Hide outdated README.md Outdated
Show outdated Hide outdated README.md Outdated
Show outdated Hide outdated README.md Outdated
Show outdated Hide outdated README.md Outdated
Show outdated Hide outdated README.md Outdated
Show outdated Hide outdated TSC-Charter.md Outdated
Show outdated Hide outdated WORKING_GROUPS.md Outdated
Show outdated Hide outdated WORKING_GROUPS.md Outdated
### i18n
The i18n Working Groups handle more than just translations. They

This comment has been minimized.

@Trott

Trott Aug 23, 2017

Member

Might need to clarify whether this is treated as one WG with many teams, or if it constitutes 40 or whatever separate Working Groups. The latter might be a problem for some proposals we have for governance right now, like the one that allows a % of WGs to vacate a TSC decision, or the one that gives individual WGs seats on the TSC.

@Trott

Trott Aug 23, 2017

Member

Might need to clarify whether this is treated as one WG with many teams, or if it constitutes 40 or whatever separate Working Groups. The latter might be a problem for some proposals we have for governance right now, like the one that allows a % of WGs to vacate a TSC decision, or the one that gives individual WGs seats on the TSC.

This comment has been minimized.

@jasnell

jasnell Aug 24, 2017

Member

I'm actually leaning in the direction of asking the CommComm to take over stewardship of the i18n working groups... See nodejs/community-committee#114

@jasnell

jasnell Aug 24, 2017

Member

I'm actually leaning in the direction of asking the CommComm to take over stewardship of the i18n working groups... See nodejs/community-committee#114

This comment has been minimized.

@Trott

Trott Aug 24, 2017

Member

Great idea. The TSC/CTC doesn't pay a whole lot of attention to those groups. And active people in those groups may be a good fit for CommComm so there can be some...uh...(buzzword alert! look away!) synergy.

@Trott

Trott Aug 24, 2017

Member

Great idea. The TSC/CTC doesn't pay a whole lot of attention to those groups. And active people in those groups may be a good fit for CommComm so there can be some...uh...(buzzword alert! look away!) synergy.

@Trott

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Trott

Trott Aug 23, 2017

Member

Needs a rebase.

Member

Trott commented Aug 23, 2017

Needs a rebase.

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasnell

jasnell Aug 24, 2017

Member

@Trott... updated!

Member

jasnell commented Aug 24, 2017

@Trott... updated!

@Trott

Trott approved these changes Aug 24, 2017

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasnell

jasnell Aug 24, 2017

Member

@nodejs/ctc @nodejs/tsc ... I will give this PR until Monday. If there are no objections I will consider that to mean there is consensus and will get this landed. As soon as that happens, the TSC and CTC will be one body again.

Member

jasnell commented Aug 24, 2017

@nodejs/ctc @nodejs/tsc ... I will give this PR until Monday. If there are no objections I will consider that to mean there is consensus and will get this landed. As soon as that happens, the TSC and CTC will be one body again.

@Trott

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Trott

Trott Aug 24, 2017

Member

@nodejs/ctc @nodejs/tsc ... I will give this PR until Monday. If there are no objections I will consider that to mean there is consensus and will get this landed. As soon as that happens, the TSC and CTC will be one body again.

Wouldn't the changes to the TSC Charter doc require Board approval? If so, you can't really land those changes until that happens, no? Maybe split that one doc's changes out into a separate PR? None of the other changes depend on that one.

Actually, looking at the changes to the TSC Charter more closely, the language doesn't actually change anything IMO. It's more explicit, which is nice, but nothing changes (assuming a member can only vote no, vote yes, or abstain).

Member

Trott commented Aug 24, 2017

@nodejs/ctc @nodejs/tsc ... I will give this PR until Monday. If there are no objections I will consider that to mean there is consensus and will get this landed. As soon as that happens, the TSC and CTC will be one body again.

Wouldn't the changes to the TSC Charter doc require Board approval? If so, you can't really land those changes until that happens, no? Maybe split that one doc's changes out into a separate PR? None of the other changes depend on that one.

Actually, looking at the changes to the TSC Charter more closely, the language doesn't actually change anything IMO. It's more explicit, which is nice, but nothing changes (assuming a member can only vote no, vote yes, or abstain).

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasnell

jasnell Aug 24, 2017

Member

Yep, we can pull those out and put them in the other PR

Member

jasnell commented Aug 24, 2017

Yep, we can pull those out and put them in the other PR

@Trott

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Trott

Trott Aug 24, 2017

Member

Immediate concerns if this happens:

  • Does the new body adopt the current TSC meeting schedule or the current CTC meeting schedule? I'd argue the current CTC meeting schedule (with rotating meeting times to accommodate a wide array of time zones) is probably better-suited for a group this global.

  • Who is the chair of the new group? Obvious possibilities are Michael Dawson (current TSC chair) and me (current CTC chair). Regardless, I imagine one of the first orders of business will be to select a chair, so it probably doesn't matter that much.

Member

Trott commented Aug 24, 2017

Immediate concerns if this happens:

  • Does the new body adopt the current TSC meeting schedule or the current CTC meeting schedule? I'd argue the current CTC meeting schedule (with rotating meeting times to accommodate a wide array of time zones) is probably better-suited for a group this global.

  • Who is the chair of the new group? Obvious possibilities are Michael Dawson (current TSC chair) and me (current CTC chair). Regardless, I imagine one of the first orders of business will be to select a chair, so it probably doesn't matter that much.

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasnell

jasnell Aug 24, 2017

Member

I am calling for a new Chair and Director election once the two come back together. I would suggest that in the interim, you and Michael be considered co-chairs.

I would assume the current CTC meeting schedule would be in effect.

Member

jasnell commented Aug 24, 2017

I am calling for a new Chair and Director election once the two come back together. I would suggest that in the interim, you and Michael be considered co-chairs.

I would assume the current CTC meeting schedule would be in effect.

@isaacs

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@isaacs

isaacs Aug 25, 2017

Speaking as a mostly-outsider to all this, I do have some concerns about merging the TSC and CTC, though it seems clear from talking to people who have a better idea of what's going on, that it's the right call at least in the short term.

The reason (that I'd heard) for splitting out the CTC from the TSC in the first place was that "node core" is really just one very specialized aspect of what this foundation does. Along with marketing, evangelism, events, documentation, inclusivity, i18n, etc., "core" should be "just another working group". Having the core technical committee be in charge of effectively all aspects of the governance skews the project towards a problematic "just focus on the code" mentality, which marginalizes other important aspects of the project (eventually resulting in a lower quality and quantity of code contributions!) That made a lot of sense to me, and it seems like that goal was not fully achieved.

It may be premature to try to address this, but I'd really like to see a path forward where "leadership of the project" and "coding node core" are not seen as identical jobs, or necessarily done by the same people. It still strikes me as a nice structure to have a TSC that is the "holder of the values", and tasked with ratifying and connecting WGs, and a CTC that is the WG assigned with merging patches in nodejs/node.

And again, all that being said, I am confident that the current CTC has people who are committed to doing right by this project, and can learn from their experience to design a TSC/CTC structure that is more effective, sustainable, and reflective of the values of the Node.js community.

isaacs commented Aug 25, 2017

Speaking as a mostly-outsider to all this, I do have some concerns about merging the TSC and CTC, though it seems clear from talking to people who have a better idea of what's going on, that it's the right call at least in the short term.

The reason (that I'd heard) for splitting out the CTC from the TSC in the first place was that "node core" is really just one very specialized aspect of what this foundation does. Along with marketing, evangelism, events, documentation, inclusivity, i18n, etc., "core" should be "just another working group". Having the core technical committee be in charge of effectively all aspects of the governance skews the project towards a problematic "just focus on the code" mentality, which marginalizes other important aspects of the project (eventually resulting in a lower quality and quantity of code contributions!) That made a lot of sense to me, and it seems like that goal was not fully achieved.

It may be premature to try to address this, but I'd really like to see a path forward where "leadership of the project" and "coding node core" are not seen as identical jobs, or necessarily done by the same people. It still strikes me as a nice structure to have a TSC that is the "holder of the values", and tasked with ratifying and connecting WGs, and a CTC that is the WG assigned with merging patches in nodejs/node.

And again, all that being said, I am confident that the current CTC has people who are committed to doing right by this project, and can learn from their experience to design a TSC/CTC structure that is more effective, sustainable, and reflective of the values of the Node.js community.

Show outdated Hide outdated WORKING_GROUPS.md Outdated
@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasnell

jasnell Aug 25, 2017

Member

Commits squash, TSC charter language changes pulled so this PR can land without board signoff. We have more than enough sign off to land. I will land this first thing Monday morning.

Member

jasnell commented Aug 25, 2017

Commits squash, TSC charter language changes pulled so this PR can land without board signoff. We have more than enough sign off to land. I will land this first thing Monday morning.

@targos

targos approved these changes Aug 28, 2017

Show outdated Hide outdated README.md Outdated
Show outdated Hide outdated README.md Outdated
@@ -62,5 +62,5 @@ However, it may turn yellow and issue a warning in a "stream health" section bel
Moderation follows the [Moderation Policy](../Moderation-Policy.md). Messages can be moderated right-clicking and selecting the necessary action, such as `remove`.
During TSC and CTC meetings, there is a section of public Q&A at the end.
During TSC meetings, there is a section of public Q&A at the end.

This comment has been minimized.

@Fishrock123

Fishrock123 Aug 28, 2017

Member

Maybe better as committee as presumably this advice would be to the commcomm too, if they do Q&A.

@Fishrock123

Fishrock123 Aug 28, 2017

Member

Maybe better as committee as presumably this advice would be to the commcomm too, if they do Q&A.

This comment has been minimized.

@jasnell

jasnell Aug 28, 2017

Member

That can be done in a separate PR

@jasnell

jasnell Aug 28, 2017

Member

That can be done in a separate PR

This comment has been minimized.

@Fishrock123

Fishrock123 Aug 28, 2017

Member

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Sure

@Fishrock123

Fishrock123 Aug 28, 2017

Member

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Sure

@Fishrock123

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Fishrock123

Fishrock123 Aug 28, 2017

Member

@isaacs As a note addressing your concern of scope, the board has the ability to make other "top-level projects", e.g. the CommComm, which I think resolves this issue at the CTC/TSC merge level?

That is, the TSC will become more focused on core, and almost certainly delegate admin things and non-core technical things elsewhere.

Member

Fishrock123 commented Aug 28, 2017

@isaacs As a note addressing your concern of scope, the board has the ability to make other "top-level projects", e.g. the CommComm, which I think resolves this issue at the CTC/TSC merge level?

That is, the TSC will become more focused on core, and almost certainly delegate admin things and non-core technical things elsewhere.

* [Benchmarking](#benchmarking)
* [Post-mortem](#post-mortem)
* [Intl](#intl)

This comment has been minimized.

@BridgeAR

BridgeAR Aug 28, 2017

Member

Evangelism is missing in the list (it should be before Docker) and they are not in order.
Intl should come after i18n.

@BridgeAR

BridgeAR Aug 28, 2017

Member

Evangelism is missing in the list (it should be before Docker) and they are not in order.
Intl should come after i18n.

This comment has been minimized.

@jasnell

jasnell Aug 28, 2017

Member

The Evangelism Working Group has been transferred to the Community Committees scope of responsibility.

@jasnell

jasnell Aug 28, 2017

Member

The Evangelism Working Group has been transferred to the Community Committees scope of responsibility.

This comment has been minimized.

@jasnell

jasnell Aug 28, 2017

Member

@BridgeAR ... if it's OK, then I'd like to reorder those in a separate PR

@jasnell

jasnell Aug 28, 2017

Member

@BridgeAR ... if it's OK, then I'd like to reorder those in a separate PR

This comment has been minimized.

@BridgeAR

BridgeAR Aug 28, 2017

Member

Alright but it is described down below and the titel says "Current Working Groups". Therefore I think the working group should either be listed here or the detailed information about it should be removed, don't you think so?

@BridgeAR

BridgeAR Aug 28, 2017

Member

Alright but it is described down below and the titel says "Current Working Groups". Therefore I think the working group should either be listed here or the detailed information about it should be removed, don't you think so?

This comment has been minimized.

@BridgeAR

BridgeAR Aug 28, 2017

Member

Sure, I do not think it should hold the PR from being merged.

@BridgeAR

BridgeAR Aug 28, 2017

Member

Sure, I do not think it should hold the PR from being merged.

This comment has been minimized.

@jasnell

jasnell Aug 28, 2017

Member

Yep! I missed that it was still mentioned!

@jasnell

jasnell Aug 28, 2017

Member

Yep! I missed that it was still mentioned!

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasnell

jasnell Aug 29, 2017

Member

@nodejs/ctc @nodejs/tsc ... Given that there have been no objections, it's been 7 days, and we have 10 signoffs, I'm proceeding to land this in the morning. This will mean that the CTC and TSC are one body again. I'll will get the teams updated accordingly.

Member

jasnell commented Aug 29, 2017

@nodejs/ctc @nodejs/tsc ... Given that there have been no objections, it's been 7 days, and we have 10 signoffs, I'm proceeding to land this in the morning. This will mean that the CTC and TSC are one body again. I'll will get the teams updated accordingly.

@jasnell jasnell merged commit 97c0342 into nodejs:master Aug 29, 2017

@isaacs

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@isaacs

isaacs Aug 29, 2017

@Fishrock123 #317 (comment)

Interesting. So can we expect to see more working groups chartered against the executive board?

(I'm happy to take this discussion elsewhere, or even write up a bit more thoughts on what I think success might look like. It seems like the OP here is kind of wrapped up?)

isaacs commented Aug 29, 2017

@Fishrock123 #317 (comment)

Interesting. So can we expect to see more working groups chartered against the executive board?

(I'm happy to take this discussion elsewhere, or even write up a bit more thoughts on what I think success might look like. It seems like the OP here is kind of wrapped up?)

@nodejs nodejs locked and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 1, 2017

@nodejs nodejs deleted a comment from trevorlinton Sep 1, 2017

@nodejs nodejs deleted a comment from sandro-pasquali Sep 1, 2017

@nodejs nodejs deleted a comment from kristianmandrup Sep 1, 2017

@nodejs nodejs deleted a comment from Nodeski Sep 1, 2017

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasnell

jasnell Sep 1, 2017

Member

Locking the thread nevermind, just noticed that Trott already had.

Member

jasnell commented Sep 1, 2017

Locking the thread nevermind, just noticed that Trott already had.

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