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: add ability for working groups to override the TSC #319

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
10 participants
@jasnell
Member

jasnell commented Aug 22, 2017

this is a proposal to add a formal process allowing the chartered working groups to vacate TSC decisions.

@nodejs/tsc @nodejs/ctc

@MylesBorins

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MylesBorins

MylesBorins Aug 22, 2017

Member

I am very much in favor of this.

Member

MylesBorins commented Aug 22, 2017

I am very much in favor of this.

@Fishrock123

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Fishrock123

Fishrock123 Aug 22, 2017

Member

Contacting everyone would be difficult but hopefully rare.

I'm uncertain if it should or shouldn't return to the TSC though

Member

Fishrock123 commented Aug 22, 2017

Contacting everyone would be difficult but hopefully rare.

I'm uncertain if it should or shouldn't return to the TSC though

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasnell

jasnell Aug 22, 2017

Member

It should. Essentially this is the WGs telling the TSC strongly that it made a wrong decision and needs to reconsider. Once the TSC and CTC merge back into a single body, this should be fine.

Member

jasnell commented Aug 22, 2017

It should. Essentially this is the WGs telling the TSC strongly that it made a wrong decision and needs to reconsider. Once the TSC and CTC merge back into a single body, this should be fine.

@gr2m

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gr2m

gr2m Aug 22, 2017

This would be very helpful as an official way to hold members of the TSC accountable for their decisions. I agree that the bar is set high but it should be the exception. It is an improvement of the current situation and I’d ask we merge it in and continue to iterate

gr2m commented Aug 22, 2017

This would be very helpful as an official way to hold members of the TSC accountable for their decisions. I agree that the bar is set high but it should be the exception. It is an improvement of the current situation and I’d ask we merge it in and continue to iterate

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasnell

jasnell Aug 22, 2017

Member

Note that this cannot be merged without TSC/CTC sign off.

Member

jasnell commented Aug 22, 2017

Note that this cannot be merged without TSC/CTC sign off.

Show outdated Hide outdated WORKING_GROUPS.md
Show outdated Hide outdated WORKING_GROUPS.md
@Trott

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Trott

Trott Aug 22, 2017

Member

LGTM (but I'm avoiding the official green check because this is the TSC repo and I"m not TSC).

Member

Trott commented Aug 22, 2017

LGTM (but I'm avoiding the official green check because this is the TSC repo and I"m not TSC).

@Trott

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Trott

Trott Aug 22, 2017

Member

There may be an issue where we need a vote from a few more WGs to come to a conclusion and they take a looooong time to get it together to have the vote.

I'm OK with that. To me, that basically means status quo (the TSC decision stands) until enough WGs vote to vacate it or support it.

However, if anyone else reads this differently or if that is not the intended outcome of such an event, then it should be clarified in the text.

Member

Trott commented Aug 22, 2017

There may be an issue where we need a vote from a few more WGs to come to a conclusion and they take a looooong time to get it together to have the vote.

I'm OK with that. To me, that basically means status quo (the TSC decision stands) until enough WGs vote to vacate it or support it.

However, if anyone else reads this differently or if that is not the intended outcome of such an event, then it should be clarified in the text.

@mhdawson

LGTM

@mcollina

After the TSC/CTC merger, most of this would be less useful as there is wide representation of the WGs. It makes it a highly improbable situation.

However, +1 as it won't harm.

jasnell added a commit to jasnell/TSC that referenced this pull request Aug 23, 2017

[Squash] Remove collaborator review bits
This aspect would be adequately covered by nodejs#319
@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasnell

jasnell Aug 23, 2017

Member

@nodejs/tsc and @nodejs/ctc ... please review. This is a fairly major policy change. Ideally we will have a simple majority of members signing off but, as is the documented policy, if there are no objections after a reasonable period of time I will assume consent and will get this landed.

Member

jasnell commented Aug 23, 2017

@nodejs/tsc and @nodejs/ctc ... please review. This is a fairly major policy change. Ideally we will have a simple majority of members signing off but, as is the documented policy, if there are no objections after a reasonable period of time I will assume consent and will get this landed.

@Trott

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Trott

Trott Aug 23, 2017

Member

Idle though, might not need addressing, but might be worth considering. Not sure. Here we go:

What happens if there's an infinite loop?

  • TSC passes Proposal X
  • WGs reject it, so Proposal X is vacated and returned to the TSC
  • TSC passes Proposal X again...
  • WGs reject it again...

Is that OK? Or does there need to be a "nope, sorry, this decision is final"? Like, in the US, if the federal legislature passes a law, and the executive branch vetoes (rejects) the law, the legislature can override the veto by holding a vote and passing the legislation with a 2/3 majority.

Member

Trott commented Aug 23, 2017

Idle though, might not need addressing, but might be worth considering. Not sure. Here we go:

What happens if there's an infinite loop?

  • TSC passes Proposal X
  • WGs reject it, so Proposal X is vacated and returned to the TSC
  • TSC passes Proposal X again...
  • WGs reject it again...

Is that OK? Or does there need to be a "nope, sorry, this decision is final"? Like, in the US, if the federal legislature passes a law, and the executive branch vetoes (rejects) the law, the legislature can override the veto by holding a vote and passing the legislation with a 2/3 majority.

@Trott

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Trott

Trott Aug 23, 2017

Member

Totally pedantic nit: Since presumably the only votes are "yes" or "no", it doesn't really make much sense to refer to a simple majority. It's just a majority.

(A simple majority is in contrast to an absolute majority but that's only meaningful if there are three or more choices.)

Member

Trott commented Aug 23, 2017

Totally pedantic nit: Since presumably the only votes are "yes" or "no", it doesn't really make much sense to refer to a simple majority. It's just a majority.

(A simple majority is in contrast to an absolute majority but that's only meaningful if there are three or more choices.)

@Trott

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Trott

Trott Aug 23, 2017

Member

This seems OK to me, but I'm not sure if I'm in favor of it or not. No objection, but I'm going to refrain from giving it a green checkmark, at least for now. For me, a lot depends on how much we require WGs to truly be active going forward, as well as being rigorous about chartering informal WGs that are highly active.

Something else that might also affect my opinion: Are i18n teams chartered? Is there one big i18n group or is each team a separate WG?

Member

Trott commented Aug 23, 2017

This seems OK to me, but I'm not sure if I'm in favor of it or not. No objection, but I'm going to refrain from giving it a green checkmark, at least for now. For me, a lot depends on how much we require WGs to truly be active going forward, as well as being rigorous about chartering informal WGs that are highly active.

Something else that might also affect my opinion: Are i18n teams chartered? Is there one big i18n group or is each team a separate WG?

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasnell

jasnell Aug 24, 2017

Member

If it goes into an infinite loop we have more systemic problems to deal with. I'd say lets not worry about that for now.

The i18n working groups are not independently chartered as far as I know.

Member

jasnell commented Aug 24, 2017

If it goes into an infinite loop we have more systemic problems to deal with. I'd say lets not worry about that for now.

The i18n working groups are not independently chartered as far as I know.

@bnoordhuis

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bnoordhuis

bnoordhuis Aug 29, 2017

Member

I don't know how I feel about this. I'm not an authoritarian but I think it's right and proper that the TSC has the final responsibility and the final say on matters.

This change opens up the possibility of perpetual stalemate. James seems to think it's academic. It very well might be but I don't really want to go there and find out we were wrong.

Rich is right to point out that this gives Working Groups power that may be out of proportion to their activity and relevance.

There is potential for abuse. It takes little effort for a WG to challenge a TSC decision but it's a large effort to collect and discuss the input from all the other WGs.

I'll err on the side of caution and -1 this for now. Clear downsides, unclear upsides.

Caveat emptor: I'll be away for a few days and probably won't get around to replying until next week.

Member

bnoordhuis commented Aug 29, 2017

I don't know how I feel about this. I'm not an authoritarian but I think it's right and proper that the TSC has the final responsibility and the final say on matters.

This change opens up the possibility of perpetual stalemate. James seems to think it's academic. It very well might be but I don't really want to go there and find out we were wrong.

Rich is right to point out that this gives Working Groups power that may be out of proportion to their activity and relevance.

There is potential for abuse. It takes little effort for a WG to challenge a TSC decision but it's a large effort to collect and discuss the input from all the other WGs.

I'll err on the side of caution and -1 this for now. Clear downsides, unclear upsides.

Caveat emptor: I'll be away for a few days and probably won't get around to replying until next week.

@mcollina

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mcollina

mcollina Aug 29, 2017

Member

How about we raise the requirement to two working groups? I think that would remove completely the possibility for abuse.

Member

mcollina commented Aug 29, 2017

How about we raise the requirement to two working groups? I think that would remove completely the possibility for abuse.

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasnell

jasnell Aug 29, 2017

Member

I spoke to the board about this also and the feedback was that the "override" part was likely problematic. The suggestion was that an "appeal" process would likely be better. We should just take another pass at this

Member

jasnell commented Aug 29, 2017

I spoke to the board about this also and the feedback was that the "override" part was likely problematic. The suggestion was that an "appeal" process would likely be better. We should just take another pass at this

@jasnell jasnell added the in progress label Aug 29, 2017

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasnell

jasnell Aug 30, 2017

Member

@mhdawson, can I please ask you to take this pr over?

Member

jasnell commented Aug 30, 2017

@mhdawson, can I please ask you to take this pr over?

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasnell

jasnell Sep 12, 2017

Member

I am withdrawing this PR. I do believe that some mechanism here is required, but the feedback from the board was that the approach suggested in this PR was not ideal.

Member

jasnell commented Sep 12, 2017

I am withdrawing this PR. I do believe that some mechanism here is required, but the feedback from the board was that the approach suggested in this PR was not ideal.

@jasnell jasnell closed this Sep 12, 2017

@jasnell jasnell deleted the jasnell:working-group-override branch Sep 12, 2017

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