Draft Staging Process#23
Conversation
mhdawson
left a comment
mhdawson
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM once rebased to removed changes to meetings/2018-10-13.md which I don't think are intended to be part of the PR.
MylesBorins
left a comment
MylesBorins
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need the level of granularity in this document?
Alternatively I could see a 3 stage process
- Proposal
- Draft
- Accepted
I could be wrong about this, if we think there is a need for the granularity between candidate and complete I'm totally up for it.
One other thing, I think we need a bit of a stronger definition of where in the repo these proposals should live, it really could be as simple as folders with the stage names.
We should also have a bit of a stronger definition of what "complete" means. Are these proposals primarily suggestions to be given to the board or are they binding governance changes? Should a proposal be a high level action plan or very specific governance changes (explicit bylaw or charter changes).
It is possible that some of the above stuff are iterative improvements, and as such I won't block this PR at all in it's current form, but would like to see some discussion and plans before approving
|
I'd agree that a bit more info as to where in the repo docs in each of the stages should go would be helpful |
| Proposals in this stage are near complete. They may be in a pilot or trial-run mode for a limited audience, or pending legal review. They may be awaiting budget approval. The purpose of this stage is to complete any operational checks, such as acquiring budget, access, or Board approval if needed, before launching the program. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Stage 4 - Complete | ||
| The proposal is now an adopted policy or program of the Foundation, and is owned by the committee or role identified. It is expected that the policy or program will be re-evaluated on some regular basis and deprecated if need be. No newline at end of file |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
may I suggest a simpler process.
- Stage 0 - Initial proposal
- Stage 1 - The committee is reviewing the proposal
- Stage 2 - The proposal is being incorporated into the feedback provided by the committee
If there are competing Stage 1 proposals with no clear consensus, then both are combined into a single Stage 2 proposal that discusses both as options.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That makes sense to me; does there need to be some process to figure out when it can go forward or what to do in a stalemate situation?
Related, should there be a timeline for proposals? Say something hasn't moved from Stage 0 in a year, it gets moved to an archive or folder or something?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The stalemate situation is covered the last sentence of my comment there. Specifically:
If there are competing Stage 1 proposals with no clear consensus, then both are combined into a single Stage 2 proposal that discusses both as options.
jorydotcom
force-pushed
the
staging-process
branch
2 times, most recently
from
a5957d6 to
d389613
Compare
|
@mhdawson done! I added a title & some language about where proposals could live. Also I consolidated the stages a bit - one thing I'm not sure about is that since we don't know what the committee process/budget process will look like I feel like we might get into a spot where some project committee could say, "this proposal is good to go" but we still need some kind of sign-off from the c3 committee for example before it's done done done. So I left that last stage in there for now just to capture that concern & see where everyone is at on that. (re-reading @MylesBorins comment, I think I'm saying the same thing he is RE what "complete" means) |
| # Staging Process Proposal | ||
|
|
||
| Anyone may submit an idea for a policy or program following the staging process outlined below. To submit an idea, create a proposal document in markdown format in the /proposals directory, submit a pull-request, and apply the appropriate staging label. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we ask that the stage be in the title or have the markdown files live in subdirectories for example: /proposals/stage-0
|
I'm a big +1 of this. Small structural nit I think this might be better if we have a proposals folder and include a tiny template. I've implemented an example in MylesBorins@5ee5bfb Check it out at https://github.com/MylesBorins/bootstrap/tree/my-bootstrap/proposals LMK if you would like a PR. This PR was built on top of #7, but I think it would make more sense to rebase against master and be more self contained |
MylesBorins
force-pushed
the
staging-process
branch
from
d3ec8f1 to
44fd8bb
Compare
|
Hey all. After discussing with @jorydotcom I've gone ahead and rebased this PR against master... updated the staging process to reflect the discussion in the last meeting, and refactored my GOVERNANCE proposal to reflect the new documented process. PTAL and comment away. It would be very nice to land this in the next meeting. We can always iterate and refactor as things move along |
|
this looks good to me, @MylesBorins! I like adding a quick look at the proposals in the readme and providing a template, that will be really helpful to folks I think. Thanks for carrying this forward last week ❤️ |
MylesBorins
force-pushed
the
staging-process
branch
from
95c3eff to
a37ea4c
Compare
| The proposal will be evaluated at bootstrap committee meetings and stage changes will occur at those times. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Stage 0 - Initial Proposal | ||
| Proposals in this stage are summarized in a markdown file. They have a short name and an identified a 'champion' - at least one person who will be pushing the proposal through to its conclusion. They have a rough description of the program idea or policy, what resources would be needed to execute it, what committee or role is responsible for overseeing it, ideas for metrics, execution, and so forth. They have clear language about which group or groups the program/policy will serve. The purpose of this stage is to capture the spirit of an idea the community may want to explore further, and to begin thinking about implementation ideas or process questions that need to be answered. |
|
|
||
| Please include potential metrics that can be used to measure success of the proposal. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Why this proposal is important |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As it is currently written this is a statement not a questions
Why this proposal is important vs Why is this proposal important
|
|
||
| ## Description | ||
|
|
||
| This document is a basic outline of the governance model for the bootstrap team. It outline how membership is defined and how we will collaborate. |
amiller-gh
left a comment
amiller-gh
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think missing from TEMPLATE.md is sections for Drawbacks, Alternatives, and Unresolved Questions. Prompting the drafter to also lay out the counter argument can inspire more productive conversation. However, I've also left this feedback on #32. Would still be happy if this lands as-is with grammatical errors corrected 👍
it is now based on the defined process
MylesBorins
force-pushed
the
staging-process
branch
from
a37ea4c to
500ea22
Compare
|
landed in 8574222...500ea22 |
11 participants
Context: On our call today, I proposed borrowing the idea of a staging process from TC-39 to our bootstrap program and policy ideas work.
This PR adds a simple staging-process.md doc for discussion, which we can iterate on and flesh out with more examples.
Applying the proposed process, this PR would be in Stage 0. Assuming it is in the right place and there are enough +1s, we should flesh this out into a stage 1 proposal between now and the next meeting.