doc: initial version of CPC Charter by mhdawson · Pull Request #48 · openjs-foundation/cross-project-council

mhdawson · 2018-11-23T16:47:54Z

No description provided.

mhdawson · 2018-11-23T17:31:21Z

I think main areas for discussion are:

Composition of CPC (Section 4). There are 3 different models when looking at Node.js TSC, JS Foundation TAC and CNCF TOC. They are quite different in terms of how much involvement the Foundation members have in selecting the members. There are also differences with respect to terms. both JS and CNCF have a limit on membership before needs to be re-confirmed, versus the Node.js TSC where this is not the case.
Mandate. I think what is there based on pulling in content from the 3 is reasonable but this is an area
we should discuss expand in terms of some of the "new" things proposed as part of the merged
foundation. For example "Commons.js"

I could put together a suggestion for what I think makes in terms of CPC membership, but I believe some discussion on that point would be good and then I can update to reflect that discussion.
I've left some sections with > > > > > > > > > > where I have the content form 2 or more of Node, JS and CNCF so people can see the different approaches.

mhdawson · 2018-11-23T17:32:17Z

Adding bootstrap agenda so that we can have a discussion in an upcoming meeting. @MylesBorins would be great if we could get it on this weeks agenda as I'm going to miss the follow 2 weeks....

We'll probably need these.

mcollina · 2018-11-26T08:43:59Z

+     as outlined in [XXXX], and creating conceptual architecture for how the proejcts
+     fit together.
+   * aligning projects, removing or archiving projects, as outlined in [XXXX].
+   * defining common practices to be implemented across _$FOUNDATION_ projects, if any.


I would remove this entirely.

I think it might be useful to either leave it in, or move it to the non-goals so that we know we have agreement one way or the other.

mcollina · 2018-11-26T08:45:33Z

+   * defining common practices to be implemented across _$FOUNDATION_ projects, if any.
+   * The CPC is also responsible for mediating technical conflicts between
+     _$FOUNDATION_ Projects when attempts to resolve those conflicts within the Project
+    and were unsuccessful. 


Can you define what a technical conflict might be? What would be the goal of that mediation?

I took this directly from the responsibilities of the JSF TAC (along with the bad wording :). A good example does not come to mind, but then I've not been working in a Foundation with multiple projects. @jorydotcom do you have any examples you can add?

Will fix the wording though.

mcollina · 2018-11-26T08:48:23Z

+    and were unsuccessful. 
+   * The CPC serves as the _$FOUNDATION_'s primary technical
+     liaison body with external open source projects, consortiums and groups and is
+     also responsible for technical participation in standards bodies


This has a slight implication that, in order to participate as $FOUNDATION to standard bodies, you have to be a member of CPC. I think that would be a bit elitist. IMHO somebody might be interested in being part of the CPC but not participate in standards and vice versa.

I think this responsibility should be delegated to a subcommitee/or somehow worded differently to enable such delegation.

I would read it more that the CPC has the responsibility to make sure that the right things happen, not that you have to be on the CPC itself.

Then we should probably align the test, this seems to be a direct responsibility.

Updated the text, let me know if that sounds better.

mcollina · 2018-11-26T08:54:17Z

+     from the mentorship program, Project issues and conflicts, opportunities
+     for collaboration between Projects, opportunities for the Foundation in the
+     greater JavaScript community, etc.
+


I think this is missing something related to funds, the travel budget, and things like that. Or are those under the C3C?

One of the goal of the CPC is to follow closely Board/$FOUNDATION initiatives and communicate them to the projects.

Added those 2 above.

Added those a bit further up in the list.

MylesBorins · 2018-11-30T21:50:15Z

Is this perhaps far enough along to move to stage 1 instead of stage 0?

Do we want to try and land something on Monday?

mhdawson · 2018-12-17T13:43:33Z

As long as there are no glaring contradictions with the discussions that have been held on the roles, I think moving to stage 1 makes sense to me. Would it make sense to land as stage 0 and then file PR to move to stage 1? I think I'd need at least one approval to do that.

MylesBorins · 2018-12-17T17:04:07Z

@mhdawson I think we can land as stage 1. maybe present it to the group in today's meeting and then land later today if there are no objection?

keywordnew

LGTM, reflects group consensus to land as stage 1, initiated by #48 (comment)

christian-bromann

👍

MylesBorins

LGTM for stage 1

Any other concerns can be sent as a PR to the README.md

Landing

doc: initial version of CPC Charter

9f97196

mhdawson force-pushed the cpc-mandate branch from 8d68647 to 9f97196 Compare November 23, 2018 17:22

mhdawson added the cross-project-council-agenda label Nov 23, 2018

mhdawson added 4 commits November 23, 2018 12:37

squash: clarify that Projects manage themselves.

d2681f0

squash: minor fixup

58f908a

squash: add some definitions

ed15f78

We'll probably need these.

squash: formatting fixup

382cef1

MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Nov 25, 2018

Joint Foundation Bootstrap Team Meeting 2018-11-26 #49

Closed

mcollina reviewed Nov 26, 2018

View reviewed changes

mhdawson added 3 commits November 28, 2018 15:59

squash: address comments

12b1ec5

squash: fix wording

bf71475

squash: address comments

a3ca685

MylesBorins added the stage-0 label Nov 30, 2018

MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Nov 30, 2018

Node.js Foundation Bootstrap Team Meeting 2018-12-03 #51

Closed

joesepi mentioned this pull request Dec 3, 2018

Top Level Council(s) Shape and Focus #52

Closed

MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Dec 9, 2018

Joint Foundation Bootstrap Team Meeting 2018-12-10 #57

Closed

MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Dec 17, 2018

Joint Foundation Bootstrap Team Meeting 2018-12-17 #61

Closed

keywordnew approved these changes Dec 17, 2018

View reviewed changes

squash: move to stage 1 instead of stage 0

34a16d5

christian-bromann approved these changes Dec 17, 2018

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'master' into cpc-mandate

f157255

MylesBorins approved these changes Dec 17, 2018

View reviewed changes

MylesBorins merged commit 533e67f into openjs-foundation:master Dec 17, 2018

ljharb removed the cross-project-council-agenda label Apr 26, 2022

Uh oh!

Conversation

mhdawson commented Nov 23, 2018

Uh oh!

mhdawson commented Nov 23, 2018

Uh oh!

mhdawson commented Nov 23, 2018

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MylesBorins commented Nov 30, 2018

Uh oh!

mhdawson commented Dec 17, 2018

Uh oh!

MylesBorins commented Dec 17, 2018

Uh oh!

keywordnew left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

christian-bromann left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MylesBorins left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

keywordnew left a comment •

edited

Loading