charter proposal

[Trott]

I was energized and excited by the work that this group set out to do during and after NodeCamp. I hope we can get something important and meaningful happening. Here's my proposal for a very rough draft of a charter. It no doubt can stand plenty of improvement and I would welcome constructive feedback from anyone.

I tried to follow the description of a charter found on the Working Groups page of the website. One of the items mentioned there is a list of initial members. Because there has been discussion around anonymity and involvement in this group, I've left the list blank. I don't want to make any assumptions about who is OK with being identified publicly and who is not. If you don't mind being listed, please say so in a comment and I'll add you. In my opinion, anyone willing to participate in good faith should be able to participate. But the working group does need some people who are publicly identified as members.

[mikeal]

Might want to check out nodejs/TSC#2

Looking to get it ratified on Wednesday so you'll need to think about whether this should be a WG under the Core TLP or under the TSC directly so that you could work with all TLPs.

[Trott]

@mikeal I'd prefer we not ask the TSC to ratify until next week. Especially for a WG where inclusivity is such a central concept, it would be good to give people on @nodejs/diversity and any other interested folks a chance to comment and offer improvements.

[mikeal]

Sorry for the confusion, I meant the TSC is trying to ratify the Umbrella program this Wednesday, you've got time :)

[nebrius]

Good timing @mikeal, I was just getting something similar going for the Hardware WG.

You can list me as an initial member. Maybe reach out to everyone else who has push access to this repo about being an initial member?

[Fishrock123]

ping @nodejs/diversity

[beaugunderson]

happy to be identified :)

[ghost]

uh, I don't know where to bring this in, but I'd like to join this WG because I'm very interested in diversity in tech. sorry if this is the wrong place :x

[Fishrock123]

sorry if this is the wrong place :x

There isn't a better place, so this is effectively the place, I suppose. :)

[ghost]

There isn't a better place, so this is effectively the place, I suppose. :)

is there something like a gitter room or a slack for this WG then?

[Fishrock123]

is there something like a gitter room or a slack for this WG then?

There is a slack. It has been private for privacy reasons and we've had some trouble knowing how to pull people in.

[ghost]

and we've had some trouble knowing how to pull people in.

as in? can't you just invite them by email?

[nebrius]

@schisma our trouble isn't technical, it's more of a process thing. How big do we want the group to be, what does effective representation in the group mean, how do we make sure representation isn't stilted towards one group or another, things like that.

We don't know the answers to these questions yet (they're hard!), so we've been hesitant to bring in new people so far. It's nothing personal, promise! 😊

My hope is that the process of onboarding new people will be fleshed out with this PR (or at least get the conversation going).

[ghost]

@nebrius I see. well, I can wait 😄

[negomi]

Hey everyone. @Trott and I chatted a few weeks ago about this WG and he asked if I'd like to be involved in some way, or at least offer an opinion on the charter as it develops. I've said this to him already but it probably makes sense to repeat it here:

I like it so far! Additionally, how about something along the lines of:

'Work to ensure contributors feel valued and confident contributing or joining discussions, regardless of their background or level of experience.'

You've covered getting more people involved, celebrating existing achievements and measuring how well it's going, but I feel like something about making the project more accessible and welcoming to a wider variety of people (who might be feeling like it's 'not for them' in some way) could be helpful.

[Fishrock123]

'Work to ensure contributors feel valued and confident contributing or joining discussions, regardless of their background or level of experience.'

👍

[Trott]

@schisma If you are OK with providing your full name, I can add you to the list of willing members. I believe right now, even if I add myself, we only have people from one timezone. It looks like you're in a different time zone on a different continent, which is good both from a diversity standpoint but also from a "pending TSC proposal requires four timezones to be represented in a Working Group TC" perspective too.

Speaking of which, if there are people interested in other timezones, I would love to be able to add your names. /cc @yosuke-furukawa

@negomi I like your addition and will go off to edit it into the doc right now and push it up to this PR in a few minutes! Thank you for that!

[ghost]

@Trott sure, my full name is Jona Hugger.

[therebelrobot]

'Work to ensure contributors feel valued and confident contributing or joining discussions, regardless of their background or level of experience.'

Would a reference to identity be appropriate here? So that we are also making sure those who presently identify with an underrepresented group are represented more fully?

e.g.

'Work to ensure contributors feel valued and confident contributing or joining discussions, regardless of their background, identity, or level of experience.'

[ashleygwilliams]

include enforcing/writing/updating CoC + other relevant documents?

[Trott]

I can take a crack at writing that, although as always, I'd love it if someone else would. The key pitfall from my perspective is that this group doesn't yet have any sort of track record and there will be alarm/resistance if the charter comes off as suggesting that this group can impose a CoC and enforcement mechanism on everyone else. I think it has to be crafted as saying that this WG will propose CoC (and subsequent CoC revisions over time as necessary) and enforcement mechanisms but that the ultimate authority for apporving them remains with the...er, not sure which of the two project oversight committees it would be in this case. @mikeal, would that be CTC or The Other One That Is Not CTC?

[Trott]

Important edit: "authority for applying them to the project" -> "authority for approving them to be implemented". Oversight committee does not have to do the actual implementation. They can give the OK and delegate to this WG.

[jasnell]

Any kind of enforcement should solely be the responsibility of the @nodejs/tsc and @nodejs/ctc. This WG can make recommendations, bring focus and attention to the issues, and raise complaints. If any issues raised involve a TSC/CTC member, that member can be asked to recuse themselves while the other members discuss.

[jasnell]

I would say that it would be worthwhile to have a representative from this WG sit in as either an observer or full participant of the @nodejs/tsc

[mikeal]

From a governance perspective all project responsibilities are in the TSC unless they are delegated to another group.

I'm willing to bet there is something a conflict here between:

1. Wanting to unify and ensure project/foundation wide positive conduct.
2. Wanting to create more group specific conduct requirements based on the context of each group (this WG is a good example, it will probably want a much stricter conduct guildeline than any other group because of the sensitivity of the topics it addresses).

[Fishrock123]

The CTC has no reason to be enforcing this stuff, that should be up to the TSC unless delegated.

I suggest holding that thought for now. We should just work towards a TSC that is better at this, rather than shoving off the problem, I think.

[ashleygwilliams]

this doc plays a bit fast and loose with the terms diversity and inclusivity, often using them as if they were the same. this may be a nice place to actually define the words as we understand and choose to use them. the act of defining these words may lead us to realize we are misusing them in this doc.

[ashleygwilliams]

rules on how to join also seem relevant here.

[ghost]

@ashleygwilliams if we had any, that is :P

[ashleygwilliams]

@sup this is the opportunity to write those.

[ghost]

@ashleygwilliams #11 is currently at this, we need to draft out a process before we can write it in here (at least that would make sense?)

[ashleygwilliams]

ah cool @sup - i'm new so i'm still getting a lay of the land
/me goes and checks out

[ghost]

@ashleygwilliams fair enough - i think we all are in some way

[Trott]

+1 to defining terms like diversity and inclusivity (or, at a minimum, linking to another site that clearly defines them).

[Trott]

Bikeshedding note: I'm going to reorganize the list of members to be alphabetical by GitHub handle to match the ordering in the main Node.js README.

I'm also going to add myself as a member. I've been holding off on the "we don't need another cis white male in San Francisco" objection, but we only have four names listed which is also not OK.

Which brings up another issue that might need resolving: Some people have asked to be included on this issue, some people on other issues, and probably in other channels. I've only been adding people who ask here. However, I am not the Keeper Of The List Of Members and I'm honestly not sure there really is a single person or group of people who are. The membership thing is really sticky, and I wonder if it should be a rather large agenda item for the first meeting.

Which then brings up yet another issue which is: We should schedule a meeting to keep things moving.

[ashleygwilliams]

+1 to a meeting. also i can help reach out underrepresented groups (as a female, from not sf). i just need to know what to say. a meeting sounds like a very good idea.

[ghost]

+1 for a meeting as well.

[juliepagano]

I could see this being reworded to "increase inclusivity and diversity" if that's the intent and we actually defined the words for the audience. I see increasing inclusivity as making the project a nice place for people from diverse backgrounds to be and want to stay. I see increasing diversity as actually getting those people from diverse backgrounds to participate in the project in the first place. They're two interrelated, but also different goals.

[ghost]

+1, although wouldn't it be better, since they're separate goals, to put them into two bullet points, which would also give space to explain what each point is about?

[juliepagano]

Splitting it into two points sounds good to me.

[Fishrock123]

Charter seems pretty good to me.

[ashleygwilliams]

hey ya'll- i'm gonna collect comments from this thread, and then start a new PR with what we could think of as charter 0.2. i've talked to @Trott and he'd like to hand over the reins. transition will probs happen ~3pm EST today.

for people who have made comments-- feel free to PR on this PR (if you need help with that i'm happy to help). i think that is a fine workflow for this kind of speculative collaboration. suggestions welcome tho.

after our meeting (#13) i'd like to 1.0. this doesn't mean the end, but we cant/shouldn't dev in an issue forever.

[ghost]

👍 sounds good to me

[ashleygwilliams]

closing in favor of #21