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

Moving to the Community Committee? #294

Closed
nebrius opened this Issue Jun 8, 2017 · 20 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
@nebrius

nebrius commented Jun 8, 2017

Hi @nodejs/evangelism!

As you may or may not know, we recently created the Community Committee, or CommComm for short. CommComm is a top level committee in the Node.js Foundation, meaning that we're a sibling of the TSC. We formed CommComm to focus on all of the non-code related activities that the Node.js project is working on, and the TSC can now focus on only on all of the code related activities (of which there are many).

Would you be interested in moving from under the TSC to CommComm?

If you decide to move, you would still operate the same as you do now, the only thing that would change is who you ask when you need funding from the Node.js Foundation. Given CommComm's focus on community, getting funding for evangelism activities should become easier if you switch, and we can also more easily connect you with other parts of the Foundation. I do want to clarify though that this decision is completely up to you, and if you would prefer to stay under the TSC, then that is absolutely your right.

So what do you think?

@vdeturckheim

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@vdeturckheim

vdeturckheim Jun 9, 2017

Member

As a first guess, I don't have any objection against moving to CommComm.

In what way would it be easier to connect with other parts of the Foundation?

Member

vdeturckheim commented Jun 9, 2017

As a first guess, I don't have any objection against moving to CommComm.

In what way would it be easier to connect with other parts of the Foundation?

@bnb

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bnb

bnb Jun 9, 2017

Member

I am +1. I have been participating in the Community Committee to some extent, and honestly think it will be a conducive place for the Evangelism WG.

In what way would it be easier to connect with other parts of the Foundation?

I am also curious about this 🤔

Member

bnb commented Jun 9, 2017

I am +1. I have been participating in the Community Committee to some extent, and honestly think it will be a conducive place for the Evangelism WG.

In what way would it be easier to connect with other parts of the Foundation?

I am also curious about this 🤔

@julianduque

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@julianduque

julianduque Jun 9, 2017

Member

I'm agree, it is better to have community efforts under one umbrella

Member

julianduque commented Jun 9, 2017

I'm agree, it is better to have community efforts under one umbrella

@bnb

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bnb

bnb Jun 9, 2017

Member

I've gone ahead and personally reached out to all Evangelism WG members via Twitter DM to see if we can get as much input as possible. 🙏

Member

bnb commented Jun 9, 2017

I've gone ahead and personally reached out to all Evangelism WG members via Twitter DM to see if we can get as much input as possible. 🙏

@JungMinu

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@JungMinu

JungMinu Jun 9, 2017

Member

I think this is a good idea 👍 so I'm +1 too

Member

JungMinu commented Jun 9, 2017

I think this is a good idea 👍 so I'm +1 too

@yosuke-furukawa

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@yosuke-furukawa

yosuke-furukawa Jun 9, 2017

Member

+1 too! Thank you!

Member

yosuke-furukawa commented Jun 9, 2017

+1 too! Thank you!

@Amorelandra

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Amorelandra

Amorelandra Jun 9, 2017

Member

I am definitely +1 on this idea but have had very little actual involvement in this WG thus far so my input should be weighted accordingly. 👍

Member

Amorelandra commented Jun 9, 2017

I am definitely +1 on this idea but have had very little actual involvement in this WG thus far so my input should be weighted accordingly. 👍

@fforres

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@fforres

fforres Jun 10, 2017

Looks like a great idea 😄

fforres commented Jun 10, 2017

Looks like a great idea 😄

@Gioyik

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Gioyik

Gioyik Jun 10, 2017

Member

it's fine for me.

Member

Gioyik commented Jun 10, 2017

it's fine for me.

@danielkhan

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danielkhan

danielkhan Jun 10, 2017

Contributor

Looks fine to me. Thank you for the initiative.

Contributor

danielkhan commented Jun 10, 2017

Looks fine to me. Thank you for the initiative.

@nebrius

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nebrius

nebrius Jun 11, 2017

In what way would it be easier to connect with other parts of the Foundation?

The primary way this will be easier is in requesting things from the board. Under the current setup, if you need to request funding for evangelism activities (this is something you can do!), then you need to ask the CTC (since technically you're chartered under them), who would then go and ask the TSC, who would then go and ask the board. Under CommComm, you would just need to ask CommComm, who would then go to the board.

Also, given that CommComm is focused on community involvement, Requests from the Evangelism WG would be a higher priority for CommComm than it is for the TSC (as it should be, the TSC/CTC should be focused on the technical operations of the project).

CommComm would also request (but not require) that the Evangelism WG have a representative on CommComm itself to ensure better representation of the WG.

nebrius commented Jun 11, 2017

In what way would it be easier to connect with other parts of the Foundation?

The primary way this will be easier is in requesting things from the board. Under the current setup, if you need to request funding for evangelism activities (this is something you can do!), then you need to ask the CTC (since technically you're chartered under them), who would then go and ask the TSC, who would then go and ask the board. Under CommComm, you would just need to ask CommComm, who would then go to the board.

Also, given that CommComm is focused on community involvement, Requests from the Evangelism WG would be a higher priority for CommComm than it is for the TSC (as it should be, the TSC/CTC should be focused on the technical operations of the project).

CommComm would also request (but not require) that the Evangelism WG have a representative on CommComm itself to ensure better representation of the WG.

@vdeturckheim

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@vdeturckheim

vdeturckheim Jun 12, 2017

Member

@nebrius thanks for this clarification. This seems like a great idea to me then!

Member

vdeturckheim commented Jun 12, 2017

@nebrius thanks for this clarification. This seems like a great idea to me then!

@bnb

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bnb

bnb Jun 29, 2017

Member

@nebrius Looks like there's near consensus in the CTC issue. What are our steps to move forward?

Member

bnb commented Jun 29, 2017

@nebrius Looks like there's near consensus in the CTC issue. What are our steps to move forward?

@nebrius

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nebrius

nebrius Jun 30, 2017

@bnb it seems to me that the WG already has reached consensus here, as there are no objections. The consensus seeking model in Node.js doesn't require every member to actively give approval, so if a few people haven't spoken up that's ok.

That said, it's not my place to state what the WG's consensus is since I'm not a part of it.

Is there a chairperson of the evangelism WG? If so, I would recommend that they be the one to formally state whether or not the WG has reached consensus. If not, then anyone from the WG can state it.

nebrius commented Jun 30, 2017

@bnb it seems to me that the WG already has reached consensus here, as there are no objections. The consensus seeking model in Node.js doesn't require every member to actively give approval, so if a few people haven't spoken up that's ok.

That said, it's not my place to state what the WG's consensus is since I'm not a part of it.

Is there a chairperson of the evangelism WG? If so, I would recommend that they be the one to formally state whether or not the WG has reached consensus. If not, then anyone from the WG can state it.

@nebrius

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nebrius

nebrius Jun 30, 2017

There's also discussion happening amongst the CTC in the linked issue, which is the next step. Once that's done, we get CommComm's approval. Then we PR the various documents and the move is considered complete.

nebrius commented Jun 30, 2017

There's also discussion happening amongst the CTC in the linked issue, which is the next step. Once that's done, we get CommComm's approval. Then we PR the various documents and the move is considered complete.

@bnb

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bnb

bnb Jun 30, 2017

Member

@nebrius There is not an official chairperson for the Evangelism WG (I believe it was formed well before that would have been considered for a WG).

With input from 9 WG members in this issue, none of which have been -1, I feel confident in stating that we've reached consensus in the decision.

Member

bnb commented Jun 30, 2017

@nebrius There is not an official chairperson for the Evangelism WG (I believe it was formed well before that would have been considered for a WG).

With input from 9 WG members in this issue, none of which have been -1, I feel confident in stating that we've reached consensus in the decision.

@oe

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@oe

oe Aug 2, 2017

this is done now, so maybe it can be closed? or do y'all want to put a notice in the readme of this repo or something?

oe commented Aug 2, 2017

this is done now, so maybe it can be closed? or do y'all want to put a notice in the readme of this repo or something?

@nebrius

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nebrius

nebrius Aug 2, 2017

this is done now, so maybe it can be closed? or do y'all want to put a notice in the readme of this repo or something?

It's probably wise to put a blurb in the README, similar to https://github.com/nodejs/nodejs-collection#about-this-team

nebrius commented Aug 2, 2017

this is done now, so maybe it can be closed? or do y'all want to put a notice in the readme of this repo or something?

It's probably wise to put a blurb in the README, similar to https://github.com/nodejs/nodejs-collection#about-this-team

@bnb

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bnb

bnb Aug 15, 2017

Member

@pup / @nebrius Check - added it. Will merge in a few days if there are no -1, or there are a couple +1. #296

Member

bnb commented Aug 15, 2017

@pup / @nebrius Check - added it. Will merge in a few days if there are no -1, or there are a couple +1. #296

@bnb

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bnb

bnb Aug 16, 2017

Member

#296 has been merged 💥

Closing this. Please feel free to reopen if needed.

Member

bnb commented Aug 16, 2017

#296 has been merged 💥

Closing this. Please feel free to reopen if needed.

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