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

governance: expand use of CTC issue tracker #8945

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
from

Conversation

@Trott
Member

Trott commented Oct 6, 2016

Checklist
  • documentation is changed or added
  • commit message follows commit guidelines
Affected core subsystem(s)
Description of change

As the CTC grows and has representation from more time zones, we need to
embrace asynchronous decision making and rely less on the actual
meeting. This change is a proposal for that which, ironically, probably
has to be approved at a meeting.

/cc @nodejs/ctc

GOVERNANCE.md Outdated
[the CTC issue tracker](https://github.com/nodejs/CTC/issues). The process in
the issue tracker is:
* A CTC member opens an issue explaining the propoosal/issue and @-mentions

This comment has been minimized.

@thefourtheye

thefourtheye Oct 6, 2016

Contributor

proposal

GOVERNANCE.md Outdated
@@ -112,7 +107,7 @@ Typical activities of a CTC member include:
Note that CTC members are also Collaborators and therefore typically perform
Collaborator activities as well.
### CTC Meetings
### CTC Meetings

This comment has been minimized.

@thefourtheye

thefourtheye Oct 6, 2016

Contributor

Is there a whitespace at the end of the line?

@addaleax

SGTM!

@bnoordhuis

LGTM modulo what @thefourtheye pointed out.

GOVERNANCE.md Outdated
individuals are identified by the CTC and their addition as
Collaborators is discussed during the weekly CTC meeting.
Individuals identified by the CTC as making significant and valuable
contributions are made Collaborators and given commit-access to the project.

This comment has been minimized.

@bnoordhuis

bnoordhuis Oct 6, 2016

Member

Tiny nit but isn't it spelled 'commit access', no dash?

@mhdawson

This comment has been minimized.

Member

mhdawson commented Oct 6, 2016

LGTM subject to comments identified by others.

@cjihrig

cjihrig approved these changes Oct 6, 2016

LGTM. Again, with the nits addressed.

GOVERNANCE.md Outdated
* A CTC member opens an issue explaining the propoosal/issue and @-mentions
@nodejs/ctc.
* After 72 hours, if there are two or more `LGTM`s from other CTC members and no
explicit opposition from other CTC members, then the proposal is approved.

This comment has been minimized.

@Fishrock123

Fishrock123 Oct 6, 2016

Member

Seems a bit tight for ensuring consensus imo

This comment has been minimized.

@Trott

Trott Oct 7, 2016

Member

Seems a bit tight for ensuring consensus imo

What would seem a better duration in your opinion? I chose 72 hours because that seemed like a duration for an issue on the tracker that was more likely to actually map to real consensus than a conversation at a meeting attended by maybe 10 of the CTC's 18 members. Arguably, that's not a high bar, but it's what we have now, so that's what I used as an approximate metric. Totally open to other ideas. What did you have in mind?

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Member

jasnell commented Oct 6, 2016

This LGTM with nits addressed.
I have been wondering if a separate ctc-review label would be useful for distinguishing between things that just require CTC review vs. things that need to be escalated to a meeting.

Trott added some commits Oct 6, 2016

governance: expand use of CTC issue tracker
As the CTC grows and has representation from more time zones, we need to
embrace asynchronous decision making and rely less on the actual
meeting. This change is a proposal for that which, ironically, probably
has to be approved at a meeting.

@Trott Trott force-pushed the Trott:ctc-agenda branch to a7485d1 Oct 7, 2016

@Trott

This comment has been minimized.

Member

Trott commented Oct 7, 2016

Nits addressed, rebased, force pushed.

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Member

jasnell commented Oct 10, 2016

Does this still need to be on the ctc-agenda?

@Trott

This comment has been minimized.

Member

Trott commented Oct 10, 2016

Does this still need to be on the ctc-agenda?

Yes.

@Trott

This comment has been minimized.

Member

Trott commented Oct 12, 2016

It would be great if CTC folks could read the new paragraph and the bullet points and weighed in before the meeting. I'd be happy to not have to bring this to the meeting.

CTC folks who have not offered an opinion yet:

@rvagg

This comment has been minimized.

Member

rvagg commented Oct 12, 2016

ctc-review might be a good idea, however it's really at the discretion of the meeting chair whether something goes on the agenda or not and some things can be left off as required.

This lgtm for now. I'm hesitant with the 72-hours two-only requirement for passing major things, but we can only see how it goes and adjust if enough of us are unhappy with the process. My main concern is simply with the workload of GitHub notifications and I'm constantly behind these days. I'll just have to make sure I tune in to nodejs/ctc tagged items!

@evanlucas

This comment has been minimized.

Member

evanlucas commented Oct 12, 2016

lgtm. I'd be +1 to a ctc-review label. I think it would make it a lot easier to see what issues need attention.

@ChALkeR

This comment has been minimized.

Member

ChALkeR commented Oct 12, 2016

+1 in general, but with splitting a «CTC should take a look at this» with «this escalated to voting».

The moment when it has been escalated to voting should be clearly visible. That is probably a separate thing from ctc-review (review needed by the CTC) and ctc-agenda (consensus-seeking). ctc-vote, perhaps?

Currently ctc-review and ctc-agenda labels are present or proposed. Could we codify both of those?

@misterdjules

LGTM

@MylesBorins

This comment has been minimized.

Member

MylesBorins commented Oct 12, 2016

I want to echo @rvagg's hesitation on the 72 hour + 2 ctc minimum for moving things forward. Obviously this will be a case by case basis... but if something is controversial I do thing we need to have a bit of a wider consensus on it. I think a hard rule here may miss the point, but I feel we may need more time + opinions on it. I'm +1 on everything but that nit.

@ofrobots

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

ofrobots commented Oct 12, 2016

LGTM w/ the same hesitation as @thealphanerd and @rvagg.

@Trott

This comment has been minimized.

Member

Trott commented Oct 13, 2016

ctc-review might be a good idea, however it's really at the discretion of the meeting chair whether something goes on the agenda or not and some things can be left off as required.

That may be true in practice, but it is in contradiction of our GOVERNANCE.md doc which says of the CTC agenda:

The moderator and the CTC cannot veto or remove items.

@Trott

This comment has been minimized.

Member

Trott commented Oct 13, 2016

I've created the ctc-review label. Documenting it in GOVERNANCE.md will be in a subsequent pull request.

@Trott

This comment has been minimized.

Member

Trott commented Oct 13, 2016

I count at least 11 (and possibly as many as 14) approvals from current CTC members.

The approvals as I see it come from:

addaleax
bnoordhuis
cjihrig
evanlucas
jasnell
mhdawson
misterdjules
rvagg
shigeki
trott

There are also maybe-approvals-I'm-not-sure from:

chalker
ofrobots
thealphanerd

So I think this can land.

I'll create a ctc-agenda issue for discussion of how this is working or not working. We can probably leave that on the meeting agenda for two or three weeks. If nothing else, people can give feedback on whether 72 hours is working or not.

Trott added a commit to Trott/io.js that referenced this pull request Oct 13, 2016

governance: expand use of CTC issue tracker
As the CTC grows and has representation from more time zones, we need to
embrace asynchronous decision making and rely less on the actual
meeting. This change is a proposal for that which, ironically, probably
has to be approved at a meeting.

PR-URL: nodejs#8945
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
Reviewed-By: Julien Gilli <jgilli@nodejs.org>
Reviewed-By: Rod Vagg <rod@vagg.org>
Reviewed-By: Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@ohtsu.org>
@Trott

This comment has been minimized.

Member

Trott commented Oct 13, 2016

Landed in b899140. Thanks, everyone.

@Trott Trott closed this Oct 13, 2016

jasnell added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 14, 2016

governance: expand use of CTC issue tracker
As the CTC grows and has representation from more time zones, we need to
embrace asynchronous decision making and rely less on the actual
meeting. This change is a proposal for that which, ironically, probably
has to be approved at a meeting.

PR-URL: #8945
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
Reviewed-By: Julien Gilli <jgilli@nodejs.org>
Reviewed-By: Rod Vagg <rod@vagg.org>
Reviewed-By: Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@ohtsu.org>

@Trott Trott removed the ctc-agenda label Oct 20, 2016

MylesBorins added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 11, 2016

governance: expand use of CTC issue tracker
As the CTC grows and has representation from more time zones, we need to
embrace asynchronous decision making and rely less on the actual
meeting. This change is a proposal for that which, ironically, probably
has to be approved at a meeting.

PR-URL: #8945
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
Reviewed-By: Julien Gilli <jgilli@nodejs.org>
Reviewed-By: Rod Vagg <rod@vagg.org>
Reviewed-By: Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@ohtsu.org>

MylesBorins added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 11, 2016

governance: expand use of CTC issue tracker
As the CTC grows and has representation from more time zones, we need to
embrace asynchronous decision making and rely less on the actual
meeting. This change is a proposal for that which, ironically, probably
has to be approved at a meeting.

PR-URL: #8945
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
Reviewed-By: Julien Gilli <jgilli@nodejs.org>
Reviewed-By: Rod Vagg <rod@vagg.org>
Reviewed-By: Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@ohtsu.org>

This was referenced Nov 22, 2016

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