doc: add Working Group revocation text #9656
Conversation
nodejs-github-bot
added
the
meta
| @@ -14,7 +14,8 @@ think it would benefit from being done as an autonomous project. | |||
|
|
|||
| If the work defined in a Working Group charter is completed the Working | |||
| Group should be dissolved and the responsibility for governance absorbed | |||
| back in to the CTC. | |||
| back in to the CTC. A Working Group can be dissolved either through consensus | |||
| of the Working Group membership or normal CTC motion and vote. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Incorrect, we can't actually dissolve it but we can revoke it as being formally responsible for what it was chartered for.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This did just happen with the Roadmap WG.
Whether it is call "dissolving" or "revoking" ... ¯_(ツ)_/¯ ... but the process should be defined and probably should match the TSC wording (so maybe the TSC doc needs to change too).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It was in a formal sense revoked and in a slightly less formal sense dissolved... (by half of it's members?)
The language does matter.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since we're pretty explicit elsewhere (I think, at least) that the only power the CTC maintains over a WG is to revoke its charter, I think we should use the same language here. I agree the difference is subtle, but consistency will help reduce the likelihood that someone interprets one document as saying one thing and another document as saying something different.
|
Ok @Trott & @Fishrock123 I changed it to |
williamkapke
changed the title
|
@nodejs/ctc This is a governance change, so if we could get a bunch of CTC members to LGTM this here, it means we won't have to take it up during a meeting. |
|
Clarification: This isn't a governance change, per se. It is a a change to the governance doc. But it is a clarification, not a change. |
| @@ -14,7 +14,8 @@ think it would benefit from being done as an autonomous project. | |||
|
|
|||
| If the work defined in a Working Group charter is completed the Working | |||
| Group should be dissolved and the responsibility for governance absorbed | |||
| back in to the CTC. | |||
| back in to the CTC. A Working Group can be revoked either through consensus | |||
| of the Working Group membership or normal CTC motion and vote. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Isn't it members here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about instead of:
back in to the CTC. A Working Group can be revoked either through consensus of the Working Group membership or normal CTC motion and vote.
...something more like this:
back into the CTC. This can be done by revoking the Working Group's charter. A Working Group's charter can be revoked either by consensus of the Working Group's members or by a CTC vote.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that's fine @Trott ... but then we should update the TSC's version too huh?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You mean because it's a verbatim or near-verbatim copy? In that case, maybe pick one location and link to it from the other?
|
Text revised to remove another reference to the word Please re-review. |
PR-URL: #9656 Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
|
Landed in 14709e5 |
PR-URL: #9656 Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
PR-URL: #9656 Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
PR-URL: #9656 Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
PR-URL: #9656 Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
PR-URL: #9656 Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
PR-URL: #9656 Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
PR-URL: #9656 Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
PR-URL: #9656 Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Checklist
Description of change
Recently, the Roadmap Working Group was dissolved. I thought we followed a defined process for making that happen- but I was incorrect. The problem is that I confused the text in the TSC's text for dissolving a Top Level Working Group as being the process for a Core Working Group. They are identical EXCEPT that the TSC's version ends with:
So- Core Working Groups actually do not (technically) have a defined way to dissolve them right now. This is likely just an error of docs being shuffled around.
This PR just adds that same statement to Core's version of WORKING_GROUPS.md.
This will need to be approved by the CTC.