Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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 improvements #24
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Governance improvements #24
Changes from all commits
e793b22
83cafbc
34b27c7
a0d631d
7b3ed82
cf7ec1e
b362166
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
the "other than specifications" seems odd here. I know you didn't add it, but it feels out of place when reading the new description.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not seeing the diff, did you want us to remove
other than specifications
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
is this defined formally anywhere?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So, we had talked previously around having the steering committee maybe having their own meeting but we found that those meetings don't really address anything that isn't in the spec meeting so I think the idea here should be the same rules as participation with some time limit, e.g. expectations that they are participating in some capacity monthly?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we define inactivity as not performing the duties as stated in 1.4, do you think that is sufficient? To address not being present in meetings, we could add a duty of "active participation in weekly community meetings"?
I'm hesitant to say monthly or any time period to avoid being able to game this, e.g. show up exactly once a month.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I dislike meeting attendance as the criteria for activity. I know it reflects how the project runs at present, but want to register my dismay that this excludes folks who can't make the weekly meeting.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agree: it's hard to be there for all the meetings, and maybe some folks are more active in PRs (which I think matter more) than meetings.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How about phrasing this as "active participation with the community"? I recognize that the meeting might not work for all timezones, but I think there are still ways to be an active leader in the community - regular interactions over issues and Slack, leaving comments on the community meeting doc, outreach at conferences, etc.
Activity on PRs can be one component of active participation, but not the only component in my opinion, as that would be more of a Maintainer.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As long as the OSSF TAC can use the new phrasing for fair adjudication, sounds reasonable to me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think "any number of successive terms" is a bit problematic. Could we limit to, say, 4 years (like a presidential term) and go from there?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We do encourage stepping down if you're a longstanding member.
If there is someone who is an exceptional SLSA leader and continually voted in by the community, is that a problem?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why remove the bit about not voting for self? Well, I guess going by presidential elections...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In the context of this paragraph, not voting for yourself as important because it was only the steering committee who elects its own members. I don't see an issue with voting for yourself along with the other 4 members given it will be the whole SLSA community voting. (FWIW, this line was not intentionally removed, it was a part of removing the entire paragraph)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How do we facilitate approval by the LF?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fair question - @michaelwinser what do you think about changing this to explicitly say the LF can override any changes if necessary? I think that is more what is meant here - the project can self-govern, but the LF has authority to override.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why 4/5 and not 3/5?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If I recall correctly, we were going with super majority, following the two-thirds requirement. 3 is simple majority, 5 is complete consensus, so 4 felt like a good compromise. @michaelwinser do you remember anything else?