docs: introduce temporary governance voting process

In order for the governance working group to make progress establishing
jj's governance structure, we need the approval of the jj community.

Set up a temporary voting process to get that approval.

Additionally, set up a governance dir for other governance-related
documentation to sit in.

Later, when we have a permanent governance structure and enough policy
to let the community make changes without needing the governance working
group, we can delete this document.

docs/governance/temporary-voting.md

@@ -0,0 +1,161 @@
+# Getting Community Buy-in for Working Group Proposals
+
+## Introduction
+
+We're introducing a temporary process to describe how we'll gain approval to
+adopt permanent governance policies - basically, how we make social and
+technical decisions as a community. This temporary process describes how the
+governance working group can propose these policies and how community members
+can influence them and vote on them. Once permanent governance policies are in
+place, the temporary process will stop being used, and the permanent governance
+policies will be used instead.
+
+## Context
+
+The governance working group was appointed by recommendation from Martin (jj's
+original author and current sole maintainer), without recommendation or approval
+from the broader jj community. This isn't a problem in itself - but it does
+mean that the governance working group (Austin Seipp/aseipp, Waleed
+Khan/arxanas, Martin von Zweigbergk/martinvonz, and Emily Shaffer/nasamuffin)
+needs to get some community approval before setting policy for the entire jj
+project. If we skip this step, we risk being perceived as exercising excessive
+control over the project.
+
+## Goals and Non-Goals
+
+* This process will be used to approve things like a `governance.md` (describing
+  the formal structure of governance used for this project), technical design
+  approval process, and code review process.
+* This is **not** a process that will be used forever. It is intended as a
+  temporary process, only used to approve more permanent processes and policies
+  for the project.
+* This process is used to gather feedback, approval, and acceptance from
+  invested jj community members. Current members of the community should be able
+  to participate in voting without hardship.
+  * Current community members include code committers, code reviewers, those
+    providing user support, those providing quality, actionable feedback, those
+    providing documentation (first-party or third-party), developers of
+    jj-compatible tools and add-ons (like GUIs or IDE extensions), and those
+    providing design input and feedback.
+    * If you feel that you are a member of the community but do not fit into one
+      of these buckets, please reach out to one of the members of the working
+      group to have this list expanded.
+* This process **is** the primary way for general community members to influence
+  governance policies and processes. It should invite constructive feedback and
+  help us form policies that are acceptable to the jj group as a whole.
+  * It's intended to meet community members where they are - on GitHub and on
+    Discord, where all development occurs and most support and technical
+    discussion occurs.
+* This is **not** a process for gaining unanimous agreement - there are too
+  many of us for that to be feasible. Instead, it is a process for gaining
+  widespread community approval.
+
+## Process
+
+### Stage 1: Advance Notice of Effort
+
+The working group lets the community know about upcoming policy drafts they're
+intending to share for approval. This must happen at least a week before
+entering stage 3, and ideally should happen even earlier.
+
+At this time, the working group should:
+
+* Describe why the working group feels this policy is needed
+* Describe the basic goals the policy should achieve
+* Describe implementation details that are being considered, if any
+* Create discussion thread on GitHub (and link to it from Discord). The GitHub
+  discussion thread is the canonical thread for discussion and will be reused
+  through the lifetime of a proposal as it moves through this process.
+
+At this time, the community is invited to:
+
+* Recommend additional goals, or discuss nuances of the stated goals the working
+  group has already shared
+* Recommend implementation details
+
+The working group will consider these recommendations in good faith, but may
+choose not to adopt them.
+
+### Stage 2: Proposal Review Period
+
+This stage lasts until the working group feels major concerns have been
+addressed and the proposal is ready for a vote. However, **at least 72 hours**
+must elapse between the proposal being published and the vote starting, to allow
+community members around the globe to read and comment. Typically, this stage
+should last at least one week.
+
+At this time, the working group should:
+
+* Share the full text of the proposal as a GitHub pull request (PR)
+* Link this GitHub PR to the existing Discord notification thread and GitHub
+  discussion
+* Explain how the proposal meets the goals stated in Stage 1, either within the
+  proposal itself or in commentary next to the proposal
+
+At this time, the community is invited to:
+
+* Share constructive recommendations in GitHub to modify the text of the
+  proposal, or discuss nuances of the proposal's wording
+* Share showstopper concerns in GitHub about the proposal, including details
+  about how and why the concern is especially dire
+
+Think of this like a code review; the goal of this stage is to build a proposal
+that is representative of the community's will. Keep recommendations actionable
+and constructive: "This clause discourages X; if we phrase it like "foo bar baz"
+it could be less exclusive" is much more productive than "It's obvious that the
+governance working group doesn't want X!"
+
+At the discretion of the working group, but based on the outcome of the
+discussion, the proposal will go to a vote **or** the proposal will be dropped.
+
+### Stage 3: Proposal Voting Period
+
+When the working group feels that major concerns have been addressed and is
+happy with the text of the proposal, the working group will open voting on the
+proposal.
+
+* Voting occurs on GitHub using the poll feature and is advertised heavily on
+  Discord during the voting period.
+  * If community members want to vote but aren't able to use GitHub, they can
+    message nasamuffin@ (on Discord, or nasamuffin at google dot com) with their
+    vote to have it manually included. Only one working group member is listed
+    in order to avoid accidental double-counting.
+  * When voting against, community members should comment on the post explaining
+    why and describe what change would be required for them to abstain or vote
+    in favor.
+  * Generally, assume that the votes may be publicly visible or may be made
+    publicly visible at a later time.
+* Voting is open for 1 week, after which point the GitHub poll will be locked.
+* Participants can vote in favor or against.
+  * "Participants" means the group of community members as enumerated at the
+    beginning of this document.
+
+**Proposals with 2/3 or more votes in favor at the end of the voting period will
+be approved.**
+
+After voting has concluded, either:
+
+* The proposal will be implemented (if accepted)
+* The proposal may be revised and begin again at stage 2 (if rejected)
+* The proposal may be abandoned (if rejected)
+
+Deciding whether to revise or abandon is up to the discretion of the governance
+working group. The working group is expected to double-check their assumption
+that the goals the proposal is attempting to meet are desirable after the
+proposal fails to be accepted.
+
+### Stage 4: Implementation
+
+Typically, implementation will look like merging the document with the policy
+into the jj codebase and remembering to use that policy in conversations moving
+forward.
+
+In some cases, implementation may also involve nomination of individuals to a
+group or committee. When this is necessary, expect the policy being proposed to
+describe how these individuals will be nominated, both initially and moving into
+the future.
+
+It's possible (but unlikely) that during implementation, some obstacle will
+arise that means the policy doesn't actually work. If this does happen, expect
+the working group to be transparent with the community about the situation. We
+may reuse some of all of this process to figure out how to move forward.

mkdocs.yml

@@ -130,6 +130,7 @@ nav:
       - 'Code of conduct': 'code-of-conduct.md'
       - 'Design Docs': 'design_docs.md'
       - 'Design Doc Blueprint': 'design_doc_blueprint.md'
+      - 'Temporary Voting for Governance': 'governance/temporary-voting.md'
 
 - 'Design docs':
     - 'Roadmap': "roadmap.md"