Skip to content
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

Revert "Fix missing links in JMS charter" #232

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

Ruv7
Copy link
Contributor

@Ruv7 Ruv7 commented Jun 28, 2024

Reverts #231

All - since the EC approves charters I think the EC needs to approve changes to charters. Reverting this back until we get feedback from the EC. This isn't urgent at this time and it makes sense to confirm that before moving forward.

@Ruv7 Ruv7 requested a review from blink1073 June 28, 2024 17:33
@krassowski
Copy link
Member

Should the governance be amended to say that only non-trivial changes need to be approved?

I was in past annoyed by the missing links in the JMS charter.

@Ruv7
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ruv7 commented Jun 28, 2024

Then we get into what is trivial and non trivial. In most cases that would be clear, such as this one which is clearly non controversial but not always. At the very least the EC should be notified of a change so they can review and decide if it needs to be discussed. This part of the governance process is not documented as far as I know so I thought as a best practice it should be clarified before taking action. Simply using this as an exercise to set precedence. I don't think changes to charters have happened since we created this new model (I'm not 100% sure).

@andrii-i
Copy link
Contributor

andrii-i commented Jul 1, 2024

Seeing how #231 is already merged, changes are trivial (adding missing links), and changes merged don't affect meaning of the document, should we check in with EC and revert after if needed?

@Ruv7
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ruv7 commented Jul 3, 2024

Seeing how #231 is already merged, changes are trivial (adding missing links), and changes merged don't affect meaning of the document, should we check in with EC and revert after if needed?

Sure, that works for me. I do think we should reflect the flow in these comments so anyone viewing this thread sees the amended process.

@jasongrout
Copy link
Member

Copying my comment from here:

We (the EC) discussed this in a recent meeting. Eventually we should set permissions on this repo so that only the EC and SSC can merge, but for situations like this:

  1. The voting members of the working group or standing committee must approve the change (done here)
  2. For small or unsubstantial changes to a working group/standing committee charter, any member of the EC can merge. For larger changes then they should notify the EC and ask for review. I think this falls under the "small changes" case. While Steve did the actual merging, Ana and I did approve the change here, so I think we are good.

Closing since I think this matter is resolved (Ana, feel free to reopen if you still feel like we need to discuss more).

@jasongrout jasongrout closed this Jul 9, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants