Nominating @BethGriggs to the TSC #718
Comments
|
+1 |
|
+1
Il giorno lun 17 giu 2019 alle 21:46 Michael Dawson <
[email protected]> ha scritto:
… +1
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#718?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAAMXY4W7ZBEVESJ5SAH24LP27SXVA5CNFSM4HYZVZY2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODX4H2VA#issuecomment-502824276>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAMXYZ263HBAJLAETBSKZ3P27SXVANCNFSM4HYZVZYQ>
.
|
|
+1 |
|
This should be on the TSC agenda as per the charter?
|
|
I'll add to the agenda. |
It's only the changes to the membership that need to be posted in the agenda--in other words, when we finally vote on bringing her in (or not). For now, this is just a nomination. That said, this is worth a mention in the Announcements section for sure. |
|
+1 |
5 similar comments
|
+1 |
|
+1 |
|
+1 |
|
+1 |
|
+1 |
|
Beth was invited to the last 3 TSC meetings and attended the 2/3 that were held. We have 14/18 +1's and no objections. I suggest we confirm her membership in the meeting this week. |
|
There were no objections in the meeting and normally I think that would have let us confirm the nomination based on the votes in this issue and lack of objections in the meeting. @nodejs/tsc the wrinkle is that the Redhat Acquisition just closed. Redhat will be managed as a separate company but my assumption is that we would still come under the same cap (let me know if you disagree). My preference would have been if Bethany had been confirmed and we could have dealt with the cap later as we (IBM) would then look at how to adjust to the cap without it just affecting the last person to be added. Since the nomination is a recognition of the work that Bethany has been putting into the project and the value of having her voice in TSC discussions I've been thinking about a few options. My first one is some sort of rotation where we'd have one of the IBM members rotate out every 2 months and another one re-join. Of course, this would be subject to our regular process which is to re-nominate/confirm the request of an Emeriti member to rejoin, just like we have for other Emeriti members in the past. The other thing I've been thinking about is that it is useful for people like Sam to be able to report on where we are on the Security triage, or Bethany on Releases so I'm wondering if it would be ok for the person who has rotated off to continue to join the TSC members as an observer. Not sure if this crosses the line or not? I'm just thinking of potential ideas to balance between concerns over membership from a single company and trying to maximize the effectiveness of our collaborators. Please let me know if I'm completely off base or you feel that these suggestions go against the spirit of the limit on TSC members from a single company and I'll drop these kinds of suggestions. |
|
|
|
Considering the membership clause is in our charter I don't feel that we have much wiggle room without drafting changes (and getting those approved by CPC /w heads up to board). We have in the past required a company to have a member step down based on these rules so it does not seem fair to find ways to work around it. I believe for board memebership rules subsidiaries, even if separately managed, still count towards the head count rules. For example we cannot have both community board seats be from the same company. One solution would be to onboard another person first, bringing our count to 20 and making it so IBM would only be 25% |
|
@MylesBorins just so I understand do you see "rotating" as trying work around the limit? I was suggesting that we'd have a member step down, only that we'd change who that was over time... |
|
@sam-github suggested I clarify more specifically as The mechanism for rotation would that one person would step down, then later another person would step down, and a replacement would be nominated |
|
I think rotating is a perfectly acceptable, even laudable, solution to the problem. That said, I think Myles's suggestion that we can nominate at least one more person is a good idea too, considering that we have (in my estimation) at least three other people who are obvious folks to consider for a nomination. I'll send email to TSC to discuss that more. |
I am very much not for this idea. TSC seats are supposed to be individually held, and kept with individuals even when transferring companies, etc. They are supposed to represent as best as possible (and so, this rule) the individual contributor's judgement. Moving to per-company would be a huge step backwards and would possibly lead us to other less savoury rule changes in the future. |
|
I actually agree with @Fishrock123. I retract my previous comment 😄 |
|
I am also a bit hesitant on rotation, and I'd like to think about it a bit more. I would rather not adjust our operations based on immediate circumstance when other options are available. (Other options include someone from IBM not remaining a TSC member, unfortunately. 😞) |
|
Ok yeah, any 'official' rotation I think also eats into my previous point. I think a longer term rotation by IBM itself (and so tsc members going fully on and off the tsc), could perhaps work. |
|
+1 |
|
We discussed in the TSC meeting today and agreed nomination can progress. As per TSC charter we need a vote. @nodejs/tsc, we'll consider +1s in this issue to be a yes vote unless an objection is raised in this issue before the end of this week. The following people were in attendance in the meeting and are considered yes votes as well:
@nodejs/tsc, if you have not commented in this issue before or would like to change your vote please comment in the issue before the end of the week. Michael will plan to tally votes and open PR's to add to TSC if appropriate on Monday next week |
|
+1 |
4 similar comments
|
+1 |
|
+1 |
|
+1 |
|
+1 |
|
making +1 explicit |
|
We have 17/18 +1s and no objections so considering vote complete and acceptance onto the TSC complete. Will PR addition. |
|
converting my 👍 to an explicit +1! |
Refs: nodejs/TSC#746 Refs: nodejs/TSC#718
|
PR to add to mainling list: nodejs/email#144 |
|
PR to add to invitee list for TSC meetings: nodejs/create-node-meeting-artifacts#76 |
|
PR to add to TSC list in nodejs/node: nodejs/node#29546 |
|
checklist once PR in nodejs/node lands:
|
* Add Bethany and Tobias Refs: nodejs/TSC#746 Refs: nodejs/TSC#718
Refs: nodejs/TSC#718 PR-URL: #29546 Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]>
|
Checklist complete. @BethGriggs welcome to the TSC! |
Refs: nodejs/TSC#718 PR-URL: #29546 Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]>
Refs: nodejs/TSC#718 PR-URL: #29546 Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]>
* Add Bethany and Tobias Refs: nodejs/TSC#746 Refs: nodejs/TSC#718
No objections from the TSC so far and Beth has given a 👍 so I'm nominating her for the TSC. Beth has been shouldering a huge chunk of the LTS work for the last year and has begun being as focused on strategy and long term management of the program as getting the day to day work done. As I scale back my involvement in release I think it is a great idea to get someone else on the TSC who is helping to own that strategic initiative!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: