governance: expand use of CTC issue tracker #8945
Conversation
Trott
added
doc
nodejs-github-bot
added
the
meta
| [the CTC issue tracker](https://github.com/nodejs/CTC/issues). The process in | ||
| the issue tracker is: | ||
|
|
||
| * A CTC member opens an issue explaining the propoosal/issue and @-mentions |
| @@ -112,7 +107,7 @@ Typical activities of a CTC member include: | |||
| Note that CTC members are also Collaborators and therefore typically perform | |||
| Collaborator activities as well. | |||
|
|
|||
| ### CTC Meetings | |||
| ### CTC Meetings | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a whitespace at the end of the line?
| individuals are identified by the CTC and their addition as | ||
| Collaborators is discussed during the weekly CTC meeting. | ||
| Individuals identified by the CTC as making significant and valuable | ||
| contributions are made Collaborators and given commit-access to the project. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tiny nit but isn't it spelled 'commit access', no dash?
|
LGTM subject to comments identified by others. |
| * A CTC member opens an issue explaining the propoosal/issue and @-mentions | ||
| @nodejs/ctc. | ||
| * After 72 hours, if there are two or more `LGTM`s from other CTC members and no | ||
| explicit opposition from other CTC members, then the proposal is approved. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems a bit tight for ensuring consensus imo
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems a bit tight for ensuring consensus imo
What would seem a better duration in your opinion? I chose 72 hours because that seemed like a duration for an issue on the tracker that was more likely to actually map to real consensus than a conversation at a meeting attended by maybe 10 of the CTC's 18 members. Arguably, that's not a high bar, but it's what we have now, so that's what I used as an approximate metric. Totally open to other ideas. What did you have in mind?
|
This LGTM with nits addressed. |
As the CTC grows and has representation from more time zones, we need to embrace asynchronous decision making and rely less on the actual meeting. This change is a proposal for that which, ironically, probably has to be approved at a meeting.
|
Nits addressed, rebased, force pushed. |
|
Does this still need to be on the ctc-agenda? |
Yes. |
|
It would be great if CTC folks could read the new paragraph and the bullet points and weighed in before the meeting. I'd be happy to not have to bring this to the meeting. CTC folks who have not offered an opinion yet: |
|
This lgtm for now. I'm hesitant with the 72-hours two-only requirement for passing major things, but we can only see how it goes and adjust if enough of us are unhappy with the process. My main concern is simply with the workload of GitHub notifications and I'm constantly behind these days. I'll just have to make sure I tune in to nodejs/ctc tagged items! |
|
lgtm. I'd be +1 to a |
|
+1 in general, but with splitting a «CTC should take a look at this» with «this escalated to voting». The moment when it has been escalated to voting should be clearly visible. That is probably a separate thing from Currently |
|
I want to echo @rvagg's hesitation on the 72 hour + 2 ctc minimum for moving things forward. Obviously this will be a case by case basis... but if something is controversial I do thing we need to have a bit of a wider consensus on it. I think a hard rule here may miss the point, but I feel we may need more time + opinions on it. I'm +1 on everything but that nit. |
|
LGTM w/ the same hesitation as @thealphanerd and @rvagg. |
That may be true in practice, but it is in contradiction of our GOVERNANCE.md doc which says of the CTC agenda:
|
|
I've created the |
|
I count at least 11 (and possibly as many as 14) approvals from current CTC members. The approvals as I see it come from: addaleax There are also maybe-approvals-I'm-not-sure from: chalker So I think this can land. I'll create a |
As the CTC grows and has representation from more time zones, we need to embrace asynchronous decision making and rely less on the actual meeting. This change is a proposal for that which, ironically, probably has to be approved at a meeting. PR-URL: nodejs#8945 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Julien Gilli <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rod Vagg <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Shigeki Ohtsu <[email protected]>
|
Landed in b899140. Thanks, everyone. |
As the CTC grows and has representation from more time zones, we need to embrace asynchronous decision making and rely less on the actual meeting. This change is a proposal for that which, ironically, probably has to be approved at a meeting. PR-URL: #8945 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Julien Gilli <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rod Vagg <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Shigeki Ohtsu <[email protected]>
As the CTC grows and has representation from more time zones, we need to embrace asynchronous decision making and rely less on the actual meeting. This change is a proposal for that which, ironically, probably has to be approved at a meeting. PR-URL: #8945 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Julien Gilli <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rod Vagg <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Shigeki Ohtsu <[email protected]>
As the CTC grows and has representation from more time zones, we need to embrace asynchronous decision making and rely less on the actual meeting. This change is a proposal for that which, ironically, probably has to be approved at a meeting. PR-URL: #8945 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Julien Gilli <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rod Vagg <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Shigeki Ohtsu <[email protected]>
Checklist
Affected core subsystem(s)
Description of change
As the CTC grows and has representation from more time zones, we need to
embrace asynchronous decision making and rely less on the actual
meeting. This change is a proposal for that which, ironically, probably
has to be approved at a meeting.
/cc @nodejs/ctc