Continuing to Iterate After The Summit: A Governance Working Group

Topic

Indicate which topic your proposal falls under:

Overview

The number and wide scope of proposals made to the summit are great - but along with the issues noted by the poll, they show a need to establish a way for those changes to happen outside of summits, to iterate more often. We need to keep doing these types of improvements to the way we organize ourselves more continuously.

Solution

A governance working group would offer a place to meet and discuss issues with how we organize ourselves. And we could apply the same decision process that we have for the summit: a proposal is written, presented at one of the regular governance working group meetings, reviewed async for 2 weeks, and then we (core contributors) vote.

The working group would also be responsible for helping community members to report issues and blockers which come from governance topics, as well as helping to shepherd changes through the community review process, up to liaising with the TOC on the biggest ones.

Q&A

Isn't there already the contributor coordination working group for that?

Indeed - the current proposal is really to rename that working group and widen its scope slightly to all governance topics. We already do a lot of that work in the group, but as the survey has shown we need to make it clearer where community members can bring up topics of governance that span over multiple working groups - like contributor programs, community issue, or any project-wide governance topic.

Since what is currently called the Contributor Coordination Working Group has long served some of those roles, renaming it the Governance Working Group (and the same meeting name) would make this clear to people who aren’t familiar with the meeting contents or name. The working group could then help them with unblocking issues, redirecting to the right working group if there is one well fitted for the issue, or for larger topic like ones from the summit, help organize summits and community-wide consultations, or liaise with the TOC as needed.

Isn't that the role of the TOC?

No, the TOC is steering the project and taking large strategic decisions, while the governance working group would be more day to day: meeting more often, open to all, with async work and discussion in between. The working group can liaise and refer bigger topics to the TOC, though.

Aren't there already decision-making processes, like OEPs or ADRs?

Yes, and this isn't meant to replace them - it would still make sense for some of the changes or decisions to follow the OEP or ADR processes. The working group is more there to facilitate by offering a place and time for bringing up issues, and help them turn into implemented decisions.

Impact

The impact of the changes would be measured by:

• The number of issues reported, and the number of change proposals made (which are neither positive or negative by themselves, but is useful to keep an eye on)

• The proportion of those issues closed with a change implemented

• The time it took to close the issue/proposal

Timeline & Assignment

• Prepare an updated charter for the working group, including a process for a "permanent summit" & processing proposals: 4h, Xavier & ??? (you?)

• Discuss it with the current members of the contributor coordination working group & get it reviewed by all core contributors: 4h, Xavier & ??? (you?)

• Follow the steps to formally announce and create/rename the working group: 2h, Xavier & ??? (you?)

Be sure to reach out if you would like to participate!