There is a general sense of dissatisfaction with the governance proposal
under discussion. It's too big and makes a lot of changes at once.
Simplified governance model:
1. The core team is stripped down to 3 trusted people.
2. The core team is generalized to "responsible for everything".
3. The core team delegates their responsibilities at their discretion.
- The new core team would immediately grant everyone already in core the
necessary abilities to do the jobs they already do.
- The core team can delegate delegation itself, for example to expand
the leadership of aports.
Based on this simplified model, informal teams will materialize as
they're needed with minimal pomp & circumstance. The process for e.g.
joining aports as a committer to community, becomes informally
convincing the people who are responsible for giving people commit
access to aports to add you. The person making that call might want to
run it by the mailing list or the IRC channel for comments before
pulling the trigger. The process for establishing a Python team is just
getting a bunch of interested people together and doing the work. If
it's necessary to connect an ad-hoc team like that with resources, just
make the case to the person responsible for those resources.
Official externally-facing roles can be established at the pleasure of
the core team, as well. A security team, for example, can be established
less informally and have membership written down somewhere, with a
point-of-contact for the rest of the world.
This may be simple enough for bootstrapping purposes and ought to solve
the problems we set out to fix. As more complex procedures are shown to
be necessary over time, they can be added.
Received on Mon Apr 15 2019 - 11:23:30 UTC