On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 11:23:30 -0400
Drew DeVault <sir_at_cmpwn.com> wrote:
> 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.
I think this may be a good starting point. We should try start as
simple as possible.
We now have:
- The current original docs describing the (approximately)
- The proposal written and submitted by Chloe (which was based on
feedback on IRC)
- Drew's simplified governance model here above.
I'd also like to share some of my thoughts on this. First, I am
thankful for the trust the community is showing me. But I don't want
become a bottleneck or single point of failure. I want have the
possibility to take a break or vacation without the project collapsing.
Not because I want to leave, but knowing that I *can* would make things
less stressful for me.
So I definitively like the idea of a trusted group of 3. Lets call it
the "council" for now.
The council would have the responsibility for the Alpine project goals,
the guiding principles, the code of conduct, the governance rules, how
decisions are made within the project. They would also be the people
that help resolving conflicts. The council would delegate the technical
responsibility to a technical board.
The technical board would have the final say on technical decisions,
and have the responsibility to coordinate the different teams
(packagers/maintainers, infra, docs, release engineering etc). They
would not deal with conflicts or other people issues.
That way we could have non-technical people in the council, people with
great people skills and great organizational skills. And we could have
people with great technical skills in the technical board.
I think we could start with letting all current core team members be a
part of both the "council" and the "technical board", and then ask who
may be interested in be in only one of those, or maybe none. Some may
be perfectly happy with just continue maintain their packages.
I still think we should have some documented procedure on how to become
a member of either of the council or the technical board, and how to
expel someone misbehaving, not complying with the code of conduct. We
could probably reuse some of the current procedures.
Now, this was only some thoughts and I think our working group (Kevin,
Allison, Richard and Chloe) should look at this and try extract
the best parts of what we have got so far. Maybe they could work out a
simple, but more specific proposal, maybe even with some options or
Received on Mon Apr 22 2019 - 22:38:12 UTC