meta: merge the TSC and CTC back into a single entity #317

jasnell · 2017-08-22T05:49:46Z

Merge the CTC and TSC back into a single body. Effectively dissolves the CTC and merges it's existing membership into to the TSC.

Not covered by this PR: Once this goes through, I propose that a new election for the TSC Chair and TSC Director positions should be held to reflect the consensus of the larger body.

This requires sign off from both the @nodejs/tsc and @nodejs/ctc members.

@addaleax, @MylesBorins and @Fishrock123 ... you will need to decide if your resignation from the TSC would still apply if this goes through since all three of you are currently still members of the CTC.

MylesBorins · 2017-08-22T05:59:05Z

+1 you have my support.

I am more than happy to be a part of the new committee. Thank you for putting this together

mcollina · 2017-08-22T06:02:16Z

LGTM

indutny · 2017-08-22T06:04:09Z

LGTM

ChALkeR · 2017-08-22T14:45:15Z

TSC-Charter.md

+All votes if and only if more than 50% of the TSC members (excluding individuals
+who explicitly abstain) vote in favor. For example, if there are 20 TSC
+members, and 5 of those members indicate that they abstain, then 8 votes in
+favor are required for a resolution to pass.


For everyone reviewing — this is an actual process change in the voting mechanism. Also, huge 👍 on this one.

This section sounds misworded? It reads difficult.

The second sentence is clear, but the first sentence looks like it may have a copy/paste error. I think it's missing the word pass. Should probably be:

All votes pass if and only if more than 50% of the TSC members (excluding individuals who explicitly abstain) vote in favor.

Might be slightly better as:

A proposal passes if and only if more than 50% of the TSC members (excluding individuals who explicitly abstain) vote in favor.

evanlucas · 2017-08-22T16:11:01Z

LGTM. I support this

Fishrock123 · 2017-08-22T16:57:08Z

I resigned from the TSC as it stands today, not from the CTC.

I support this, I think it would be better for everyone than the TSC before or after yesterday.

jasnell · 2017-08-22T17:17:58Z

@nodejs/ctc members. Voicing support for this is fine, but using the Approve/Request Changes workflow is better. This action requires sign off from both the CTC and TSC.

@Fishrock123 ... you and @addaleax would both need to make clear indications about whether your resignation from the TSC would continue to apply after this merge. Otherwise, you both both automatically added back on to the TSC once this landed.

Fishrock123 · 2017-08-22T17:33:31Z

I thought I made that clear but: I resigned from the, as it stands today, pre-merge (as it may be) TSC.

A post merge TSC will not be the same body and, as CTC members, I expect that we would be part of that merge.

addaleax · 2017-08-22T17:34:42Z

The same goes for me.

jasnell · 2017-08-22T17:34:51Z

It wasn't clear based on your original statement. Thank you for clarifying. ~~We would need @addaleax to also make her own statement.~~ Thank you @addaleax ... messages crossed.

Fishrock123 · 2017-08-22T17:43:39Z

~~I suspect the same will also go for Myles.~~

~~As he may not be around,~~ I think the only reasonable and fair option (in the case of a merge) (to begin with) would be to merge the groups as they stand at the time of the merge and then let people act as they would for these sort of things.

Edit: ah, thanks for pointing out that he already commented.

ljharb · 2017-08-22T17:44:48Z

@Fishrock123 @jasnell #317 (comment)

jasnell · 2017-08-22T17:46:54Z

ah right... I forgot momentarily that myles had also resigned.

I do not believe that the action should be automatic given that, presumably, there is (A) a reason y'all resigned and (B) the circumstances leading to those resignations will not have changed given that (C) even if the individual in question voluntarily resigns from the TSC today, they are also a member of the CTC and would also automatically be made a member of the merged TSC again, which -- presumably, would put us right back in the original position with no forward progress made.

Therefore, I prefer for the intention of those of you who have resigned to be very specifically stated going in.

fhinkel

Lgtm

mhdawson

LGTM

ofrobots · 2017-08-22T20:52:47Z

BasePolicies/Charter.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@

 Every Working Group requires a charter that describes the scope of
 the WGs responsibilities. Once written, a new Pull Request that adds
-the charter to either the [CTC][] or [TSC][] WORKING_GROUPS.md document
+the charter to either the [TSC][] WORKING_GROUPS.md document


stephenburgess8 · 2017-08-22T23:37:43Z

First comment at Node 🙌 In #219 a reference to CTC is added to Github-Org-Management-Policy.md. You may want to change that here if it is merged first. I'm learning a lot from reading these docs, thanks.

EDIT: added why I am bringing it up.

jasnell · 2017-08-22T23:49:20Z

@stephenburgess8 ... Yes, such references would be updated. there are lots of PRs here with lots of moving pieces and there would be reconciliation required.

jasnell · 2017-08-22T23:49:26Z

btw, welcome :-)

jasnell · 2017-08-23T14:29:51Z

Ping @nodejs/ctc and @nodejs/tsc members... please weigh in on this. For those of you who have already weighed in / signed off, thank you. Ideally we would have at least a simple majority of CTC/TSC members signing off before progressing with this. However, as per our process, if there are no objections posted within a reasonable period of time, I will assume there is consent and will get this landed.

Trott · 2017-08-23T22:18:55Z

README.md

-Node.js Core is defined as the code project existing in the repository located at <https://github.com/nodejs/node> which the `node` executable and associated packages are built from, _minus_ the vendored projects included in the codebase, specifically those located in the [deps](https://github.com/nodejs/node/tree/master/deps) and [tools](https://github.com/nodejs/node/tree/master/tools) directories that are copied in from externally maintained repositories.
+Node.js Core is defined as the code project existing in the repository located
+at <https://github.com/nodejs/node> which the `node` executable and associated
+packages are built from, _minus_ the vendored projects included in the codebase,


Nit: _minus_ -> excluding

(Let me know if I should just push these sorts of nits as a separate commit than you can force-push out if you don't like. I know I'm suggesting changes to text the already exists in the file.)

Trott · 2017-08-23T22:19:29Z

README.md


 ### Node.js Core

-Node.js Core is defined as the code project existing in the repository located at <https://github.com/nodejs/node> which the `node` executable and associated packages are built from, _minus_ the vendored projects included in the codebase, specifically those located in the [deps](https://github.com/nodejs/node/tree/master/deps) and [tools](https://github.com/nodejs/node/tree/master/tools) directories that are copied in from externally maintained repositories.
+Node.js Core is defined as the code project existing in the repository located


Nit: Words-as-words should be italicized, so Node.js Core -> _Node.js Core_

Nit: the code project existing in -> the contents of

Trott · 2017-08-23T22:20:33Z

README.md


 ### Node.js Core

-Node.js Core is defined as the code project existing in the repository located at <https://github.com/nodejs/node> which the `node` executable and associated packages are built from, _minus_ the vendored projects included in the codebase, specifically those located in the [deps](https://github.com/nodejs/node/tree/master/deps) and [tools](https://github.com/nodejs/node/tree/master/tools) directories that are copied in from externally maintained repositories.
+Node.js Core is defined as the code project existing in the repository located
+at <https://github.com/nodejs/node> which the `node` executable and associated


Nit: remove located at

Nit: which -> from which and remove from on the next line

(I seriously love your reviews my friend... :-) ...)

Trott · 2017-08-23T22:22:11Z

README.md

+Node.js Core is defined as the code project existing in the repository located
+at <https://github.com/nodejs/node> which the `node` executable and associated
+packages are built from, _minus_ the vendored projects included in the codebase,
+specifically those located in the [deps][] and [tools][] directories that are


Nit: Remove comma on the previous line and specifically those.

Trott · 2017-08-23T22:26:49Z

README.md

-Every Top Level Project not currently incubating can appoint someone to the TSC who they elect
-at their own discretion.
+Every Top Level Project not currently incubating can appoint someone to the TSC
+who they elect at their own discretion.


Worst nit ever: who -> whom (I'm not actually a stickler on the whom usage stuff, but might as well preempt a grammar discussion by just using whom. People may disagree about whether who is OK here but no one should disagree about whom in this situation.)

whom.js ;-)

Trott · 2017-08-23T22:29:41Z

README.md

+* [mhdawson](https://github.com/mhdawson) -
+**Michael Dawson** &lt;michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com&gt; (he/him)
+* [misterdjules](https://github.com/misterdjules) -
+**Julien Gilli** &lt;jgilli@nodejs.org&gt;


Julien left the CTC so this entry should be moved to Emeritus (unless he actively objects in which case just remove him--I think he was merely indifferent to Emeritus--I like Emeritus listings because it gives a sense of history).

Trott · 2017-08-23T22:31:39Z

TSC-Charter.md

+A proposal passes if and only if more than 50% of the TSC members (excluding
+individuals who explicitly abstain) vote in favor. For example, if there are 20
+TSC members, and 5 of those members indicate that they abstain, then 8 votes in
+favor are required for a resolution to pass.


This is a charter change and so will require board approval, right? If so and if you want to avoid that, I think it can be left as it was. While not as explicit, I think a reasonable interpretation of the existing text is to be the same as the updated text.

(Another option is to include an Addendum document that includes this sort of greater detail/interpretation of the charter.)

(Although thinking about it, I guess the Board is going to have to review an updated charter anyway, so maybe it's not worth trying to avoid.)

Yeah, that's it exactly.

Trott · 2017-08-23T22:33:33Z

WORKING_GROUPS.md


-## Process:
+A Working Group's charter can be revoked either by consensus of the Working


Nit: I wonder if consent might be better than consensus. I'm OK either way, though.

Trott · 2017-08-23T22:34:31Z

WORKING_GROUPS.md

-  * *Increasing diversity* means actively onboarding people from diverse
-    backgrounds to the Node.js project and maintaining their participation.
+To find out how to join a working group, consult the GOVERNANCE.md in
+the working group's repository, or in the working group's repository.


This is sentence is definitely messed up. I'm not sure what was intended. But in the working group's respository, or in the working group's repository has to be some kind of copy/paste error?

heh.. this is in the ctc repo version also.

Trott · 2017-08-23T22:37:35Z

WORKING_GROUPS.md

+### i18n
+
+The i18n Working Groups handle more than just translations. They


Might need to clarify whether this is treated as one WG with many teams, or if it constitutes 40 or whatever separate Working Groups. The latter might be a problem for some proposals we have for governance right now, like the one that allows a % of WGs to vacate a TSC decision, or the one that gives individual WGs seats on the TSC.

I'm actually leaning in the direction of asking the CommComm to take over stewardship of the i18n working groups... See nodejs/community-committee#114

Great idea. The TSC/CTC doesn't pay a whole lot of attention to those groups. And active people in those groups may be a good fit for CommComm so there can be some...uh...(buzzword alert! look away!) synergy.

Trott · 2017-08-23T22:38:53Z

Needs a rebase.

jasnell · 2017-08-24T04:30:58Z

@Trott... updated!

jasnell · 2017-08-24T21:39:01Z

@nodejs/ctc @nodejs/tsc ... I will give this PR until Monday. If there are no objections I will consider that to mean there is consensus and will get this landed. As soon as that happens, the TSC and CTC will be one body again.

Trott · 2017-08-24T21:52:56Z

@nodejs/ctc @nodejs/tsc ... I will give this PR until Monday. If there are no objections I will consider that to mean there is consensus and will get this landed. As soon as that happens, the TSC and CTC will be one body again.

Wouldn't the changes to the TSC Charter doc require Board approval? If so, you can't really land those changes until that happens, no? Maybe split that one doc's changes out into a separate PR? None of the other changes depend on that one.

Actually, looking at the changes to the TSC Charter more closely, the language doesn't actually change anything IMO. It's more explicit, which is nice, but nothing changes (assuming a member can only vote no, vote yes, or abstain).

jasnell · 2017-08-24T21:53:52Z

Yep, we can pull those out and put them in the other PR

Trott · 2017-08-24T21:55:51Z

Immediate concerns if this happens:

Does the new body adopt the current TSC meeting schedule or the current CTC meeting schedule? I'd argue the current CTC meeting schedule (with rotating meeting times to accommodate a wide array of time zones) is probably better-suited for a group this global.
Who is the chair of the new group? Obvious possibilities are Michael Dawson (current TSC chair) and me (current CTC chair). Regardless, I imagine one of the first orders of business will be to select a chair, so it probably doesn't matter that much.

jasnell · 2017-08-24T21:57:35Z

I am calling for a new Chair and Director election once the two come back together. I would suggest that in the interim, you and Michael be considered co-chairs.

I would assume the current CTC meeting schedule would be in effect.

isaacs · 2017-08-25T00:27:23Z

Speaking as a mostly-outsider to all this, I do have some concerns about merging the TSC and CTC, though it seems clear from talking to people who have a better idea of what's going on, that it's the right call at least in the short term.

The reason (that I'd heard) for splitting out the CTC from the TSC in the first place was that "node core" is really just one very specialized aspect of what this foundation does. Along with marketing, evangelism, events, documentation, inclusivity, i18n, etc., "core" should be "just another working group". Having the core technical committee be in charge of effectively all aspects of the governance skews the project towards a problematic "just focus on the code" mentality, which marginalizes other important aspects of the project (eventually resulting in a lower quality and quantity of code contributions!) That made a lot of sense to me, and it seems like that goal was not fully achieved.

It may be premature to try to address this, but I'd really like to see a path forward where "leadership of the project" and "coding node core" are not seen as identical jobs, or necessarily done by the same people. It still strikes me as a nice structure to have a TSC that is the "holder of the values", and tasked with ratifying and connecting WGs, and a CTC that is the WG assigned with merging patches in nodejs/node.

And again, all that being said, I am confident that the current CTC has people who are committed to doing right by this project, and can learn from their experience to design a TSC/CTC structure that is more effective, sustainable, and reflective of the values of the Node.js community.

thefourtheye · 2017-08-25T01:10:34Z

WORKING_GROUPS.md

+
+
+[Technical Steering Committee (TSC)]: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md#technical-steering-committee


This link isn't valid.

jasnell · 2017-08-25T13:08:22Z

Commits squash, TSC charter language changes pulled so this PR can land without board signoff. We have more than enough sign off to land. I will land this first thing Monday morning.

Fixes: nodejs#312

Fishrock123 · 2017-08-28T15:08:47Z

README.md

-Node.js Core is defined as the code project existing in the repository located at <https://github.com/nodejs/node> which the `node` executable and associated packages are built from, _minus_ the vendored projects included in the codebase, specifically those located in the [deps](https://github.com/nodejs/node/tree/master/deps) and [tools](https://github.com/nodejs/node/tree/master/tools) directories that are copied in from externally maintained repositories.
+*Node.js Core* is defined as the contents of the repository located at
+<https://github.com/nodejs/node> from which the `node` executable and associated
+packages are built excluding the vendored projects included in the codebase


perhaps italicize excluding as minus was

also, comma after built?

Fishrock123 · 2017-08-28T15:11:54Z

README.md

-Working Groups, and advocating for any needs in the technical side of the foundation to
-the Node.js Foundation Board of Directors.
-
-TSC members can nominate new members at any time. Candidates for membership tend to be people


Why has this paragraph been removed?

Because it unnecessarily duplicates details from the TSC Charter.

I think it is still valuable to have it stated here for posterity?

How come? It's stated with greater clarity and detail in the charter and really does not serve much of a purpose.

Unless it is stated somewhere else in this repo:

it will be difficult to link to

people will likely be unable to find how they could possibly become a TSC member in the broadest terms

Fishrock123 · 2017-08-28T15:13:00Z

Streaming/Streaming-To-Youtube.md

@@ -62,5 +62,5 @@ However, it may turn yellow and issue a warning in a "stream health" section bel

 Moderation follows the [Moderation Policy](../Moderation-Policy.md). Messages can be moderated right-clicking and selecting the necessary action, such as `remove`.

-During TSC and CTC meetings, there is a section of public Q&A at the end.
+During TSC meetings, there is a section of public Q&A at the end.


Maybe better as committee as presumably this advice would be to the commcomm too, if they do Q&A.

That can be done in a separate PR

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Sure

Fishrock123 · 2017-08-28T20:35:52Z

@isaacs As a note addressing your concern of scope, the board has the ability to make other "top-level projects", e.g. the CommComm, which I think resolves this issue at the CTC/TSC merge level?

That is, the TSC will become more focused on core, and almost certainly delegate admin things and non-core technical things elsewhere.

BridgeAR · 2017-08-28T23:01:13Z

WORKING_GROUPS.md

+* [Benchmarking](#benchmarking)
+* [Post-mortem](#post-mortem)
+* [Intl](#intl)


Evangelism is missing in the list (it should be before Docker) and they are not in order.
Intl should come after i18n.

The Evangelism Working Group has been transferred to the Community Committees scope of responsibility.

@BridgeAR ... if it's OK, then I'd like to reorder those in a separate PR

Alright but it is described down below and the titel says "Current Working Groups". Therefore I think the working group should either be listed here or the detailed information about it should be removed, don't you think so?

Sure, I do not think it should hold the PR from being merged.

Yep! I missed that it was still mentioned!

jasnell · 2017-08-29T03:26:47Z

@nodejs/ctc @nodejs/tsc ... Given that there have been no objections, it's been 7 days, and we have 10 signoffs, I'm proceeding to land this in the morning. This will mean that the CTC and TSC are one body again. I'll will get the teams updated accordingly.

isaacs · 2017-08-29T18:52:14Z

@Fishrock123 #317 (comment)

Interesting. So can we expect to see more working groups chartered against the executive board?

(I'm happy to take this discussion elsewhere, or even write up a bit more thoughts on what I think success might look like. It seems like the OP here is kind of wrapped up?)

jasnell · 2017-09-01T15:45:35Z

~~Locking the thread~~ nevermind, just noticed that Trott already had.

jasnell force-pushed the merge-ctc-tsc branch from 946b76e to 358e1d3 Compare August 22, 2017 05:50

jasnell mentioned this pull request Aug 22, 2017

meta: merge TSC and CTC back into a single body nodejs/node#14973

Closed

ChALkeR reviewed Aug 22, 2017

View reviewed changes

addaleax approved these changes Aug 22, 2017

View reviewed changes

gibfahn mentioned this pull request Aug 22, 2017

Discussion: CoC Violations & Accountability : Node's future nodejs/community-committee#111

Closed

fhinkel approved these changes Aug 22, 2017

View reviewed changes

cjihrig approved these changes Aug 22, 2017

View reviewed changes

mhdawson approved these changes Aug 22, 2017

View reviewed changes

ofrobots approved these changes Aug 22, 2017

View reviewed changes

joyeecheung approved these changes Aug 23, 2017

View reviewed changes

Trott requested changes Aug 23, 2017

View reviewed changes

jasnell force-pushed the merge-ctc-tsc branch from c082605 to c7b65eb Compare August 24, 2017 04:30

mhdawson mentioned this pull request Aug 24, 2017

Responding to https://github.com/nodejs/board/issues/67 #321

Closed

thefourtheye approved these changes Aug 25, 2017

View reviewed changes

jasnell force-pushed the merge-ctc-tsc branch from 13032d8 to f66261e Compare August 25, 2017 13:07

meta: merge the TSC and CTC back into a single entity

cf428e9

Fixes: nodejs#312

jasnell force-pushed the merge-ctc-tsc branch from f66261e to cf428e9 Compare August 25, 2017 13:09

targos approved these changes Aug 28, 2017

View reviewed changes

Fishrock123 approved these changes Aug 28, 2017

View reviewed changes

Fishrock123 mentioned this pull request Aug 28, 2017

Node.js Foundation Core Technical Committee (CTC) Meeting 2017-08-30 nodejs/CTC#171

Closed

[Squash] nit

0f367d7

BridgeAR reviewed Aug 28, 2017

View reviewed changes

jasnell added 2 commits August 28, 2017 16:01

[Squash] Nit

d336642

[Squash] Remove evangelism wg, this has moved to commcomm

5a0cbfd

Fishrock123 approved these changes Aug 29, 2017

View reviewed changes

jasnell merged commit 97c0342 into nodejs:master Aug 29, 2017

nodejs locked and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 1, 2017

nodejs deleted a comment from trevorlinton Sep 1, 2017

nodejs deleted a comment from sandro-pasquali Sep 1, 2017

nodejs deleted a comment from kristianmandrup Sep 1, 2017

nodejs deleted a comment from Nodeski Sep 1, 2017


		## Process:
		A Working Group's charter can be revoked either by consensus of the Working

		### i18n

		The i18n Working Groups handle more than just translations. They



		[Technical Steering Committee (TSC)]: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md#technical-steering-committee

meta: merge the TSC and CTC back into a single entity #317

meta: merge the TSC and CTC back into a single entity #317

Conversation

jasnell commented Aug 22, 2017

MylesBorins commented Aug 22, 2017

mcollina commented Aug 22, 2017

indutny commented Aug 22, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

evanlucas commented Aug 22, 2017

Fishrock123 commented Aug 22, 2017 • edited

jasnell commented Aug 22, 2017

Fishrock123 commented Aug 22, 2017

addaleax commented Aug 22, 2017

jasnell commented Aug 22, 2017 • edited

Fishrock123 commented Aug 22, 2017 • edited

ljharb commented Aug 22, 2017 • edited

jasnell commented Aug 22, 2017 • edited

fhinkel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mhdawson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

stephenburgess8 commented Aug 22, 2017 • edited

jasnell commented Aug 22, 2017

jasnell commented Aug 22, 2017

jasnell commented Aug 23, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jasnell Aug 24, 2017 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Trott commented Aug 23, 2017

jasnell commented Aug 24, 2017

jasnell commented Aug 24, 2017

Trott commented Aug 24, 2017

jasnell commented Aug 24, 2017

Trott commented Aug 24, 2017

jasnell commented Aug 24, 2017

isaacs commented Aug 25, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jasnell commented Aug 25, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Fishrock123 Aug 28, 2017 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Fishrock123 commented Aug 28, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jasnell commented Aug 29, 2017 • edited

isaacs commented Aug 29, 2017

jasnell commented Sep 1, 2017 • edited

Fishrock123 commented Aug 22, 2017 •

edited

jasnell commented Aug 22, 2017 •

edited

Fishrock123 commented Aug 22, 2017 •

edited

ljharb commented Aug 22, 2017 •

edited

jasnell commented Aug 22, 2017 •

edited

stephenburgess8 commented Aug 22, 2017 •

edited

jasnell Aug 24, 2017 •

edited

Fishrock123 Aug 28, 2017 •

edited

jasnell commented Aug 29, 2017 •

edited

jasnell commented Sep 1, 2017 •

edited