Requests for comment/Governance/2016-01-06 meeting


 * copied from https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/WorkingGroups on 2016-07-18

= Version 1434 Saved January 6, 2016 =

Authors: robla, Tim, Gabriel, Krinkle, Dude

Working groups

Who makes decisions?

What is the relationship with ArchCom?

Who is responsible for creating these groups?

Who disbands them?

What does membership in a group mean?

What are the responsibilities of these groups?

Should we have working groups at all?

Action item: RobLa: read the Rust model

Models to observe/study


 * Rust - https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1068-rust-governance.md
 * Core team:
 * permanent
 * ~8 members
 * spins up subteams as needed, spins them down when decisions are done
 * (after RFC is approved) makes final decision on whether a feature or change implementation enters stable release (or 'master' branch) of software.
 * Each subteam is led by a member of the core team.
 * Team lead decides initial team memberships. Further membership is decided by subteam members consensus.
 * Sub teams are enpowered to decide.
 * Discussions are mostly asynchronous, online.
 * RFC shepherded by a member from a relevant subteam. The shepherd is responsible for guiding the RFC through the process. Shepherd is responsible to detect when all relevant arguments have been surfaced.
 * Last call (1-2 weeks).
 * Decision is made by that subteam, not by core team.
 * Core team members can bring up arguments and concerns as part of the larger audience participating in the RFC process toward the champion of the RFC.
 * Delegation of authority per RFC
 * Last call called by the champion
 * Questions about this process:
 * What happens if ArchCom wants to override the WG?
 * IETF
 * Meetings run by a consulting company
 * IESG: 12 person steering group
 * Some IESG members are area directors (ADs)
 * IAB elected by ISOC (?), but not supposed to be important
 * ADs approve creation/disbanding of WGs
 * WGs are &quot;temporary&quot; (but sometimes measured in decades)
 * ADs do not decide on RFCs with their AD hat on.
 * WG chair decides on RFC status (draft or ready for approval by IESG)
 * IESG delegates development process to WG but not final decision-making power
 * Python
 * W3C

Roan: do we have a scaling problem? Do we really need WGs?

Robla: yes, people don't have enough time to read and review all RFCs. If we delegate RFC responsibility then archcom won't have such an impossible task

Daniel: sometimes I go into an archcom meeting not having read an RFC, seeing it for the first time. With WG split that is not so likely.

Questions for later:


 * How does archcom membership work?
 * What is the current membership of ArchCom
 * Confirmed: Gabriel, Roan, Daniel, Timo, Tim
 * Are Mark and Trevor still members? – https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_committee
 * Mark: asked to drop out.  RobLa failed to announce
 * Trevor: Never accepted nomination – Tim
 * Ori: declined, then agreed to attend &quot;when it makes sense&quot;
 * What are archcom's responsibilities
 * Do we want permanent &quot;areas&quot; like IETF
 * Do we also/instead want temporary WGs?