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

Version 1434 Saved January 6, 2016[edit]

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 "temporary" (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 "when it makes sense"
What are archcom's responsibilities
Do we want permanent "areas" like IETF
Do we also/instead want temporary WGs?