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

jasnell · 2017-08-22T05:52:48Z

Merge the CTC and TSC back into a single body. Dependent on approval and landing of nodejs/TSC#317

/cc @nodejs/ctc @nodejs/tsc

mcollina · 2017-08-22T06:04:33Z

LGTM

indutny · 2017-08-22T06:05:50Z

LGTM

ChALkeR

There are conflicts between the procedure here and as defined in the TSC repo (and charter). Those probably need to be resolved.

I highlighted via inline comments the ones that I noticed, there could be more.

ChALkeR · 2017-08-22T06:01:36Z

GOVERNANCE.md

-employment by a CTC member, creates a situation where more than 1/3 of
-the CTC membership shares an employer, then the situation must be
-immediately remedied by the resignation or removal of one or more CTC
+No more than 1/3 of the TSC members may be affiliated with the same


This says 1/3, TSC charter says 1/4.

Perhaps just update to 1/4 everywhere, if this fits with the current members set?

We would need to decide. I prefer the 1/4 limit.

1/4 looks better, especially if it doesn't contradict the current memebers list.

Also, preferring 1/4 would not cause a TSC charter change (and requesting approval from the board), and preferring 1/3 would.

ChALkeR · 2017-08-22T06:02:01Z

GOVERNANCE.md

-immediately remedied by the resignation or removal of one or more CTC
+No more than 1/3 of the TSC members may be affiliated with the same
+employer. If removal or resignation of a TSC member, or a change of
+employment by a TSC member, creates a situation where more than 1/3 of


ditto (1/3 and 1/4 conflict)

ChALkeR · 2017-08-22T06:06:26Z

GOVERNANCE.md

 closing vote or a vote to table the issue to the next meeting. All votes
-(including votes to close or table) pass if and only if more than 50% of the CTC
+(including votes to close or table) pass if and only if more than 50% of the TSC
 members (excluding individuals who explicitly abstain) vote in favor. For


Is this in line with the TSC charter? I am not sure if I understand https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/TSC-Charter.md#section-8-voting, but it was mentioned yesterday that any abstention could be counted as a vote against the resolution there.

I would like us to keep the behavior defined in this (CTC) document, though, where explitic abstaintions are subtracted from the total number of people voting.

Yes, the TSC Charter requires a simple majority (50%+1) for all votes.

Can it be changed to allow explicit abstention?

The reason for that is that CTC is both larger and in a certain sense more fragmented than TSC.

There are various areas of expertise, and e.g. I find it normal when someone abstains from a vote in some area where they don't have enough prior knowledge and delegate that to those who do.

Voting in general and explicit consensus particularly are already hard enough for CTC, and I expect that forcing 50%+1 for all votes and not allowing explicit abstention will make those even harder, perhaps even non-functional in a significant number of cases.

Yes, it can explicitly allow for abstention.

To clarify — by «explicit abstention» I mean the same one which CTC uses, where the number of explicitly abstained people gets subtracted from the total number of people in the CTC in the percentage formula.

@ChALkeR ... I have updated nodejs/TSC#317 to include a modification to the charter clarifying the effect of absention on the vote. I've updated this PR to point to the TSC Charter for details, including the one-quarter rule.

ChALkeR · 2017-08-22T06:12:01Z

Overall, I am in favor of this, but currently there are conflicts that need to be resolved.

gireeshpunathil

Clarity in organizational hierarchy and coherence in roles & responsibilities - sounds great to me.

Issues mentioned in the review are fixed not

ChALkeR · 2017-08-22T14:43:27Z

Argh, I can't edit the dismiss message. s/not/now/ in my message, sorry =).

Fishrock123 · 2017-08-22T15:18:16Z

I am in favor of this.

jasnell · 2017-08-22T15:25:57Z

@Fishrock123 ... does that count as signoff? If so, can I ask you to please use the Approve/Request Changes workflow as a clearer indication.

evanlucas · 2017-08-22T15:27:50Z

COLLABORATOR_GUIDE.md

-Collaborators may opt to elevate pull requests or issues to the CTC for
-discussion by assigning the `ctc-review` label. This should be done
+Collaborators may opt to elevate pull requests or issues to the TSC for
+discussion by assigning the `TSC-review` label. This should be done


should this be tsc-review?

evanlucas · 2017-08-22T15:39:24Z

README.md

@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ If you need help using or installing Node.js, please use the
 * [Building Node.js](#building-nodejs)
  * [Security](#security)
  * [Current Project Team Members](#current-project-team-members)
-    * [CTC (Core Technical Committee)](#ctc-core-technical-committee)
+    * [TST (Technical Steering Committee)](#tsc-technical-steering-committee)


jasnell · 2017-08-22T16:03:25Z

@evanlucas ... updated

evanlucas

LGTM with a nit

evanlucas · 2017-08-22T16:11:26Z

GOVERNANCE.md


 ## Collaborators

 The [nodejs/node](https://github.com/nodejs/node) GitHub repository is
-maintained by Collaborators who are added by the CTC on an ongoing basis.
+maintained by Collaborators who are added by the TST on an ongoing basis.


Trott · 2017-08-22T17:39:42Z

GOVERNANCE.md

@@ -65,109 +66,60 @@ including:
 * Conduct guidelines
 * Maintaining the list of additional Collaborators

-* [Current list of CTC members](./README.md#current-project-team-members)
+* [Current list of TSC members](./README.md#current-project-team-members)


Micro-nit: The link should probably go to ./README.md#tsc-core-technical-committee which will link to the same place as https://github.com/nodejs/node#ctc-core-technical-committee one the ctc is changed to tsc in the README doc. Totally not a blocking objection, just a tiny suggestion.

Trott · 2017-08-22T17:48:18Z

GOVERNANCE.md

 YouTube.

-Items are added to the CTC agenda which are considered contentious or
-are modifications of governance, contribution policy, CTC membership,
+Items are added to the TSC agenda which are considered contentious or


This paragraph is now redundant because it contains information already included in the TSC Charter. It's still good to have it here, I think, but it may be worth including a sentence somewhere in this doc that notes that if anything written in this doc is in contradiction with something in the TSC Charter, the TSC Charter takes precedence.

(Also, that's another Totally Non-Blocking Suggestion.)

That can be handled in a separate PR.

Trott · 2017-08-22T17:50:53Z

README.md

@@ -510,7 +514,7 @@ Previous releases may also have been signed with one of the following GPG keys:
 ### Working Groups

 Information on the current Node.js Working Groups can be found in the
-[CTC repository](https://github.com/nodejs/CTC/blob/master/WORKING_GROUPS.md).
+[TSC repository](https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/WORKING_GROUPS.md).


This change means we'll need to merge the two WORKING_GROUPS.md docs. If anyone's feeling ambitious and wants to open a PR against the TSC repo to have that ready to go, that would be awesome. (Non-blocking, just pointing out something that someone may choose to act on at this time or not.)

Yes, the corresponding PR against the TSC repo already does that.

PR-URL: #14973 Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <gpunathi@in.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ali Ijaz Sheikh <ofrobots@google.com> Reviewed-By: Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@ohtsu.org> Reviewed-By: Fedor Indutny <fedor.indutny@gmail.com>

jasnell · 2017-08-29T15:46:41Z

Landed in f3eb193

sam-github · 2017-08-29T15:49:17Z

Is there going to be a CTC meeting tomorrow morning?

jasnell · 2017-08-29T16:10:16Z

Yep, the CTC meeting schedule doesn't change.

PR-URL: nodejs/node#14973 Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <gpunathi@in.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ali Ijaz Sheikh <ofrobots@google.com> Reviewed-By: Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@ohtsu.org> Reviewed-By: Fedor Indutny <fedor.indutny@gmail.com>

PR-URL: nodejs#14973 Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <gpunathi@in.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ali Ijaz Sheikh <ofrobots@google.com> Reviewed-By: Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@ohtsu.org> Reviewed-By: Fedor Indutny <fedor.indutny@gmail.com>

PR-URL: #14973 Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <gpunathi@in.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ali Ijaz Sheikh <ofrobots@google.com> Reviewed-By: Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@ohtsu.org> Reviewed-By: Fedor Indutny <fedor.indutny@gmail.com>

nodejs-github-bot added c++ Issues and PRs that require attention from people who are familiar with C++. doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. meta Issues and PRs related to the general management of the project. labels Aug 22, 2017

ChALkeR previously requested changes Aug 22, 2017

View reviewed changes

gireeshpunathil approved these changes Aug 22, 2017

View reviewed changes

mcollina approved these changes Aug 22, 2017

View reviewed changes

evanlucas reviewed Aug 22, 2017

View reviewed changes

evanlucas approved these changes Aug 22, 2017

View reviewed changes

jasnell requested review from a team August 22, 2017 17:18

Trott reviewed Aug 22, 2017

View reviewed changes

Trott 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

MylesBorins approved these changes Aug 22, 2017

View reviewed changes

ofrobots approved these changes Aug 23, 2017

View reviewed changes

shigeki approved these changes Aug 24, 2017

View reviewed changes

meta: merge TSC and CTC back into a single body

f393349

jasnell force-pushed the merge-ctc-tsc branch from c9621f1 to f393349 Compare August 29, 2017 15:38

jasnell closed this Aug 29, 2017

MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Sep 10, 2017

v8.5.0 proposal #15308

Merged

MylesBorins added the land-on-v6.x label Sep 20, 2017

MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Sep 20, 2017

v6.11.4 proposal #15506

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

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

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

jasnell commented Aug 22, 2017

mcollina commented Aug 22, 2017

indutny commented Aug 22, 2017

ChALkeR left a comment

ChALkeR Aug 22, 2017

ChALkeR Aug 22, 2017

jasnell Aug 22, 2017

ChALkeR Aug 22, 2017 •

edited

Loading

ChALkeR Aug 22, 2017

ChALkeR Aug 22, 2017 •

edited

Loading

jasnell Aug 22, 2017

ChALkeR Aug 22, 2017

ChALkeR Aug 22, 2017 •

edited

Loading

jasnell Aug 22, 2017

ChALkeR Aug 22, 2017

jasnell Aug 22, 2017

ChALkeR commented Aug 22, 2017

gireeshpunathil left a comment

ChALkeR commented Aug 22, 2017

Fishrock123 commented Aug 22, 2017

jasnell commented Aug 22, 2017

evanlucas Aug 22, 2017

evanlucas Aug 22, 2017

jasnell commented Aug 22, 2017

evanlucas left a comment

evanlucas Aug 22, 2017

Trott Aug 22, 2017

Trott Aug 22, 2017

Trott Aug 22, 2017

jasnell Aug 22, 2017

Trott Aug 22, 2017

jasnell Aug 22, 2017

jasnell commented Aug 29, 2017

sam-github commented Aug 29, 2017

jasnell commented Aug 29, 2017

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

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

Conversation

jasnell commented Aug 22, 2017

mcollina commented Aug 22, 2017

indutny commented Aug 22, 2017

ChALkeR left a 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

ChALkeR Aug 22, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ChALkeR Aug 22, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ChALkeR Aug 22, 2017 • edited Loading

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

ChALkeR commented Aug 22, 2017

gireeshpunathil left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ChALkeR commented Aug 22, 2017

Fishrock123 commented Aug 22, 2017

jasnell commented Aug 22, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jasnell commented Aug 22, 2017

evanlucas left a 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

jasnell commented Aug 29, 2017

sam-github commented Aug 29, 2017

jasnell commented Aug 29, 2017

ChALkeR Aug 22, 2017 •

edited

Loading

ChALkeR Aug 22, 2017 •

edited

Loading

ChALkeR Aug 22, 2017 •

edited

Loading