doc: charter the Release working group #223
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ | ||
| <a id="developers-certificate-of-origin"></a> | ||
| ## Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1 | ||
|
|
||
| By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: | ||
|
|
||
| * (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I | ||
| have the right to submit it under the open source license | ||
| indicated in the file; or | ||
|
|
||
| * (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best | ||
| of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source | ||
| license and I have the right under that license to submit that | ||
| work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part | ||
| by me, under the same open source license (unless I am | ||
| permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated | ||
| in the file; or | ||
|
|
||
| * (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other | ||
| person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified | ||
| it. | ||
|
|
||
| * (d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution | ||
| are public and that a record of the contribution (including all | ||
| personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is | ||
| maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with | ||
| this project or the open source license(s) involved. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ### Moderation Policy | ||
|
|
||
| The [Node.js Moderation Policy] applies to this WG. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Code of Conduct | ||
|
|
||
| The [Node.js Code of Conduct][] applies to this WG. | ||
|
|
||
| [Node.js Code of Conduct]: https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md | ||
| [Node.js Moderation Policy]: https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/Moderation-Policy.md | ||
|
|
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,127 @@ | ||
| # Release Working Group | ||
|
|
||
| The Node.js Release Working Group (WG) maintains oversight | ||
| over the Node.js Release, Long Term Support (LTS) and | ||
| Canary in the Gold Mine (CitGM) teams. It manages the release | ||
| and long term support schedule and policies for all Node.js releases. | ||
|
|
||
| The WG has final authority over Releases including: | ||
|
|
||
| * Release process and tools. | ||
| * Content for all releases. | ||
| * Schedule for all releases. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. As an example, a lot of people contributed to the discussion to delay Node 8 for a month. Would have it been the sole Release WG responsibility to decide so? There was a problem hiding this comment. Perhaps changing the wording here to There was a problem hiding this comment. I think we should delegate it to the Release WG completely or not at all. "subject to CTC approval" creates more questions than it answers. There was a problem hiding this comment. (Also: I read this as delegating it entirely to the Release WG and I am 👍 on that. If people want to have input on release schedules, then the Release WG is the place to be.) |
||
| * Contribution policy for the Release repository. | ||
| * Conduct guidelines for the Working group. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. isn't CoC common across all WGs? There was a problem hiding this comment. It is up to the WG to either adopt the standard or define their own. There was a problem hiding this comment. I would include in this list: There was a problem hiding this comment. +1 to @jasnell's comment There was a problem hiding this comment. Not sure this is worth it? Seems to be easier to have conduct just CTC guided? |
||
| * Administration of Long Term Support policy for all releases. | ||
|
|
||
| For the current list of WG members, see the project README.md. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Collaborators | ||
|
|
||
| The Release GitHub repository is maintained by the WG (all WG | ||
| members are Collaborators for the Release repository) and additional | ||
| Collaborators who are added by the WG on an ongoing basis. | ||
|
|
||
| Individuals making significant and valuable contributions are made | ||
| Collaborators and given commit-access to the project. These individuals | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. What is "the project" here? There was a problem hiding this comment. It is the LTS repo to be remained to the Release repo. I'll change from project to Release repository. |
||
| are identified by the WG and their addition as Collaborators is discussed | ||
| during the WG meeting. | ||
|
|
||
| **Note**: If you make a significant contribution and are not considered for | ||
| commit access, log an issue or contact a WG member directly and it will | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. I am not sure this is how the release group should work, was this copied verbatim from the core contribution policy? There was a problem hiding this comment. Seems like a similar problem that other WGs have—how do you define contributions and how should that be measured to determine membership? Many of them are just "you join enough meetings, hang around and offer to lend a hand where needed and you can join" (Build is a bit like this), or simply just "want to join? sure!". Have we solved this wording anywhere else in our WGs that we can reapply here because the core rules don't seem to apply. There was a problem hiding this comment. This related to the Release repo where issues/minutes/etc are captured not related to releases themselves so I think it still applies. There was a problem hiding this comment. We have the same wording in the benchmarking WG, the post-mortem WG, Intl, the now inactive test WG used similar wording. Not a WG but one which is different is the community committee, which uses the participation rules. Basically get involved and once you meet the participation rules you will be added. The rules are: In my opinion the existing wording is pretty generic in that "significant" can be determined by the WG and I don't think there have been problems with people asking to be added/getting refused. So I'm open to a better suggestion if someone has one but I'm also fine with what we have already. |
||
| be brought up in the next WG meeting. | ||
|
|
||
| Modifications of the contents of the Release repository are made | ||
| on a collaborative basis. Anybody with a GitHub account may propose a | ||
| modification via pull request and it will be considered by the project | ||
| Collaborators. All pull requests must be reviewed and accepted by a | ||
| Collaborator with sufficient expertise who is able to take full responsibility | ||
| for the change. In the case of pull requests proposed by an existing | ||
| Collaborator, an additional Collaborator is required for sign-off. Consensus | ||
| should be sought if additional Collaborators participate and there is | ||
| disagreement around a particular modification. See Consensus Seeking | ||
| Process below for further detail on the consensus model used for governance. | ||
|
|
||
| Collaborators may opt to elevate significant or controversial modifications, | ||
| or modifications that have not found consensus to the WG for discussion by | ||
| assigning the WG-agenda tag to a pull request or issue. The WG should serve | ||
| as the final arbiter where required. | ||
|
|
||
| ## WG Membership | ||
|
|
||
| WG seats are not time-limited. There is no fixed size of the WG. | ||
|
|
||
| There is no specific set of requirements or qualifications | ||
| for WG membership beyond these rules. | ||
|
|
||
| The WG may add additional members to the WG by unanimous consensus(defined | ||
| as no objections, more than 50% of the members participating in the | ||
| discussion, and all those participating in the discussion agreeing). | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Argh, no, keep this simple, please. Just remove the word unanimous and get rid of all the parenthetical stuff.
Or if you want something more formal than that:
Define the 50% + 1 thing as a quorum somewhere else required for WG activity. |
||
|
|
||
| A WG member may be removed from the WG by voluntary resignation, | ||
| or by unanimous consensus of all other WG members. If a member is | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Do we define unanimous consensus to mean "lots of people agreed, and no-one disagreed within a certain timeframe"? Because otherwise if (for example) two people in the WG have moved on, then we need Person 1 to agree to remove Person 2 (which might never happen). I feel this is what we do in practice, but IDK if it's defined anywhere. There was a problem hiding this comment. Add words to capture its the consensus of the active participants in the discussion. There was a problem hiding this comment. Drop "unanimous". If you really want, you can define "consensus" somewhere as "no participants object" or "no participants disagree". |
||
| removed from the WG then they are also removed from all WG teams | ||
| (including the Releasers team). | ||
|
|
||
| Changes to WG membership should be posted in the agenda, and may be | ||
| suggested as any other agenda item (see "WG Meetings" below). | ||
|
|
||
| If an addition or removal is proposed during a meeting, and the full WG | ||
| is not in attendance to participate, then the addition or removal is | ||
| added to the agenda for the subsequent meeting. This is to ensure | ||
| that all members are given the opportunity to participate in all | ||
| membership decisions. If a WG member is unable to attend a meeting | ||
| where a planned membership decision is being made, | ||
| then their consent is assumed. | ||
|
|
||
| No more than 1/3 of the voting WG members may be affiliated with the same | ||
| employer. If removal or resignation of a WG member, or a change of | ||
| employment by a WG member, creates a situation where more than 1/3 | ||
| of the WG membership shares an employer, then the situation must be | ||
| immediately remedied by the resignation or removal of one or more | ||
| WG members affiliated with the over-represented employer(s). | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. We should do a quick parse of the members list to make sure this isn't the case prior to ratification |
||
|
|
||
| ## WG Meetings | ||
|
|
||
| The WG meets every 3 weeks on a Google Hangout On Air. One of the | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. might be best to leave the specifics of the schedule out of the governance docs and make it "regularly" or "as the WG determines appropriate" so it doesn't have to be updated when the WG decides to make it less or more frequent. There was a problem hiding this comment. Makes sense to me, updated. |
||
| WG members will volunteer to act as the moderator for each meeting | ||
| subject to agreement from the rest of the members. Each meeting should be | ||
| published to YouTube. | ||
|
|
||
| Items are added to the WG agenda that are considered contentious or are | ||
| modifications of governance, contribution policy, | ||
| WG membership, or release process. | ||
|
|
||
| The intention of the agenda is not to approve or review all patches; | ||
| that should happen continuously on GitHub and be handled | ||
| by the larger group of Collaborators. | ||
|
|
||
| Any community member or contributor can ask that something be | ||
| added to the next meeting's agenda by logging a GitHub Issue. | ||
| Any Collaborator, WG member or the moderator can add the item | ||
| to the agenda by adding the WG-agenda tag to the issue. | ||
|
|
||
| Prior to each WG meeting the moderator will share the Agenda with | ||
| members of the WG. WG members can add any items they like to the | ||
| agenda at the beginning of each meeting. | ||
|
|
||
| The WG may invite persons or representatives from certain | ||
| projects to participate in a non-voting capacity. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Are people able to ask for an invite? There was a problem hiding this comment. I think people can always ask. In terms of not being too specific I think I'd leave that out from here. |
||
|
|
||
| The moderator is responsible for summarizing the discussion of | ||
| each agenda item and sends it as a pull request after the meeting. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Consensus Seeking Process | ||
|
|
||
| The WG follows a Consensus Seeking decision-making model. | ||
|
|
||
| When an agenda item has appeared to reach a consensus the moderator | ||
| will ask "Does anyone object?" as a final call for dissent from the consensus. | ||
|
|
||
| If an agenda item cannot reach a consensus a WG member can call for either a | ||
| closing vote or a vote to table the issue to the next meeting. The call for | ||
| a vote must be seconded by a majority of the WG or else the | ||
| discussion will continue. Simple majority wins. | ||
|
|
||
| Note that changes to WG membership require unanimous consensus. | ||
|
|
||
| See "WG Membership" above. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just to clarify, does this mean that even if the CTC were to vote on landing something in a release, this WG could override that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe that using the standard delegation of responsibility from the CTC to the WG that is correct. As a final measure the CTC could dissolve the WG in order to take back responsibility if the WG is not acting in accordance with the CTC's vision.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yep, generally we've always operated on the model that the person actually doing the release has the final say about what is included in the release. The CTC may decide to include something, but if the releaser finds an issue that would block the release, they should have the freedom to omit it until the issue is resolved.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This puts the Release Working Group above the CTC. If it is the Release WG that can decide what composes a release, they can decide (autonomously) to pull a semver-major commit they do not agree with from a semver-major release. In similar fashion, they can decide to put something in that is not present in nodejs/node.
All of this is very hypothetical, but hypothetical things happened before so I would like to avoid conflicts before they happen.
I do agree that the current model is the right model and they should be able to omit things, but this sentence is too broad.
How about:
I hope it clarifies what I mean.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@mcollina that is the explicit intention, and true of all WGs (as I understand it). See @mhdawson 's comment at #223 (comment). The CTC delegates to the Release WG on the matter of what goes in releases. If its unhappy about what the WG does, it has power to dissolve the WG. If CTC members have strong feelings about what the Release WG should do... they should join the WG. In your example, if a commit is pulled because the WG doesn't agree with its content (as opposed to it not passing CI, not backporting clean, or some other reason involving the release process), the WG would be overstepping its bounds, and I assume the CTC would dissolve it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agreed on dissolving. However if we consider other WGs, this WG will have the responsibility to what is Node in the hand of our users, this is very different to most of the other WGs.
Yes, exactly. I'm just pointing it out that those bounds are not written here. It might not be on this point, but a generic mention to them would be welcomed, maybe at the top.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Again, my understanding (but I can be wrong on this) is that it is the same as most WGs. Streams has final authority about what goes into
readable_stream, for example. You've never done anything objectionable, so there has never been conflict, and no one expects there to be, but its the streams WG who decides on what happens with streams. Maybe the WG charters need to change to saying that anything they decide can be overruled by a vote of CTC without dissolving the WG?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that is already part of how things are set up if there is a conflict, now that I think about it. Good to know, thanks.
I am extra careful here, because this is the most critical activity of the Node.js process.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agreed with the caution.