Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Nominating Kat Marchán to the TSC #83

Closed
Fishrock123 opened this issue Mar 28, 2016 · 7 comments
Closed

Nominating Kat Marchán to the TSC #83

Fishrock123 opened this issue Mar 28, 2016 · 7 comments

Comments

@Fishrock123
Copy link
Contributor

The TSC has long discussed this in private, and last I've heard everyone was OK with this, so I'm just going to move it forward and do the public nomination for @zkat.

In general, the current TSC is not that representative of node.js users and similar stakeholders. Here are some reasons if anyone needs them:

  • While @chrisdickinson is on the TSC, he is consistently too busy to attend discussions. npm is an important stakeholder in the community and in core. Representation from them is very valuable in many of our discussions.
  • Being on the CLI team for npm, Kat has close communication both with a large amount of users, and in core itself, given that we bundle the npm client.
  • The current TSC is only minorly representative of the node.js user-base globally. We have some representation of timezones and languages, but little else. Kat brings much-needed new background perspective.

The recommendation is that we invite her as an observer until the board meeting talks about our goals, as described in multiple issues but especially in #77, and take the formal vote to become a voting member afterwards.

@thefourtheye
Copy link
Contributor

+1 to @zkat :) Also,

The current CTC is only minorly representative of the node.js user-base globally.

Did you mean The current TSC is only a minor representative...?

@Fishrock123
Copy link
Contributor Author

@thefourtheye No, I mean that it's current composition is not all that reflective of the global community.

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Mar 29, 2016

@Fishrock123 I think @thefourtheye was trying to say "you wrote CTC but probably meant TSC". EDIT: Which I see you or someone else has now edited/corrected/updated. (So, you know, new readers can ignore all this.)

@rvagg
Copy link
Member

rvagg commented Mar 29, 2016

As I mentioned in the last meeting I wouldn't mind putting a pause on expansion plans for the TSC untl we sort out questions of mission and scope for the Foundation.

At the moment it's not clear that we have a goal to be "representative of node.js users and similar stakeholders" as separate to our existing open governance processes that reward contribution with a seat at the table. Having the TSC membership evolve too far outside of that existing process we have in core has the potential to create problems between the two groups unless the scope of the TSC is significantly expanded. Since we haven't resolved the question of scope I'm hesitant to support expansion that's not tied to the existing processes we have for Node.

Consider this: if we end up rolling back on some of the expansion we've taken steps toward and turn the TSC into a body that provides an administrative function for the core project and surrounding working groups, in what direction should the TSC expand? In @zkat's case, she's already a Collaborator so it's probably not going to pose any problems for our existing governance model, but what about beyond the Collaborator group? If the CTC is answerable to the TSC in some way, does it undermine the governance structure which we have put so much effort into protecting and has been explicitly endorsed by members of the Foundation?

Food for thought, but as I said, I'd prefer holding off on expansion for now until we've got more clarity on mission and scope.

@Fishrock123
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hmmm, my understanding was that we were moving to add her as an observer for now regardless.

@Fishrock123
Copy link
Contributor Author

removing from agenda for the mean time then

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Jul 31, 2016

Closing given that @zkat has withdrawn from the Inclusivity WG and has publicly stated on Twitter that she does not intend to participate further in foundation efforts (https://twitter.com/maybekatz/status/759529456138539008)

@jasnell jasnell closed this as completed Jul 31, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants