-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 134
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
Comments
+1 to @zkat :) Also,
Did you mean |
@thefourtheye No, I mean that it's current composition is not all that reflective of the global community. |
@Fishrock123 I think @thefourtheye was trying to say "you wrote |
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. |
Hmmm, my understanding was that we were moving to add her as an observer for now regardless. |
removing from agenda for the mean time then |
Closing given that @zkat has withdrawn from the Inclusivity WG and has publicly stated on Twitter that she does not intend to participate further in foundation efforts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) |
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:
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.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: