Charter, expectations and responsibilities

[dshaw]

Added context for the Enterprise Advisory Group as a part of @nodejs/user-feedback under the @nodejs/community-committee charter.

[fhinkel]

I agree with @bnb.

[williamkapke]

@bnb

If the CommComm were to charter a “group” our governance may need to be updated AFAIK.

A chartered "group" is just a "working group". CommComm doesn't have a WORKING_GROUPS.md like the TSC does, so one should be created and approved first.

[dshaw]

To @williamkapke's point, the only CommComm Working Group (WG) is the Evangelism WG. I don't believe this Advisory Group should be a Working Group, but do think the End User Feedback group merits the distinction. Now that I am eligible to be a full CommComm member, I'd be happy to take on that responsibility.

I will announce my intent to do this on the CommComm issue tracker.

changes addressed

[mhdawson]

As a member of the TSC I'd like to be able to join the team as well.

[dshaw]

@mhdawson I'd love to have you join this. That said, I consider you already in as an organizer by way of @nodejs/user-feedback. I appreciate your continued feedback from both your perspective as a CommComm member and as the TSC chair.

[jasnell]

I'd like to reiterate that a key intention on this group is that membership is made up of individuals who are not currently active contributors to core. The idea is that TSC members could participate as observers to facilitate information flow, but not as WG members.

[dshaw]

@bnb NOTE: This is still blocked on your objection.

[mhdawson]

@jasnell I'm happy to be listed as 'observer'. I just believe that all TSC members should have equal opportunity to be involved and listen to the feedback directly if they want to.

[bnb]

@dshaw I don't believe I will feel comfortable being +1 until what I commented on previously and what we discussed in the last Node.js Community Committee meeting - transparency - is addressed.

[mcollina]

@bnb as far as I see things, we are going to discuss this in the next @nodejs/tsc meeting. I hope @dshaw and @jasnell could present at the next @nodejs/community-committee meeting as well. Would that help resolving the transparency issue? Apart of discussing this during meetings, have you got specific questions you might want to anticipate?

[bnb]

@mcollina I've requested a few times that the Enterprise Advisory Group be presented at a @nodejs/community-committee meeting.

Further, I'd like to request that it be added to this document that @nodejs/community-committee, @nodejs/tsc members, and @nodejs/moderation members be able to opt-in to engaging with any non-GitHub communications around the Enterprise Advisory Group this without barriers, and that any communications be made available on request of the @nodejs/community-committee, the @nodejs/tsc, or the @nodejs/moderation team.

Edit: and -> or

[benjamingr]

and that any communications be made available on request of the @nodejs/community-committee, the @nodejs/tsc, and the @nodejs/moderation team.

Maybe:

and that any communications be made available on request of the nodejs/community-committee, the nodejs/tsc, or the nodejs/moderation team.

?

[bnb]

@benjamingr ah, yes - thank you. That was my intended meaning 🙏

[bnb]

@jasnell @dshaw would you be able to present this at tomorrow's CommComm meeting?

[MylesBorins]

To be perfectly clear, I think that having a group comprising of enterprise stakeholders who can give us feedback on semver-major and controversial changes would be extremely helpful. We currently have no insight into how changes we are making fit into code that isn't publicly available.

I would like to see some of the formal process around this group be in line with the way other feedback initiatives will be run, although I am perfectly content with them being workshopped here and then being replicated in higher level groups.

IMHO the key to all of this will be transparency, and for the questions we don't know answers to, we should at least document how those questions will be answered

[jasnell]

@bnb ... Yes, I can drop in for a bit.

[mhdawson]

I'm in favor of the enterprise-advisory-group but I think the TSE and CommComm need a bit more time to digest and discuss before this lands so I'm -1 on this landing until there has been enough time for that.

[williamkapke]

@jasnell Clarification on you removing yourself: Is Nearform not a member of this group?

[jasnell]

I am not a member. Someone from nearForm will participate, just still identifying precisely who. A key intent of this group is that individual members are not active contributors to core because it intentionally seeks the perspective of Node.js users.

I'm not part of CommComm

[MylesBorins]

I've dismissed my review as it would appear it is not appropriate for me to -1 as this needs to be signed off by the CommComm.

A key intent of this group is that individual members are not active contributors to core because it intentionally seeks the perspective of Node.js users. - @jasnell

This is exactly the reason I would like to see less ambiguity regarding membership and expectations. In other teams / groups the majority of folks getting involved have already been engaged in the project to some capacity. If this group is intentionally planning to be made up of people who are not actively engaged then I believe we should have very clear rails to set expectations.

[hackygolucky]

To echo what I stated in the CommComm meeting today, there's a -lot- of suggestions here. It'd be great for a summary comment of what's been reconciled to address the concerns so that those who have given input could remove their blocking -1s(literally an @-list with references to changes).

I would love to see language similar to what the TSC and CommComm have done for representation around trust of participants and input for companies participating:
https://github.com/nodejs/community-committee/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md#section-4-establishment-of-the-community-committee

specifically:

No more than one-fourth of the CC members may be affiliated with the same employer or leadership of a community/ecosystem organization. If removal or resignation of a CC member, or a change of employment by a CC member, creates a situation where more than one-fourth of the CC membership shares an employer, then the situation must be immediately remedied by the resignation or removal of one or more CC members affiliated with the over-represented employer(s).

[bnb]

@dshaw is there any update on addressing the requested changes?

@jasnell given your comment (#5 (comment)), are you participating as a member? If not, I'd like to ask that you dismiss your approval since you're not a member of the proposed advisory group, nor the committee this group is being moved into.