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 +1,129 @@ | ||
| # Release Working Group | ||
|
|
||
| The Node.js Release Working Group (WG) maintains oversight | ||
| over the Node.js Release and Long Term Support (LTS) teams. It | ||
| manages the release and long term support shedule and policies | ||
| for all Node.js releases. | ||
|
|
||
| The WG has final authority over Releases including: | ||
|
|
||
| * Release process and tools. | ||
| * Content for all releases. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. 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. 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. 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. 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. @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. 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. 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 There was a problem hiding this comment. 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. Agreed with the caution. |
||
| * 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? |
||
|
|
||
| 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 respository) 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 weekly WG meeting. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. s/weekly/ No longer a weekly 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 | ||
|
|
||
| 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 | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. There are two spaces before |
||
| 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. | ||
|
|
||
| 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. | ||
|
|
||
| Members of the `releasers` sub-team are not required to attend | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Are citgm sub-team members required to attend the WG meetings? There was a problem hiding this comment. ok added text to say they don't have to attend either, we'll see what people think. There was a problem hiding this comment. I wouldn't actually make this explicit. We've never had attendance rules for the various working groups... participation rules yes, but not attendance. |
||
| the WG meetings and maintain their WG membership simply by | ||
| participating in the release process at least once a year. | ||
|
|
||
| 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 moderator and the WG | ||
| cannot veto or remove items. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. This can be done via consensus though right? There was a problem hiding this comment. I'd like to just remove that line which I'll do. |
||
|
|
||
| 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. | ||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ | ||
| # Node.js Release Working Group | ||
|
|
||
| ## Release schedule<sup>1</sup> | ||
|
|
||
| | Release | LTS Status | Codename | Active LTS Start | Maintenance Start | Maintenance End | | ||
| | :--: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | ||
|
|
@@ -23,10 +23,44 @@ | |
|
|
||
| <p><img src="schedule.png" alt="LTS Schedule"/></p> | ||
|
|
||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
|
||
| The Release schedule is available also as a [JSON][] file or [ICal][]. There is | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Does this mean that Current releases will have to follow a schedule as well? There was a problem hiding this comment. I don't think we intended to enforce a schedule for Current releases, although there was some discussion in the LTS meeting that something like a 2 week interval might make sense. |
||
| also a live [Google Calendar][] that may be subscribed to. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. This section doesn't really seem necessary here |
||
|
|
||
| ## Mandate | ||
|
|
||
| The Release working group's purpose is: | ||
|
|
||
| * Management/execution of the release process for all releases. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
|
||
| * Maintenance of the LTS releases. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. This line seems redundant given the previous line. |
||
|
|
||
| Its responsibilities are: | ||
|
|
||
| * Define the release process. | ||
| * Define the content for releases. | ||
|
|
||
| * Generate and create releases. | ||
|
|
||
| * Manage the LTS and Current branches including backporting changes to | ||
| these branches. | ||
|
|
||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Does define support policy fall into this WG's responsibilities? |
||
| The Release working group is structured into teams and membership in | ||
| the working group does not automatically result in membership in these | ||
| teams. These teams are: | ||
|
|
||
| * Releasers team | ||
| * LTS team | ||
| * CITGM team | ||
|
|
||
| The `releasers` team is entrusted with the secrets and CI access to be able | ||
| build and sign releases. **Additions to the releasers team must be approved | ||
| by the CTC.** | ||
|
|
||
| The Long Term Support (LTS) team manages the process/content of LTS releases | ||
| and the required backporting for these releases. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Additions to the LTS team needs sign off from the rest of the LTS team |
||
|
|
||
| The CITGM team maintains CITGM as one of the key sanity checks for releases. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Could |
||
| This team maintains the CITGM implementation and works to keep CITGM | ||
| builds running and passing regularly. | ||
|
|
||
| ## LTS Plan | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. The LTS plan should be a separate document that is not part of the charter. That way the WG can change it when it needs without having to modify the charter. There was a problem hiding this comment. this is the README.md for the repo. The charter the smaller section that defines its purpose and scope. Once that's agreed it will go into the doc in the CTC defining the WG's scope. We can chose to move the LTS plan out of the README.md for the repo but I don't think thats tied to chartering the WG. There was a problem hiding this comment. The text below mentions odd releases, so maybe just call this There was a problem hiding this comment. Pushed changes to address comments. There was a problem hiding this comment. I'm going to propose that I leave 1 more week for comments/objections here. Unless there are objections before the end of next week I'll add the ctc-review tag and request that the CTC review/approve |
||
|
|
||
| New semver-major releases of Node.js are cut from `master` every six months. | ||
| New even-numbered versions (e.g. v6, v8, v10, etc) are cut in April. New | ||
|
|
@@ -48,7 +82,7 @@ Given this schedule, there will be no more than two active LTS releases at any | |
| given time, overlapping for a maximum period of six months. | ||
|
|
||
| Once a major version enters LTS coverage, new features (semver-minor) may only | ||
| be landed with consent of the the Release working group. No semver-major | ||
|
|
||
| changes other than those required for critical security fixes may be landed. | ||
|
|
||
| Changes in an LTS-covered major version are limited to: | ||
|
|
@@ -66,7 +100,7 @@ Changes in an LTS-covered major version are limited to: | |
|
|
||
| Generally changes are expected to live in a *Current* release for at least 2 | ||
| weeks before being backported. It is possible for a commit to land earlier at | ||
| the discretion of the Release working group and the maintainers of the LTS branches. | ||
|
|
||
| Once a release moves into Maintenance mode, only ***critical*** bugs, | ||
| ***critical*** security fixes, and documentation updates will be permitted. | ||
|
|
@@ -76,14 +110,14 @@ Note that while it is possible that critical security and bug fixes may lead to | |
| rare and will land as *semver-minor* bumps in the LTS covered version. | ||
|
|
||
| All LTS releases will be assigned a "codename" drawn from the names of elements | ||
| on the Periodic Table of Elements. For each upcoming LTS release, the Release | ||
| working group will select a handful of candidate names and submit those for a | ||
| collaborator vote. | ||
|
|
||
| An odd-numbered major release will cease to be actively updated when the | ||
| subsequent even-numbered major release is cut. | ||
|
|
||
| ### LTS Staging Branches | ||
|
|
||
| Every LTS major version has two branches in the GitHub repository: a release | ||
| branch and a staging branch. The release branch is used to cut new releases. | ||
|
|
@@ -98,7 +132,7 @@ commits are backported for a future Node.js v4 release, those must come in the | |
| form of pull requests opened against the `v4.x-staging` branch. **Commits are | ||
| only landed in the `v4.x` branch when a new `v4.x` release is being prepared.** | ||
|
|
||
| ### Node abstraction layer | ||
|
|
||
| It should be stated that the abstraction layer (currently [`NAN`][]) should | ||
| support all *current* LTS releases. Given that Active LTS will overlap | ||
|
|
@@ -114,14 +148,32 @@ any given point in time, fully support a maximum of 2 LTS releases. | |
| [ICal]: schedule.ical | ||
| [`NAN`]: https://github.com/nodejs/nan | ||
|
|
||
| The working group members are the union of the LTS, Releasers | ||
| and CITGM team members listed below. | ||
|
|
||
| ## LTS Team members | ||
| * Gibson Fahnestock [@gibfahn](https://github.com/gibfahn) | ||
| * James M Snell [@jasnell](https://github.com/jasnell) | ||
| * Jeremiah Senkpiel [@Fishrock123](https://github.com/Fishrock123) | ||
| * Michael Dawson [@mhdawson](https://github.com/mhdawson) | ||
| * Myles Borins [@MylesBorins](https://github.com/MylesBorins) | ||
| * Sam Roberts [@sam-github](https://github.com/sam-github) | ||
|
|
||
| ### Releasers team | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. This seems to be missing Colin and myself? Not sure if that is intended or not? There was a problem hiding this comment. Nope. My apologies, will fix up in next pass through. I messed that up willing splitting up the teams. |
||
| * Colin Ihrig [@cjhrig](https://github.com/cjihrig) | ||
|
|
||
| * Evan Lucas [@evanlucas](https://github.com/evanlucas) | ||
| * Italo A. Casas [@italoacasas](https://github.com/italoacasas) | ||
| * James M Snell [@jasnell](https://github.com/jasnell) | ||
| * Jeremiah Senkpiel [@Fishrock123](https://github.com/Fishrock123) | ||
| * Myles Borins [@MylesBorins](https://github.com/MylesBorins) | ||
| * Rod Vagg [@rvagg](https://github.com/rvagg) | ||
|
|
||
| ### CITGM team | ||
| * James M Snell [@jasnell](https://github.com/jasnell) | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. this above team is in alphabetical order, while this team is sorted by commit dates... should we change to be consistent? |
||
| * Myles Borins [@MylesBorins](https://github.com/MylesBorins) | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Not a comment on this PR, but @nodejs/citgm we'll need to make sure we remember to keep this up to date. We probably need to document in |
||
| * Gibson Fahnestock [@gibfahn](https://github.com/gibfahn) | ||
| * George Adams [George Adams](https://github.com/gdams) | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. This section is mixed, some have the GitHub username, others have the name. I would probably make this consistent There was a problem hiding this comment. Do you means Myles, looks like his current github id is MylesBorrins. There was a problem hiding this comment. I meant that starting with George, all of the CITGM members have their name as the link, not their GitHub username. So, this line specifically should probably be There was a problem hiding this comment. @evanlucas already mentioned this, but from George's entry in the list of CITGM team members should have their GitHub usernames listed. There was a problem hiding this comment. yeah so it should be |
||
| * Bartosz Sosnowski [Bartosz Sosnowski](https://github.com/bzoz) | ||
| * Richard Lau [Richard Lau](https://github.com/richardlau) | ||
| * MichaëZasso [MichaëZasso](https://github.com/targos) | ||
|
|
||
| * Bryan English [Bryan English](https://github.com/bengl) | ||
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.
And CITGM team.
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.
Done