Adjust charter to simplify automated removal rules #1097
Conversation
|
Strictly speaking you could take engagement in the TSC repo, or on TSC PRs, as a sign of the "participate in TSC discussions discussions" criteria — or just reword it to mean that. (Fully aware that's not what it's meant to encompass.) Separate note: I think given that meetings get skipped a fair bit these days, this automated removal seems rather tricky. How do you treat meetings that didn't happen? |
If a meeting didn't happen, it didn't happen. We still seem to be running around 8 or 9 meetings per 3 month period, which seems like plenty to me. Regardless, there's still the vote as a loophole. (Actually, I consider participation in votes more important. Meetings should become superfluous.) All you have to do is take part in a vote--even just to say you don't have time to participate so you're abstaining--and you're good for another 3 months even if you attend zero meetings. If we want to worry about there not being enough meetings, we can add a sentence to say that none of these rules apply if there wasn't a vote to participate in during the 3-month period. Votes are where it is most important to have an engaged TSC anyway. So if there was one vote and zero meetings--first, that's not ever going to happen--but second, then just vote (or abstain). But please, Hypothetical TSC Member, don't leave poor Rich hanging when he emails you telling you that you haven't voted yet and we're really trying to get to a conclusion here and even abstentions help us do that and did you get my ping in the issue tracker and should I message you on Twitter instead and.... |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Also, if the rule gets tripped in some extraordinary case--like, there were no meetings in a 3-month period, and only one vote, and it happened to be when a TSC member was on their honeymoon or something--then they get automatically moved to Emeritus. Two things: First, the move to Emeritus would happen in a PR that can be blocked. Second, even if you say "No" to that suggestion that the PR can be blocked because "automatic is automatic", then fine. The TSC can instantly move the person back to active with a quick vote. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Yeah, I'm all good with the reasoning personally. Mostly just pointing out potential loopholes that could still arise. I've always thought this whole process should be more automatable. (And I say that as someone that has been extremely bad at actually attending meetings. Sigh.) |
|
The change LGTM.
+1. Even better if it's in a format that can be easily read by a computer. |
We could differentiate meetings that are cancelled (because of light agenda, or no one is available to chair) from meetings that are aborted because not enough TSC members attended. I don't feel strongly about this, it would seem fair to me if aborted meetings were part of the count to meet the 25% requirement. |
I'm happy to do that. I didn't do it initially to keep things concise and because abstentions are specified as a way to participate previously in the charter:
|
I agree that's what we should do in practice. I'm happy to include that in the charter if we can come up with clear and concise wording for it. But I'm also happy to leave the change as it is and do that by creating a minutes document for each aborted meeting that lists who was there and says the meeting was aborted. Any automated process then would include such information in the attendance count. |
|
This is a great change, I love it excellent job 👍🏽 |
|
This change was approved by CPC. Landing. Thanks, everyone. |
This is a charter change, so it would require CPC approval.
The reason for this change is that the current automatic removal rules are unworkable. We currently have (I believe) 5 TSC members who do not meet the 25% meeting attendance requirement. Of those 5, at least one has participated in a vote, leaving us with 4 TSC members who may be eligible for supposedly-automatic removal. However, "does not participate in TSC discussions" is impossible to automate or even be certain about. I suspect that with that criteria, only 1 of the TSC members is eligible for automatic removal. But even that, I can't be sure. And it's awkward to bring it up. That's why it's supposed to be automatic! Because we're so bad at this!
So, I propose two changes to make this a possible-to-automate process similar to the automated Collaborator-removal process we have now in the main repo.
Once those two changes are done, we can look at automating the process so that it is actually automatic in reality, and not merely on paper.
@nodejs/tsc