-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 26
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
Edit to technical values document #34
Comments
some reflections on this document (some of which have already been mentioned): I do not understand the goal of the document. Is it to:
Say every single active contributor reviewed this document and approved it. Given the disparate values and opinions found amongst the contributor base, have we actually said anything here? If the document is so vague that no X is of higher priority than any Y, then it cannot serve as a decision-making guide... because it provides no real guidance. Yet, if we have a numbered list in order of priority, and we needed contributor approval to "land" the document, I imagine it'd come to a TSC vote. Further, a TSC vote either way is unlikely to make an impact on the values or opinions of any objecting contributor. To @MylesBorins's comment during the meeting today... Maybe what I want to see is a "constitution"--a document that is explicit about the project's values and clearly favors some over others. Maybe that document is difficult to change outright, but not impossible to amend. Maybe that would attract contributors who share Node.js' values and discourage contribution by those who do not. I see that as a positive, and a project where it would not be nearly as difficult to make a major impact as it is today. Perhaps... such a document needn't be "ratified" by the contributor base at all, but rather only the TSC, since it's empowered to have the final say in all decisions. But... maybe you disagree. 😝 Regarding the TSC, I'd very much wish to see explicit support (maybe that's "signed by" each) for the Grand Enumeration of Node.js Values. I would feel more confident that this document actually means something. |
In my mind, it is to document the project’s values in order to serve as a decision-making guide. We’re not doing this as a journalistic or marketing exercise. If we have a statement of principles that the broader project has agreed upon, then when smaller groups get into debates they have something to refer to that could help point them in the direction that the broader project would hope that they go in. And as for “currently stand” versus “should stand,” this should represent how they should stand. If the document represents how the values currently stand, but we wish the values were otherwise, then it would function as an explanation for past decisions but not as a guide for helping make future ones. |
OK, thanks. IMO, an unordered list of "things to consider when making decisions" is going to be a poor helper. At most, it would illustrate the relative unimportance of that which was omitted from the list. But maybe a priority-free list is all we can reasonably expect to get contributors to agree upon. 🤷♂️ |
Another (potentially bad) idea: Instead of a list, a table with two columns, A and B. When faced with a tradeoff, we prefer picking from column A instead of column B. e.g:
|
That’s just another way of prioritizing. Personally I don’t mind the priority levels, I think that’s kind of the point: to show which values should (generally) take precedence over others. |
Opened this to add some context in the doc: nodejs/node#36201 I personally also think we should stick with the priority levels. We went into the discussion thinking it might be hard to agree, but it turned out to be relatively easy when we went through the exercise. I'm thinking we leave as is until it causes an issue. |
I think nodejs/node#36201 which has landed covered:
|
It's been over 2 years since we had discussion on this, I'm going to close. Please re-open if you feel that was not the right thing to do. |
(living issue, will keep writing on it until the meeting is over)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: