doc: move Collaboration network to stage 2

[mhdawson]

Signed-off-by: Michael Dawson [email protected]

[mhdawson]

Associated PR for Governance once proposal reaches stage 3 - #547

[mcollina]

lgtm

[MylesBorins]

Some thoughts I have and would like answers to before approving this for stage 2.

1. What is the relationship between a collaboration space and a working group?

Do we allow duplicated efforts?
Does a collaboration space eventually graduate into a working group?

2. How do we enforce quality of work within these spaces?

Having an official stamp of OpenJS on an initiative will carry weight. Especially if we talk about initiatives such as Security or Standards, how would we ensure that those working in these spaces are representing the foundations vision / expectations.

3. Do we need CPC representation for these spaces?

TBH this seems premature to me. What is the purpose of having this representation? What role does it fill? I think our existing governance is already a bit overly complicated and this will be adding more complexity to it.

4. What does the application template look like?

I notice it is mentioned in the Progression guide... I don't think this should move to stage 2 until that template has been drafted.

5. Initial Collaboration Spaces & large process commitment

Do we have existing efforts that are hindered by the lack of this program? I am going to be honest that I am a tiny bit concerned that we are front loading quite a lot of process prior to on-boarding any spaces. I would personally prefer to see us try and spin up some workspaces without this proposal before we commit to adopting this process. It is quite a large amount of work to see this through. Do we need a full application process that mimics projects applying? Could we have something far lighter weigh (e.g. opening an issue in a repo, have 2 - 3 sponsors, slient period for objections).

I feel somewhat similar with the "stages" being proposed. Do we have an idea of spaces that would exist in each stage at this point? This seems like early optimizations and I'm concerned that starting with too much structure will create barriers to entry.

---

Overall I like the idea of having a "collaboration space". At a very high level my biggest concern is that it is not yet totally clear the relationship between these spaces and working groups. I am also concerned by the amount of process and structure being introduced by this proposal. I think we could accomplish the goal of this proposal with significantly less governance.

[MylesBorins]

One note. I've held off on doing an in-depth review of this proposal as I was waiting for it to reach stage-1... as stage-0 -> stage-1 is mostly about "should this proposal exist".

If this feedback is coming later in the process than expected we might want to consider removing stage-0... tbqh I dont really see the value in stage-0 at this point.

[joesepi]

Related issue: #474

[MylesBorins]

@mhdawson @joesepi should I move my questions to the tracking issue?

[mhdawson]

@MylesBorins I don't think so. I was planning to update the PR to address them I've just not gotten to it yet.

[mhdawson]

@MylesBorins this commit attempts to document some of the answers to your questions:

cb5c559

[mhdawson]

More specifically to answer the question:

1. What is the relationship between a collaboration space and a working group?

Do we allow duplicated efforts?
Does a collaboration space eventually graduate into a working group?

Covered in cb5c559

2. How do we enforce quality of work within these spaces?

Having an official stamp of OpenJS on an initiative will carry weight. Especially if we talk about initiatives such as Security or Standards, how would we ensure that those working in these spaces are representing the foundations vision / expectations.

It comes down to the application process. Much like projects we don't require CPC oversight of projects once accepted. Instead in the application process we need to look at the credentials/background of those proposing the collaboration space to ensure we believe there is a fit and that the people involved will be diligent, and work with the Foundation.

3. Do we need CPC representation for these spaces?

TBH this seems premature to me. What is the purpose of having this representation? What role does it fill? I think our existing governance is already a bit overly complicated and this will be adding more complexity to it.

I think this demonstrates that we see the contributions in collaboration spaces as important and that our intent is that due to those contributions involvement in the decision making process of adding new spaces and projects makes sense. I don't think this will happen for quite some time, and based on the criteria provides the opportunity of additional actively engaged voting members. I think the same concerns were raised with respect to voting members from regular members but I'm happy that we had to opportunity to elect highly engaged regular members like Eemeli.

4. What does the application template look like?

I notice it is mentioned in the Progression guide... I don't think this should move to stage 2 until that template has been drafted.

5. Initial Collaboration Spaces & large process commitment

Do we have existing efforts that are hindered by the lack of this program? I am going to be honest that I am a tiny bit concerned that we are front loading quite a lot of process prior to on-boarding any spaces. I would personally prefer to see us try and spin up some workspaces without this proposal before we commit to adopting this process. It is quite a large amount of work to see this through. Do we need a full application process that mimics projects applying? Could we have something far lighter weigh (e.g. opening an issue in a repo, have 2 - 3 sponsors, slient period for objections).

I feel somewhat similar with the "stages" being proposed. Do we have an idea of spaces that would exist in each stage at this point? This seems like early optimizations and I'm concerned that starting with too much structure will create barriers to entry.

I don't understand how documenting our currently thoughts is a barrier to entry. We can update when appropriate and I think demonstrating that we see a progression where the contributions are recognized is important.

You asked about enforce quality of work within these spaces?. I think we need a process where the CPC reviews/approves at least in part for this exact reason. If we want a lighter weight process that's ok but I think having things clearly documented and written down only helps. I'm honestly not worried about having "too many" to cope with but instead that we might not get "enough".

[mhdawson]

@MylesBorins added the application template to the PR: https://github.com/openjs-foundation/cross-project-council/pull/557/files#diff-62b863b2e768d9c9a7b51c5c7d1edbeb

I think that covers all of your questions/comments.

[mhdawson]

@MylesBorins just a ping as this is waiting on further comments from you.

[christian-bromann]

some minor formatting and wording suggestions.

[mhdawson]

@christian-bromann comments addressed

[MylesBorins]

LGTM to move forward

I still think that there is a bit too much governance, in particular I don't believe that we benefit from having various types of collaboration spaces to start with. That being said it seems I am the only one with this concern so I don't think it is a reason to block or change anything.

Let's kick it off and then augment process if need be later.

[mhdawson]

All comments addressed, enough approvers,has been open long enough and no objections. Agreed in CPC meeting today that is was ready to land. Will land.