Committer status

[evanp]

There's a section in the "Decision process" about making decisions. It proposes a role in the group, "Committer", gives a light definition of how it might be granted, and then defines what role it would play:

This group will seek to make decisions where there is consensus. Groups are free to decide how to make decisions (e.g. Participants who have earned Committer status for a history of useful contributions assess consensus, or the Chair assesses consensus, or where consensus isn't clear there is a Call for Consensus [CfC] (see below) to allow multi-day online feedback for a proposed course of action). It is expected that participants can earn Committer status through a history of valuable discursive contributions as is common in open source projects. After discussion and due consideration of different opinions, a decision should be publicly recorded (where GitHub is used as the resolution of an Issue).

If substantial disagreement remains (e.g. the group is divided) and the group needs to decide an Issue in order to continue to make progress, the Committers will choose an alternative that had substantial support (with a vote of Committers if necessary). Individuals who disagree with the choice are strongly encouraged to take ownership of their objection by taking ownership of an alternative fork. This is explicitly allowed (and preferred to blocking progress) with a goal of letting implementation experience inform which spec is ultimately chosen by the group to move ahead with.

I think we should give this role its own section, since it seems pretty important. I think we should also switch the language about how Committers can get the role from an expectation to a more declarative form. Here's some proposed language:

Committers

A Committer is authorized to make changes to one or more GitHub repositories that are managed by the group. Participants can earn Committer status through a history of useful contributions. Granting Committer status is made through consensus, as discussed in "Decision process". There is no limit to the number of Committers in the group or on a repository. There is no time limit on Committer status. Each repository should have at least one active Committer. Chair(s) can revoke Committer status for any reason. A Committer can give up the role voluntarily.

If this section is added, we can take out the definitions from the "Decision process" section:

This group will seek to make decisions where there is consensus. Groups are free to decide how to make decisions (e.g. Committers assess consensus, or the Chair assesses consensus, or where consensus isn't clear there is a Call for Consensus [CfC] (see below) to allow multi-day online feedback for a proposed course of action). After discussion and due consideration of different opinions, a decision should be publicly recorded (where GitHub is used as the resolution of an Issue).

[evanp]

We discussed this in the CG meeting on Dec 6. It seems like general consensus was that it made sense, but there was a sticking point on the term used. Some proposed names:

• "Editor"
• "Contributor"
• The stage process uses the word "champion", which is similar
• We've used "task force lead" previously

I'm not married to any one term, but I think the mechanical definition "committer" is the clearest one. A committer can commit to a GitHub repo. That gives a certain level of control over a document, diagram, or codebase.

[evanp]

@tantek did you have some feedback in here?

[evanp]

@bumblefudge you used the term "convener" in the task force description. Is that right?

[evanp]

Honestly, I think having three roles in the CG makes a lot of sense:

• Chair: overall organization, managing consensus, hosting CG meetings, outreach, dealing with problem participants.
• Committer: can manage GitHub repositories, merge PRs, close issues. Need at least one for a task force.
• Participant: can contribute, attend meetings, make PR submissions, open issues, write code, write text.

A task force should have a GitHub repository, one or more Committers, and zero or more other Participants.

[nightpool]

I think Editor makes the most sense and gives us the most alignment with other standards organizations. I sympathize with the impulse to make the decision more mechanical, but I don't think "committer" really correctly describes what's going on

…

On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 11:31 AM Evan Prodromou ***@***.***> wrote: Honestly, I think having three roles in the CG makes a lot of sense: - Chair: overall organization, managing consensus, hosting CG meetings, outreach, dealing with problem participants. - Committer: can manage GitHub repositories, merge PRs, close issues. Need at least one for a task force. - Participant: can contribute, attend meetings, make PR submissions, open issues, write code, write text. A task force should have a GitHub repository, one or more Committers, and zero or more other Participants. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#48 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABZCV5CG5PTVWMBLBAVPDT2FSBP7AVCNFSM6AAAAABRSFJ7HSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDKNBTGMZDANZWGQ> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>