meta: add initial GOVERNANCE.md
#5040
Conversation
|
You forgot to add it to the website and renaming the old temporary governance. |
thoughtpolice
force-pushed
the
aseipp/push-xsqsllnzzswk
branch
from
d8a09f7 to
e71ca29
Compare
|
New update looks good to me, for starters. Only thing I might add is - what's the process for modifying governance.md? Do changes need to go to a maintainer vote through the regular process? Since this is a good start but fairly bare-bones, I think it's worth outlining how we intend to update it later if/when we need to. |
thoughtpolice
force-pushed
the
aseipp/push-xsqsllnzzswk
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e9a2443 to
52fbe51
Compare
| @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ nav: | |||
| - 'Code of conduct': 'code-of-conduct.md' | |||
| - 'Design Docs': 'design_docs.md' | |||
| - 'Design Doc Blueprint': 'design_doc_blueprint.md' | |||
| - 'Temporary Voting for Governance': 'governance/old-temporary-voting.md' | |||
| - 'Governance': 'governance/GOVERNANCE.md' | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: Preserve the old link, as its still somewhat useful.
I think basically we expected to use the Decision-Making process for modifying governance.md. |
Just shuffling stuff in the cellar. Signed-off-by: Austin Seipp <[email protected]>
This is the result of a lot of back and forth, the weekly efforts of the governance working group, consisting of: - Martin von Zweigbergk (martinvonz) - Waleed Khan (arxanas) - Emily Shaffer (nasamuffin) - Austin Seipp (thoughtpolice; yours truly) Many thanks as well to emeritus member Khionu Sybiern, who helped kickstart this whole process. Signed-off-by: Austin Seipp <[email protected]>
thoughtpolice
force-pushed
the
aseipp/push-xsqsllnzzswk
branch
from
52fbe51 to
b942b1b
Compare
| - Reviewing code submitted by others — with an eye to maintainability, | ||
| performance, code quality, and "style" (fitting in with the project). | ||
| - Participating in design discussions, especially with regards to architecture | ||
| or long-term vision. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would explicitly add something about making sure the community remains a welcoming place to users and contributors
| Maintainer in question). This can be due to lack of participation, conduct | ||
| violations, etc. Note that Maintainers are subject to a higher set of behavioral |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| Maintainer in question). This can be due to lack of participation, conduct | |
| violations, etc. Note that Maintainers are subject to a higher set of behavioral | |
| Maintainer in question). This can be due to lack of participation or conduct violations. Note that Maintainers are subject to a higher set of behavioral |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
With this change, it seems to explicitly limit the reasons to remove a Maintainer to the two listed here, and not allow for any others. Is that intentional, or was this just meant to improve the wording? I imagine there could be some other legitimate reason, like lack of alignment with the project goals, or something like that.
After lots of discussion, we've finally achieved a draft of the governance document!
This is a draft, as it is fundamentally incomplete; that will require the election of the initial set of 5 Jujutsu Maintainers, after an open self-nomination period! Stay tuned for more on that.
This is the result of a lot of back and forth, the weekly efforts of the governance working group, currently consisting of:
Many thanks as well to emeritus member Khionu Sybiern, who helped kickstart this whole process.