feat: create project charter by achrinza · Pull Request #25 · loopbackio/loopback-governance

achrinza · 2022-03-31T07:17:18Z

closes: #22

Signed-off-by: Rifa Achrinza 25147899+achrinza@users.noreply.github.com

closes: #22 Signed-off-by: Rifa Achrinza <25147899+achrinza@users.noreply.github.com>

dhmlau

@achrinza, thanks for raising this PR! Please see my comments.
I'd like to do some more research on my side on what other OpenJS foundation projects have and give more review comments.

dhmlau · 2022-03-31T13:35:14Z

docs/project-charter.md

@@ -0,0 +1,196 @@
+# LoopBack Charter
+
+_note: the purpose of a project charter is to provide a brief introduction_


i assume the text in italic (i.e. note, directions, ex) will be removed eventually and it's there now just to help with the review?

Yes, these would be removed before landing the PR. I've left them there to make it easier to review.

dhmlau · 2022-03-31T13:37:04Z

docs/project-charter.md

+
+ex. [K8s SIG Architecture Charter](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/HEAD/sig-architecture/charter.md#out-of-scope)
+
+Section Intentionally Left Blank


I also looked at the one from fastify. Might be good to use it as a reference: https://github.com/fastify/fastify/blob/main/PROJECT_CHARTER.md#12-out-of-scope.

particulary:

Support versions of Node.js at EOL (end of life) stage

Contributions that violates the Code of Conduct

dhmlau · 2022-03-31T13:39:24Z

docs/project-charter.md

+
+ex. [Node.js TSC Charter](https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/HEAD/TSC-Charter.md#section-6-elections)
+
+Unless stated otherwise, the LoopBack TSC adopts a lazy consensus voting system,


For voting, I wonder if we want to have at least another "for" vote (or half of TSC agree) and no objections, before going forward.

I'm open to getting at least one more explicit "for" vote. Getting half of the TSC to vote (3 votes) may be a bit difficult as we don't have any provisions to enforce participation of TSC members.

make sense. "at least one for vote" works for me.

dhmlau · 2022-03-31T13:40:13Z

docs/project-charter.md

+For more important matters such as the nomination of new TSC members, a lazy
+consensus for a stipulated period of no less than 1 week is used instead.
+
+These votes must be done through a process that's accessible to the general


For voting to approve/reject a contributor to maintainer, the votes are not public in the current process.

Should the TSC voting process be private as well?

We may also want to state the criteria of being TSC nominee, such as:

An existing LoopBack Maintainer for at least 1 year

Has actively contributed to the Project in the past 90 days

Is willing to actively partake in governance-related matters

We may also want to draft a standard "nomination form" and process similar to becoming a Maintainer.

Should the TSC voting process be private as well?

sounds good as it falls under the category, IMHO.

achrinza · 2022-04-25T16:21:58Z

This may be useful: https://github.blog/2021-07-22-minimum-viable-governance-lightweight-community-structure-foss-projects/

achrinza · 2022-04-26T05:52:35Z

We're limited in modifying the Project Charter in accordance with https://github.com/openjs-foundation/cross-project-council/blob/2b48ff7084f794056fb2a9147fe74561b832dab2/governance/GOVERNANCE.md:

Approving Project Charters

Per the [CPC charter section 5][], the voting CPC members are responsible for approving project
charters and changes to them.

Approval of the initial charter or changes to an existing charter will
be requested by opening an issue requesting approval in the cross-project-council
[repository][cpc repo].

The request is approved when:

There are no outstanding objections

There are two or more approvals by voting CPC members

The board has been consulted in the case of substantial changes

The issue has been open for at least 14 days

We may want to consider separating "operational processes" such as voting, consensus, workflows, etc. into a dedicated GOVERNANCE document, which would, AFAIK, not require OpenJSF approval for modification unlike the Project Charter.

TSC approval process of Project Charter hasn't been formally ratified, but is documented at https://github.com/openjs-foundation/cross-project-council/blob/2b48ff7084f794056fb2a9147fe74561b832dab2/proposals/incubating/CHARTER_REVIEW/README.md

It's also briefly mentioned in https://github.com/openjs-foundation/cross-project-council/blob/4e801af388d03edaf370e734fb9e6e6a633ade7e/CPC-CHARTER.md#section-5-responsibilities-and-expectations-of-the-cpc Point 7.

dhmlau

@achrinza, sorry about the delay. Looking up the Node.js and Fastify project charter as reference, here are my comments. To me, it's generally good to go. Thanks.

docs/project-charter.md

Co-authored-by: Diana Lau <dhmlau@ca.ibm.com>

achrinza · 2022-05-22T02:38:49Z

docs/project-charter.md

+- Creating new releases
+- Release quality standards
+- Technical direction
+- GitHub repository hosting


I'd like to expand this to encompass alternate hosting (i.e. mirroring):

Suggested change

- GitHub repository hosting

- GitHub repository hosting

- Repository mirror hosting

achrinza · 2022-05-22T02:39:57Z

docs/project-charter.md

+- Conduct guidelines and enforcement
+- Maintaing the list of LoopBack Maintainers
+- Mediating technical conflicts between Collaborators or Foundation projects
+- Hosting and publishing the monthy LoopBack Maintainers Call


Likewise, I think it's good to have a catch-all so that we don't have to amend this charter as frequently.

Also, typo.

Suggested change

- Hosting and publishing the monthy LoopBack Maintainers Call

- Hosting and publishing the monthly LoopBack Maintainers Call and other meetings

achrinza · 2022-05-22T02:53:13Z

docs/project-charter.md

+
+Technical leadership for the projects within the OpenJS Foundation is delegated
+to the projects through their project charters by the OpenJS Foundation Cross
+Project Council (CPC). In the case of LoopBack, it is delegated to the LoopBack


Suggested change

Project Council (CPC). In the case of LoopBack, it is delegated to the LoopBack

Project Council ("CPC"). In the case of LoopBack, it is delegated to the LoopBack

achrinza · 2022-05-22T02:59:29Z

docs/project-charter.md

+must have at least four members. Although there are no hard requirements, the
+composition of the TSC should aim for geographic and employer diversity in the
+spirit of a distributed maintenance model.


Since we already meet the requirements, could we further restrict the TSC composition requirements to align with the OpenJS Foundation Growth Project requirements? Specifically, this part:

Governing body of >= 5 members of which no more than 1/3 is affiliated with the same employer.

Likewise, this means we need to document our employer affiliation - AFAIK, the governance structure from our project application form is still correct.

We'll also need to document the expectation that the TSC members keep this documentation up-to-date.

IIUC, the Growth project requirements are for the projects wanting to be "impact" stage. I wouldn't worry about it for now.

feat: create project charter

b6f1f36

closes: #22 Signed-off-by: Rifa Achrinza <25147899+achrinza@users.noreply.github.com>

dhmlau reviewed Mar 31, 2022

View reviewed changes

dhmlau reviewed May 11, 2022

View reviewed changes

docs/project-charter.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

docs/project-charter.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

docs/project-charter.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

docs/project-charter.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

achrinza and others added 4 commits May 22, 2022 02:28

Update docs/project-charter.md

4becfe4

Co-authored-by: Diana Lau <dhmlau@ca.ibm.com>

Update docs/project-charter.md

cf3213c

Co-authored-by: Diana Lau <dhmlau@ca.ibm.com>

Update docs/project-charter.md

e7d71a0

Co-authored-by: Diana Lau <dhmlau@ca.ibm.com>

Update docs/project-charter.md

f7455ce

Co-authored-by: Diana Lau <dhmlau@ca.ibm.com>

achrinza commented May 22, 2022

View reviewed changes

		@@ -0,0 +1,196 @@
		# LoopBack Charter

		_note: the purpose of a project charter is to provide a brief introduction_


		ex. [K8s SIG Architecture Charter](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/HEAD/sig-architecture/charter.md#out-of-scope)

		Section Intentionally Left Blank


		ex. [Node.js TSC Charter](https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/HEAD/TSC-Charter.md#section-6-elections)

		Unless stated otherwise, the LoopBack TSC adopts a lazy consensus voting system,

	- GitHub repository hosting
	- GitHub repository hosting
	- Repository mirror hosting

	- Hosting and publishing the monthy LoopBack Maintainers Call
	- Hosting and publishing the monthly LoopBack Maintainers Call and other meetings

	Project Council (CPC). In the case of LoopBack, it is delegated to the LoopBack
	Project Council ("CPC"). In the case of LoopBack, it is delegated to the LoopBack

Conversation

achrinza commented Mar 31, 2022

Uh oh!

dhmlau left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

achrinza commented Apr 25, 2022

Uh oh!

achrinza commented Apr 26, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Approving Project Charters

Uh oh!

dhmlau left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

achrinza commented Apr 26, 2022 •

edited

Loading