Hi everyone,
I've spent a bit of time talking to various individuals and the advisory
board about setting up a new Community Process Group.
A survey was recently conducted to identify how the community as a whole
feels about a certain situation. It was not intended to ban specific
wording or create a policy to do so, but more to give context that the
community has a wide range of ideas, and individuals may agree and disagree
a lot more frequently than we as individuals might think. It helps us
understand that as a community there are many situations where it is not
clear. As such, the results indicated a very even split among the
community, which indicates a larger problem as we may not always come to
agreement.
There is obvious frustration with how certain matters are handled, as some
members may want the project to move faster, whereas others like to take a
cautious approach. Given we are an open source project, differences in
opinion are likely to happen and what we don’t want to do is cause further
frustration.
*This is where I would like to propose the idea of a ‘Community Process
Group’.*
A CPG can help as they will be able to advise members on similar issues
regarding community processes or appeals and decide on the best way
forward. To help with this process, I have consulted with various
individuals including some committers and conduct team members.
*What is a CPG’s purpose?*
In the first instance, we would expect an informal vote resolves most
disagreements. However, there will be certain circumstances where the
outcome is not always agreed on.
A CPG will be your second point of call, where you can escalate matters
quickly for a democratic solution.
Their purpose is to resolve process issues and informal vote appeals to
avoid matters going to a formal vote, but also act as a representative on
behalf of others in the community on future matters.
For example:
- Naming conventions
- Whether feedback requesting changes on a patch series is acceptable
- How to move forward in case of non-actionable feedback to a patch
series
- How to move forward when a contributor or reviewer has not been
responsive
- Policy questions not related to the code of conduct
*What is their role and responsibility?*
The CPG has the authority to propose a resolution to situations where there
are disagreements, that don’t involve large technical decisions. Their
decision proposed should be accepted as final since members will have
discussed the best steps and come to a consensus vote.
The CPG does not aim to replace the committers' authority or the advisory
board but instead holds the authority to make decisions that are in the
best interest of the community in relation to processes. Committers still
hold the power should there be a formal escalation regarding technical
decisions, but this would be extremely rare. Advisory Board members hold
the final power regarding project and business-wide decisions.
*How are members selected?*
The CPG will be composed of 5 randomly selected members in total.
An odd number has been purposely selected to avoid an impasse during
decisions.
The criteria:
Individual members must be active contributors and are willing to help the
community succeed. As such they must be a part of the following groups:
- Committers
- Active Maintainers: maintainers with >= 20 reviews in the last 2
releases
- Active Contributors: contributors with >= 10 commits in the last 2
releases
Future rotations of CPG members:
New members will be selected randomly for each new release to ensure
fairness.
*Expectations*
CPG members are expected to use their best judgement of what is best for
the community in terms of conflict resolution and process improvements.
They can propose an outcome that progresses the project forward.
The CPG is also expected to address wider concerns, feedback, and ideas
during a monthly meeting with all community members.
For example:
- If someone is displaying repeated concerning behaviour that disrupts
the community, members can ask the CPG for help on a solution. (This is
different from a code of conduct violation which would be for serious
offences only.)
- Help drive discussions on how much we deviate from technical
specifications
*Next steps*
Given this suggestion is a big change in what I hope is a positive
direction, we will require your feedback and a final formal vote on the
process, before it is implemented into the governance policies. The
specific wording can be decided after this proposal.
This will hopefully help us overcome some of the frustrations and issues we
have seen in the community from a difference in opinion as a collective
discussion will now be made. Should we need to, the process can be reviewed
to improve at later stages.
I welcome your feedback as a community on this proposal.
Many thanks,
Kelly Choi
Community Manager
Xen Project
I've spent a bit of time talking to various individuals and the advisory
board about setting up a new Community Process Group.
A survey was recently conducted to identify how the community as a whole
feels about a certain situation. It was not intended to ban specific
wording or create a policy to do so, but more to give context that the
community has a wide range of ideas, and individuals may agree and disagree
a lot more frequently than we as individuals might think. It helps us
understand that as a community there are many situations where it is not
clear. As such, the results indicated a very even split among the
community, which indicates a larger problem as we may not always come to
agreement.
There is obvious frustration with how certain matters are handled, as some
members may want the project to move faster, whereas others like to take a
cautious approach. Given we are an open source project, differences in
opinion are likely to happen and what we don’t want to do is cause further
frustration.
*This is where I would like to propose the idea of a ‘Community Process
Group’.*
A CPG can help as they will be able to advise members on similar issues
regarding community processes or appeals and decide on the best way
forward. To help with this process, I have consulted with various
individuals including some committers and conduct team members.
*What is a CPG’s purpose?*
In the first instance, we would expect an informal vote resolves most
disagreements. However, there will be certain circumstances where the
outcome is not always agreed on.
A CPG will be your second point of call, where you can escalate matters
quickly for a democratic solution.
Their purpose is to resolve process issues and informal vote appeals to
avoid matters going to a formal vote, but also act as a representative on
behalf of others in the community on future matters.
For example:
- Naming conventions
- Whether feedback requesting changes on a patch series is acceptable
- How to move forward in case of non-actionable feedback to a patch
series
- How to move forward when a contributor or reviewer has not been
responsive
- Policy questions not related to the code of conduct
*What is their role and responsibility?*
The CPG has the authority to propose a resolution to situations where there
are disagreements, that don’t involve large technical decisions. Their
decision proposed should be accepted as final since members will have
discussed the best steps and come to a consensus vote.
The CPG does not aim to replace the committers' authority or the advisory
board but instead holds the authority to make decisions that are in the
best interest of the community in relation to processes. Committers still
hold the power should there be a formal escalation regarding technical
decisions, but this would be extremely rare. Advisory Board members hold
the final power regarding project and business-wide decisions.
*How are members selected?*
The CPG will be composed of 5 randomly selected members in total.
An odd number has been purposely selected to avoid an impasse during
decisions.
The criteria:
Individual members must be active contributors and are willing to help the
community succeed. As such they must be a part of the following groups:
- Committers
- Active Maintainers: maintainers with >= 20 reviews in the last 2
releases
- Active Contributors: contributors with >= 10 commits in the last 2
releases
Future rotations of CPG members:
New members will be selected randomly for each new release to ensure
fairness.
*Expectations*
CPG members are expected to use their best judgement of what is best for
the community in terms of conflict resolution and process improvements.
They can propose an outcome that progresses the project forward.
The CPG is also expected to address wider concerns, feedback, and ideas
during a monthly meeting with all community members.
For example:
- If someone is displaying repeated concerning behaviour that disrupts
the community, members can ask the CPG for help on a solution. (This is
different from a code of conduct violation which would be for serious
offences only.)
- Help drive discussions on how much we deviate from technical
specifications
*Next steps*
Given this suggestion is a big change in what I hope is a positive
direction, we will require your feedback and a final formal vote on the
process, before it is implemented into the governance policies. The
specific wording can be decided after this proposal.
This will hopefully help us overcome some of the frustrations and issues we
have seen in the community from a difference in opinion as a collective
discussion will now be made. Should we need to, the process can be reviewed
to improve at later stages.
I welcome your feedback as a community on this proposal.
Many thanks,
Kelly Choi
Community Manager
Xen Project