Clarify RFC meetings #904
Clarify RFC meetings #904
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @matthewp ! A couple of grammar nits, and some questions for clarity that we might also want to include in the text.
| @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| **Location:** GitHub Issues [(see all accepted proposals).](https://github.com/withastro/roadmap/issues) | |||
|
|
|||
| **What to Expect:** A proposal reaches this stage (aka "is accepted") during a meeting with Maintainers and TSC, following our existing [RFC Proposal](https://github.com/withastro/.github/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md#voting-rfc-proposals) voting process. | |||
| **What to Expect:** A proposal reaches this stage (aka "is accepted") during an [#rfc-meetings](RFC Meeting) with Maintainers and TSC, following our existing [RFC voting](https://github.com/withastro/.github/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md#voting-rfc-proposals) process. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| **What to Expect:** A proposal reaches this stage (aka "is accepted") during an [#rfc-meetings](RFC Meeting) with Maintainers and TSC, following our existing [RFC voting](https://github.com/withastro/.github/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md#voting-rfc-proposals) process. | |
| **What to Expect:** A proposal reaches this stage (aka "is accepted") during an [RFC Meeting](#rfc-meetings) with Maintainers and TSC, following our existing [RFC voting](https://github.com/withastro/.github/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md#voting-rfc-proposals) process. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does "Maintainers" include L2 (maintainers) and L3 (core)? I think we should be precise
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Going with what Matthew said yesterday in Community Call it refers to >= L2, but I agree we should be precise here.
|
|
||
| RFCs advance through the stages during RFC meetings with TSC and maintainers. Voting follows the [RFC proposal](https://github.com/withastro/.github/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md#voting-rfc-proposals) voting process. | ||
|
|
||
| Meetings occur ad hoc rather than on a scheduled basis. They are called for when a proposal author or champion feels it is ready to advance to the next stage. The author or champion can ask for a meeting by contacting TSC to schedule a time. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| Meetings occur ad hoc rather than on a scheduled basis. They are called for when a proposal author or champion feels it is ready to advance to the next stage. The author or champion can ask for a meeting by contacting TSC to schedule a time. | |
| Meetings occur ad hoc rather than on a scheduled basis. They are called for when a proposal author or champion feels the proposal is ready to advance to the next stage. The author or champion can ask for a meeting by contacting TSC to schedule a time. |
"contacting TSC" is pretty vague. Unless we describe how to do that elsewhere on this page, I'd specify how they should contact TSC. Do they mention the role in the proposal? Email?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree with Sarah that we should specify the medium of how TSC should be contacted.
I would remove the "proposal author" from the equation because it can be anyone. We take for granted that "proposal authors" are maintainers and core, but I think it's not like that. "Proposal authors" can be anyone.
Instead, I would reword this by just mentioning "champion" and specifying that a champion can be the proposal author, but not necessary.
|
|
||
| Meetings occur ad hoc rather than on a scheduled basis. They are called for when a proposal author or champion feels it is ready to advance to the next stage. The author or champion can ask for a meeting by contacting TSC to schedule a time. | ||
|
|
||
| All maintainers are invited to the meeting. If consensus is reached the RFC advances to the next stage. See [RFC proposal](https://github.com/withastro/.github/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md#voting-rfc-proposals) documentation for full details. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| All maintainers are invited to the meeting. If consensus is reached the RFC advances to the next stage. See [RFC proposal](https://github.com/withastro/.github/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md#voting-rfc-proposals) documentation for full details. | |
| All maintainers are invited to the meeting. If consensus is reached, the RFC advances to the next stage. See [RFC proposal](https://github.com/withastro/.github/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md#voting-rfc-proposals) documentation for full details. |
Should we also say what happens if consensus is not reached? Is there a waiting limit before asking again? Is the proposal officially dead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The governance document talks about that some: https://github.com/withastro/.github/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md#voting-rfc-proposals
Was trying not to repeat too much here that's already covered in the governance doc.
|
|
||
| RFCs advance through the stages during RFC meetings with TSC and maintainers. Voting follows the [RFC proposal](https://github.com/withastro/.github/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md#voting-rfc-proposals) voting process. | ||
|
|
||
| Meetings occur ad hoc rather than on a scheduled basis. They are called for when a proposal author or champion feels it is ready to advance to the next stage. The author or champion can ask for a meeting by contacting TSC to schedule a time. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would doing these discussions during a Tuesday community call actually be a good idea? Would it increase participation/attendance (esp. from the rest of core), give @sarah11918 a built-in agenda item, and require less planning to organize and find a time?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Especially reading the next paragraph, it feels a little "secret meeting" and the transparency wins of doing it on a public call could be worth it for that alone.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could, but some issues we had before when RFC meetings were open to all:
- Discussions tended to be very high-level, most of the audience didn't understand the technical details that are an important part.
- Discussions tended to veer towards bikeshedding often.
- It was always odd to me that we tried to reach consensus to the general community, which meant a non-maintainer could object and per the rules it then went to a TSC decision.
| @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| **Location:** GitHub Issues [(see all accepted proposals).](https://github.com/withastro/roadmap/issues) | |||
|
|
|||
| **What to Expect:** A proposal reaches this stage (aka "is accepted") during a meeting with Maintainers and TSC, following our existing [RFC Proposal](https://github.com/withastro/.github/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md#voting-rfc-proposals) voting process. | |||
| **What to Expect:** A proposal reaches this stage (aka "is accepted") during an [#rfc-meetings](RFC Meeting) with Maintainers and TSC, following our existing [RFC voting](https://github.com/withastro/.github/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md#voting-rfc-proposals) process. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does "Maintainers" include L2 (maintainers) and L3 (core)? I think we should be precise
|
|
||
| RFCs advance through the stages during RFC meetings with TSC and maintainers. Voting follows the [RFC proposal](https://github.com/withastro/.github/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md#voting-rfc-proposals) voting process. | ||
|
|
||
| Meetings occur ad hoc rather than on a scheduled basis. They are called for when a proposal author or champion feels it is ready to advance to the next stage. The author or champion can ask for a meeting by contacting TSC to schedule a time. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree with Sarah that we should specify the medium of how TSC should be contacted.
I would remove the "proposal author" from the equation because it can be anyone. We take for granted that "proposal authors" are maintainers and core, but I think it's not like that. "Proposal authors" can be anyone.
Instead, I would reword this by just mentioning "champion" and specifying that a champion can be the proposal author, but not necessary.
The process calls for RFC meetings, which we have not had formally in quite a while. This change brings those back and clarifies who can call for them.