meta: merge TSC and CTC back into a single body by jasnell · Pull Request #14973 · nodejs/node

jasnell · 2017-08-22T05:52:48Z

Merge the CTC and TSC back into a single body. Dependent on approval and landing of nodejs/TSC#317

/cc @nodejs/ctc @nodejs/tsc

mcollina · 2017-08-22T06:04:33Z

LGTM

indutny · 2017-08-22T06:05:50Z

LGTM

ChALkeR

There are conflicts between the procedure here and as defined in the TSC repo (and charter). Those probably need to be resolved.

I highlighted via inline comments the ones that I noticed, there could be more.

ChALkeR · 2017-08-22T06:01:36Z

GOVERNANCE.md

This says 1/3, TSC charter says 1/4.

Perhaps just update to 1/4 everywhere, if this fits with the current members set?

We would need to decide. I prefer the 1/4 limit.

1/4 looks better, especially if it doesn't contradict the current memebers list.

Also, preferring 1/4 would not cause a TSC charter change (and requesting approval from the board), and preferring 1/3 would.

ChALkeR · 2017-08-22T06:02:01Z

GOVERNANCE.md

ditto (1/3 and 1/4 conflict)

ChALkeR · 2017-08-22T06:06:26Z

GOVERNANCE.md

Is this in line with the TSC charter? I am not sure if I understand https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/TSC-Charter.md#section-8-voting, but it was mentioned yesterday that any abstention could be counted as a vote against the resolution there.

I would like us to keep the behavior defined in this (CTC) document, though, where explitic abstaintions are subtracted from the total number of people voting.

Yes, the TSC Charter requires a simple majority (50%+1) for all votes.

Can it be changed to allow explicit abstention?

The reason for that is that CTC is both larger and in a certain sense more fragmented than TSC.

There are various areas of expertise, and e.g. I find it normal when someone abstains from a vote in some area where they don't have enough prior knowledge and delegate that to those who do.

Voting in general and explicit consensus particularly are already hard enough for CTC, and I expect that forcing 50%+1 for all votes and not allowing explicit abstention will make those even harder, perhaps even non-functional in a significant number of cases.

Yes, it can explicitly allow for abstention.

To clarify — by «explicit abstention» I mean the same one which CTC uses, where the number of explicitly abstained people gets subtracted from the total number of people in the CTC in the percentage formula.

@ChALkeR ... I have updated nodejs/TSC#317 to include a modification to the charter clarifying the effect of absention on the vote. I've updated this PR to point to the TSC Charter for details, including the one-quarter rule.

ChALkeR · 2017-08-22T06:12:01Z

Overall, I am in favor of this, but currently there are conflicts that need to be resolved.

gireeshpunathil

Clarity in organizational hierarchy and coherence in roles & responsibilities - sounds great to me.

Issues mentioned in the review are fixed not

ChALkeR · 2017-08-22T14:43:27Z

Argh, I can't edit the dismiss message. s/not/now/ in my message, sorry =).

Fishrock123 · 2017-08-22T15:18:16Z

I am in favor of this.

jasnell · 2017-08-22T15:25:57Z

@Fishrock123 ... does that count as signoff? If so, can I ask you to please use the Approve/Request Changes workflow as a clearer indication.

evanlucas · 2017-08-22T15:27:50Z

COLLABORATOR_GUIDE.md

should this be tsc-review?

evanlucas · 2017-08-22T15:39:24Z

README.md

jasnell · 2017-08-22T16:03:25Z

@evanlucas ... updated

evanlucas

LGTM with a nit

evanlucas · 2017-08-22T16:11:26Z

GOVERNANCE.md

Trott · 2017-08-22T17:39:42Z

GOVERNANCE.md

Micro-nit: The link should probably go to ./README.md#tsc-core-technical-committee which will link to the same place as https://github.com/nodejs/node#ctc-core-technical-committee one the ctc is changed to tsc in the README doc. Totally not a blocking objection, just a tiny suggestion.

Trott · 2017-08-22T17:48:18Z

GOVERNANCE.md

This paragraph is now redundant because it contains information already included in the TSC Charter. It's still good to have it here, I think, but it may be worth including a sentence somewhere in this doc that notes that if anything written in this doc is in contradiction with something in the TSC Charter, the TSC Charter takes precedence.

(Also, that's another Totally Non-Blocking Suggestion.)

That can be handled in a separate PR.

Trott · 2017-08-22T17:50:53Z

README.md

This change means we'll need to merge the two WORKING_GROUPS.md docs. If anyone's feeling ambitious and wants to open a PR against the TSC repo to have that ready to go, that would be awesome. (Non-blocking, just pointing out something that someone may choose to act on at this time or not.)

Yes, the corresponding PR against the TSC repo already does that.

PR-URL: #14973 Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <gpunathi@in.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ali Ijaz Sheikh <ofrobots@google.com> Reviewed-By: Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@ohtsu.org> Reviewed-By: Fedor Indutny <fedor.indutny@gmail.com>

jasnell · 2017-08-29T15:46:41Z

Landed in f3eb193

sam-github · 2017-08-29T15:49:17Z

Is there going to be a CTC meeting tomorrow morning?

jasnell · 2017-08-29T16:10:16Z

Yep, the CTC meeting schedule doesn't change.

PR-URL: nodejs/node#14973 Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <gpunathi@in.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ali Ijaz Sheikh <ofrobots@google.com> Reviewed-By: Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@ohtsu.org> Reviewed-By: Fedor Indutny <fedor.indutny@gmail.com>

PR-URL: nodejs#14973 Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <gpunathi@in.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ali Ijaz Sheikh <ofrobots@google.com> Reviewed-By: Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@ohtsu.org> Reviewed-By: Fedor Indutny <fedor.indutny@gmail.com>

PR-URL: #14973 Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <gpunathi@in.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ali Ijaz Sheikh <ofrobots@google.com> Reviewed-By: Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@ohtsu.org> Reviewed-By: Fedor Indutny <fedor.indutny@gmail.com>

nodejs-github-bot added c++ Issues and PRs that require attention from people who are familiar with C++. doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. meta Issues and PRs related to the general management of the project. labels Aug 22, 2017

ChALkeR previously requested changes Aug 22, 2017

View reviewed changes

gireeshpunathil approved these changes Aug 22, 2017

View reviewed changes

mcollina approved these changes Aug 22, 2017

View reviewed changes

evanlucas reviewed Aug 22, 2017

View reviewed changes

evanlucas approved these changes Aug 22, 2017

View reviewed changes

GOVERNANCE.md Outdated

Copy link

Contributor

evanlucas Aug 22, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

s/TST/TSC/

evanlucas approved these changes Aug 22, 2017

View reviewed changes

jasnell requested review from a team August 22, 2017 17:18

Trott reviewed Aug 22, 2017

View reviewed changes

Trott approved these changes Aug 22, 2017

View reviewed changes

gibfahn mentioned this pull request Aug 22, 2017

Discussion: CoC Violations & Accountability : Node's future nodejs/community-committee#111

Closed

MylesBorins approved these changes Aug 22, 2017

View reviewed changes

ofrobots approved these changes Aug 23, 2017

View reviewed changes

shigeki approved these changes Aug 24, 2017

View reviewed changes

meta: merge TSC and CTC back into a single body

f393349

jasnell force-pushed the merge-ctc-tsc branch from c9621f1 to f393349 Compare August 29, 2017 15:38

jasnell closed this Aug 29, 2017

MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Sep 10, 2017

v8.5.0 proposal #15308

Merged

MylesBorins added the land-on-v6.x label Sep 20, 2017

MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Sep 20, 2017

v6.11.4 proposal #15506

Merged

Uh oh!

Conversation

jasnell commented Aug 22, 2017

Uh oh!

mcollina commented Aug 22, 2017

Uh oh!

indutny commented Aug 22, 2017

Uh oh!

ChALkeR 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!

ChALkeR Aug 22, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ChALkeR Aug 22, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

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!

ChALkeR Aug 22, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

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!

ChALkeR commented Aug 22, 2017

Uh oh!

gireeshpunathil left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ChALkeR commented Aug 22, 2017

Uh oh!

Fishrock123 commented Aug 22, 2017

Uh oh!

jasnell commented Aug 22, 2017

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jasnell commented Aug 22, 2017

Uh oh!

evanlucas 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!

jasnell commented Aug 29, 2017

Uh oh!

sam-github commented Aug 29, 2017

Uh oh!

jasnell commented Aug 29, 2017

ChALkeR Aug 22, 2017 •

edited

Loading

ChALkeR Aug 22, 2017 •

edited

Loading

ChALkeR Aug 22, 2017 •

edited

Loading