In the process of creating a charter, many "process" and governance related things were included in the draft of the charter. Feedback was that the charter should not include such content, and that it should be moved to a separate file. This is that file. The initial commit includes content already approved by the group, however some additional content will be added at a later point, and this comment removed. For context, see #325
It is in some cases considered difficult or even unhelpful for the project to limit the number or percentage of TSC members by employer (especially when an employer has employed individuals already active in the community to work exclusively on the open source project). While at this time there are no limits on TSC membership by employer, as soon as the TSC reach 10 members a rule will be enabled to set the limit to at least less than 50%, ideally 33% (One third, one in three).
TSC members are expected to regularly participate in TSC activities.
When the TSC meets using virtual conferencing tools, the meeting will be directed by the TSC Chairperson(s). Responsibility for directing individual meetings may be delegated by a TSC Chairperson to any other TSC member. Minutes or an appropriate recording will be taken and made available to the community through accessible public postings.
TSC meetings should have a clearly defined agenda.
At any point, any TSC member may notify the TSC that they are taking a period of leave and should be considered to abstain from any signaling or voting. The TSC member must detail when they expect to return.
The TSC may, at its discretion, invite any number of non-voting observers to participate in the public portion of TSC discussions and meetings.
A TSC member may be removed by vote from the TSC if, during a 3-month period, all of the following are true:
- They do not participate in any TSC related discussions or votes
- They do not provide any form of excuse or no excuse is known for their absence
There may be other grounds for removal from the TSC, such as seriously violating the Code of Conduct.
The JSON Schema Project uses 2 different mechanism for decision making:
-
Consensus: The JSON Schema Project tries by default to find consensus in all the strategic decision by using the consensus mechanism described below.
-
Voting: It is OK use the voting process for those cases when the discussion has already occurred or discussion and discovery is not required. Voting is a simple yet powerful mechanism.
Both the Quick and Standard consensus process require the creation of an Issue in the TSC GitHub repository. The Issue must:
- Include brief introductory information about the decision that needs to be made
- Be labeled with
tsc-decision - Use the provided template, unless there is a good reason not to do so
In the event a TSC member feels the need for a decision to be expedited, they may create the decision discussion, indicating that they wish to use the quick process rather than the standard consensus process. This should be done by creating a new Issue in the TSC repository.
In addition to the requirements above, the Issue must be labeled expedited.
While an associated Discussion is not required, if one is used, it must be clearly linked in both directions, and be labeled with tsc-decision.
A vote is called to see if other members agree. The vote takes place on the opening comment. This vote is different from the decision-making voting process, and only requires 3 (additional) votes in favour and none against to carry. If the vote carries, the quick process is started, otherwise the standard consensus process is started.
The quick process is designed for small trivial issues where the resolution feels likely obvious, and the member who proposes the decision discussion has at least one clear resolution to present. The decision discussion owner should present the possible solution they are advocating for (in a follow up comment on the Issue. Not in the opening comment.), and ask to test for agreement. If consensus is not clearly reached, the quick process is ended and the standard consensus process is started. (Label expedited should be removed and tsc-stage-1 added.)
The standard consensus process is designed for all non-trivial decisions.
A decision discussion may be started by creating an Issue and Discussion in the TSC repository.
In addition to the requirements above, the Issue must:
- Be labeled with
tsc-stage-1 - Link to the associated initial Discussion
The Discussion must:
- Link to the associated Issue
- Include detailed introductory information about the decision that needs to be made
- Be labeled with
tsc-decision
The standard consensus process should progress through the following seven stages.
- Introduction and clarify the issue
- Open the discussion - Share needs and perspectives on the issue
- Explore ideas in a broad discussion
- Form a proposal
- Amend the proposal
- Test for agreement
- Determine resolution
(These stages are those defined by the Seeds For Change's Consensus Decision Making document. Please use that document as a rough guide for specific steps while the JSON Schema project tests and firms up our specific requirements, and document them in our yet to be created Governance document)
All decisions that go through the standard consensus process must have an associated GitHub Issue, which allows those unable to attend meetings to participate. The opening comment of the Issue should be kept up to date as to the status of the decision.
Transition between stages may be requested by anyone, but must be called by the facilitator (either a TSC chair or TSC member delegated the facilitator role for a given decision discussion). The stage will be indicated in the opening comment of the Issue and using the appropriate label.
Stages 1 and 6 are required to be open for at least 7 days or until every TSC member has confirmed they wish to progress to the next stage (Progression will still be "called", as above). This includes signals of abstaining given automatically via a notification of period of leave from TSC activity. For stage 2, any TSC member may request a 7 day extension to allow for further consideration. Should there be no reasonable objection (determined by a TSC Chair), the minimum time will be extended by 7 days. A TSC member may request multiple extensions, however lack of justification may result in the TSC member being asked to consider abstaining instead. There are no other explicit time limits placed on the other stages of the process.
Most of the discussion should happen within the associated Discussion. The Issue should mostly be used to update and report the progress of the consensus process. Groups looking to form a proposal or amend a proposal (stages 4 and 5) may make use of other additional Discussions or Issues, but these must be clearly linked. The opening comment should be updated to include links to relevant specific threads and comments in associated Discussion, and any other relevant locations.
Moving to the "Form a Proposal" stage should be approached when the group might feel able to combine ideas to form a single proposal. Multiple possible solutions should be discussed in the previous stage.
The "Test for Agreement" step is not voting, and is instead asking for "signals", which enable the consensus process to continue. Voting should be considered a last resort if the consensus process has failed for a particular issue, to enable the project to move forward.
If someone calls for a Test for Agreement, the facilitator for the decision discussion will review the current proposal and may call to Test for Agreement. The facilitator will post a comment on the Issue (using the provided template), linking to the current version of the proposal, and update the opening comment with a link to the new comment. TSC members will then be asked to signal their agreement using GitHub Reactions on the comment.
The signals include "Block". Any use of the "Block" signal will require a new or amended proposal to be worked on. A "Block" should be used to indicate a strong objection, such as something against the project's core principles or something that would harm the project.
The blocker/s should be prepared to commit to trying to find a solution, but not necessarily form and present a solution by themselves. The TSC will look to facilitate a number of workshops to help understand the blocking objections, and form a new or amended proposal as a result. If the blocker/s are unable or unwilling to participate in attempts to find a solution, after multiple attempts, the original proposal is moved to a vote, as defined in this document, but additionally requiring a 75% super majority to pass. This will be at the discretion of the TSC Chairs.
If someone feels a "Block" is being used for unfair reasons, such as targeting individuals or to gain some personal advantage, or any such reason that might be in breach of our Code of Conduct, they should immediately report it to the Code of Conduct committee. The Code of Conduct committee should report this to the TSC Chairs as soon as possible, and the decision is halted while the committee investigates the report.
The Code of Conduct committee will report their findings and any remediation action to the TSC Chairs. Reports must remain anonymous, as per the Code of Conduct.
The other signals that may be made when a Test For Agreement is called include "Reservations" and "Stand Aside". Both are signals which convey consent to let the proposal pass, however they may be conditional.
Signaling "Reservations" means an agreement on the overall direction, however there is some desire to revise or amend the proposal somewhat. It is expected that the individuals signaling "Reservations" want to engage in reworking the proposal. The facilitator will check with each individual regarding the strength of the reservation, and later facilitate or direct discussion as required to amend and represent the proposal. If the individual/s do not wish to participate in reworking the proposal, their reservations should be logged as part of the decision record as unresolved.
If "Reservations" is signalled three consecutive times by the same individual/s, anyone may call for no further attempts to remediate the reservations, and the proposal will pass.
Signaling "Stand Aside" conveys consent, but an unwillingness for whatever reason to be further involved. It could be for example that the individual does not have time to participate, or that they have limited opinions on the specific decision. The individual may provide a reason for standing aside. If the individual believes the reason can be remedied by the group, the group should seek to remedy the reason where possible, with help from the facilitator.
The TSC will make every reasonable effort to reach unanimity based consensus. If unanimity seems unlikely after several failed attempts to revise the proposal and Test for Agreement, if the proposal is clear, the decision may be moved to a vote, at the discretion of the TSC Chairs. This is a last resort.
The "Determine resolution" step should result in the creation of an Any Decision Record. More details in following sections.
Any call for public TSC votes will be made by creating an Issue in the TSC repository with the tsc-vote label assigned. The Issue should use the provided template.
Once an Issue gains the label tsc-vote, all members of the TSC will be notified via a specific Slack channel (and by any additional method the TSC deems helpful). The votes will be collected by way of using GitHub Reactions on a specific comment, which must not be the first comment. The first comment must link to the voting comment in the same Issue.
Voting will by default close after 7 days. Any member of the TSC may request a 7 day extension for any reason, moving the closing date back by 7 days. Any member of the TSC may request additional extensions, approved at the discretion of any TSC chair.
For a vote to carry, a quorum of 75% is required by default.
If a TSC member wants to call for a vote that they wish to be private, they must do so by contacting the TSC Chairs directly.
At the discretion of the TSC Chairs, a vote may be made private, and will then be handled by creating an Issue in the TSC-private repository.
The topic and nature of private votes may remain private, including the results. (It is expected that vast majority of votes will be public. Private voting should only be used in exceptional circumstances.)
The kinds of votes which should be private include things related to security reports or discussions with an entity where it might not be desireable to be made public knowledge to either party. This could include details of case studies or partnerships which are not yet concluded or published, where either party may need a final approval for publication or wishes for coordinated or scheduled public publication.
(You can view the "Decision-making via vote" process as a runnable interactive Finite State Machine in the governance supporting information document.)
Either initially, or at any point during the process, any TSC member may suggest the issue being discussed is "significant or noteworthy." If there are no objections, the resolution actions for the issue must include the creation of an Any Decision Record (previously named Architectural Decision Record). The Any Decision Record (ADR) should include as much information as is thought to be useful, following the provided template. The Pull Request for the ADR must be approved by all those who were involved in the decision making process, which must also be documented in the ADR as the "deciders."
(The quick consensus process does not require an Any Decision Record, but the decision should be minuted.)
Private decisions should be documented (as an ADR or otherwise) in the private TSC-private repository.
The JSON Schema project recognizes the need for both technical and non-technical roles. While the JSON Schema project has no legal entity nor is housed within an entity which can take on business responsibilities, the TSC shall take on those responsibilities as much is as feasible. There are other non-technical responsibilities
The TSC will look to create other roles as appropriate, and may update this document in accordance with the requirements for doing so, to formally recognize the additional roles.
The following responsibilities are recognized as those requiring roles to be defined by the TSC:
- Community and Industry connections
- Brand awareness, recognition, and health
- Education and training
This work is a derivative of the WebdriverIO Project Governance Model.
Inspired by https://seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus, https://seedsforchange.org.uk/quickconsensus Informed by https://www.ic.org/busting-the-myth-that-consensus-with-unanimity-is-good-for-communities/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.