-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 163
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Document CoC Team selection process #1297
Comments
Following our private session to nominate CoC Community team members it became apparent that we needed to figure out the selection process before moving forward with the selection itself. |
@tobie On that note, one thing we should consider (if not already accounted for) is project representation. Given there are only 3 appointments to the CoC Team it would be good to ensure that one project does not represent more then 1 position on that team (excluding alternates). I think adding this stipulation would ensure we don't end up with homogeneous perspectives at multiple levels of governance. |
That's a good point, @darcyclarke, slightly tangential to this issue, however. Opened a PR addressing it here: #1318. |
Meeting notes:
|
CPC call discussion:
|
Note: don't forget to include updating membership to the [email protected] mailing list in the process. |
CPC call: this is now waiting on a pull request. Alternatively this could be worked on during a working session. This also needs to be added to the election calendar. |
Notes from today's CPC call:
|
closes #1297 Signed-off-by: Joe Sepi <[email protected]>
Notes from today's CPC call:
|
Addresses parts of #1297 --------- Signed-off-by: Joe Sepi <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Tobie Langel <[email protected]>
The CoC Team Charter is voluntarily non-prescriptive when it comes to selecting CoC Team members.
Our plan, discussed in the working session of April 23, is to document a process here as we run the first selection and formalize for next year.
Ideally it's lightweight, and close to other election mechanisms.
Consensus in the work session was to make it consensus-driven rather than an election process (this echoes -1 being a a blocker expressed in prior issues opened on the topic).
Tasks
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: