Working Group governance model & charter

[mcollina]

From the Collaborator Summit in Austin, TX, it emerged the fact that the Streams WG does not have a proper charter, even if it has been chartered when the Foundation has been created. I think we should fill this in, and officialise ourselves. The alternative is to move to a less formal group, a "team".

As I understood, a chartered wg has a a delegation from tsc/ctc.

@williamkapke can probably clarify some of this, and help us with the proper paperwork.

As an example, see nodejs/security-wg#9.

[calvinmetcalf]

Ok so it's mainly a paperwork thing?

[mcollina]

I think so, yes. We might need a formal vote or something like that.
I think we all are extremely bad at this, so I hope if @williamkapke could help us.

[williamkapke]

Hey @mcollina! Thanks for following up on this.

Here's the deal. Ya'll have an official Charter listed in WORKING_GROUPS.md
... but your repo doesn't have the docs that are preferred. I need to say it that way because Working Groups are autonomous... meaning you don't NEED to do anything. But, for the community's sake- it's nice to be uniform.

The templates for the docs are here:
https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/WORKING_GROUPS.md#bootstrap-governance

Also- WG are supposed to have their chartered revoked when their work is complete. Maybe the Streams work will NEVER be complete? Some WGs are like that.

- OR -
The working group could choose to be a team instead- which is less formal. There really isn't much of a difference between them. Working Groups are given autonomy and delegated full control over the things listed in their charter and teams are not. But in practice, that doesn't really mean much because the CTC/TSC would MUCH rather delegate work out to people specialized/focused on being awesome at it... so the control is given anyhow. Look at LTS, Security, or Version Management for examples.

So, being the "Streams Team" would operate the same as it does now- but the boilerplate docs wouldn't be expected.

[mcollina]

I think being a WG makes more sense because readable-stream is somewhat autonomous, given than we support all the versions of Node and the browsers (see https://github.com/nodejs/readable-stream/blob/master/.travis.yml). It might qualify as a standalone project if/when the dependency between this and core is reversed.

Also- WG are supposed to have their chartered revoked when their work is complete. Maybe the Streams work will NEVER be complete? Some WGs are like that.

The goal here is maintenance and fostering the community around streams. During 2016, we helped both gulp and node-serialport. As far as this, the streams work will never be completed.

[mcollina]

@nodejs/streams what do you think? WG or team?

[calvinmetcalf]

wg makes sense

[mcollina]

@mafintosh @yoshuawuyts @chrisdickinson @nodejs/streams what do you think?

[mafintosh]

Sure, wg

[yoshuawuyts]

Wg sounds good (:

…

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 12:19 Mathias Buus ***@***.***> wrote: Sure, wg — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#248 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACWleue0aWn5xqRGla-9CzTp7KkiZWaJks5rISJdgaJpZM4LLezs> .