search

MeltanoLabs / Singer-Working-Group

Working group for ongoing development and iteration of the Singer Spec, the de-facto protocol for open source data connectors. Please use "Issues" to create discussion items - or use "Discussions" for general questions.
Apache License 2.0
13 stars 4 forks source link

Initial SIP process proposal #21

Open aaronsteers opened 2 years ago

aaronsteers commented 2 years ago

I've incorporated all feedback and this is ready for final review. If no significant changes are requested, we can open voting as described herein!

Addresses #12

visch commented 2 years ago

Looks good to me, great start, should be able to iterate on this as we move forward!

pnadolny13 commented 2 years ago

@aaronsteers the one things that not totally clear to me from reading the proposal is how the votes are conducted. Is the expectation that voting will happen during the live working group meetings?

I feel like we should probably allow for async voting too. Maybe we mention all voters in the PR a week prior to the upcoming meeting so that everyone has a chance to vote async and explain their reasoning, or not vote at all but at least they have a chance. I'm concerned for the case where theres a limited turnout for a meeting for whatever reason and were voting on a major proposal. In addition to or as an alternative we could also do a minimum vote count for a proposal to go through which could solve the issue too.

What do you think?

aaronsteers commented 2 years ago

@pnadolny13 re:

...the one things that not totally clear to me from reading the proposal is how the votes are conducted. Is the expectation that voting will happen during the live working group meetings?

I feel like we should probably allow for async voting too. Maybe we mention all voters in the PR a week prior to the upcoming meeting so that everyone has a chance to vote async and explain their reasoning, or not vote at all but at least they have a chance.

I like this idea a lot! I would certainly be open to async voting and ratification. The ideas I've had so far would be (1) votes in the text of PR comments, (2) emoticons on the PR, (3) Slack emoticons in our private channel.

To encourage candor and reduce noise of other community members potentially adding their own comments which could get jumbled with the votes, I increasingly feel like the most efficient approach would be to run the vote in Slack and then later pass on the results back to the PR once the vote has closed.

What do you think?

In addition to or as an alternative we could also do a minimum vote count for a proposal to go through which could solve the issue too.

Agreed on the need for some minimum "quorum" of voters in order to ratify. 👍 I don't know what the right minimum should be but likewise with the above, I'm happy to work this back into the proposal text.

pnadolny13 commented 2 years ago

@aaronsteers

The ideas I've had so far would be (1) votes in the text of PR comments, (2) emoticons on the PR, (3) Slack emoticons in our private channel.

To encourage candor and reduce noise of other community members potentially adding their own comments which could get jumbled with the votes, I increasingly feel like the most efficient approach would be to run the vote in Slack and then later pass on the results back to the PR once the vote has closed.

Thats a good point it could get hard to track if other community members are commenting too. I like the slack idea for a final vote. Maybe we notify everyone a week beforehand by slack and by posting in the issue that the proposal is under review and voting has started, including the "vote by x" date. They can write issue comments with thoughts and discussion but they cast their final vote in slack, then when voting closes the tally gets posted to the issue.

Agreed on the need for some minimum "quorum" of voters in order to ratify. 👍 I don't know what the right minimum should be but likewise with the above, I'm happy to work this back into the proposal text.

My first thought is that we have our official list of representatives (idk if this exists or not) and we just need quorum (more than half) in both respects:

What do you think about that?

aaronsteers commented 2 years ago

From @pnadolny13:

@aaronsteers the one things that not totally clear to me from reading the proposal is how the votes are conducted. Is the expectation that voting will happen during the live working group meetings?

I feel like we should probably allow for async voting too...

What do you think?

Thanks for this feedback! After meeting with our new Leading Members team (new page added on Leadership here in the PR), I've updated the proposal with the async voting details, as you propose. 👍

There's now a specific async voting and vote scoring process documented in the PR.