search

jupyter / governance

The governance process and model for Project Jupyter
https://jupyter.org/governance/index.html
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
82 stars 71 forks source link

Revert "Fix missing links in JMS charter" #232

Closed Ruv7 closed 2 months ago

Ruv7 commented 3 months ago

Reverts jupyter/governance#231

All - since the EC approves charters I think the EC needs to approve changes to charters. Reverting this back until we get feedback from the EC. This isn't urgent at this time and it makes sense to confirm that before moving forward.

krassowski commented 3 months ago

Should the governance be amended to say that only non-trivial changes need to be approved?

I was in past annoyed by the missing links in the JMS charter.

Ruv7 commented 3 months ago

Then we get into what is trivial and non trivial. In most cases that would be clear, such as this one which is clearly non controversial but not always. At the very least the EC should be notified of a change so they can review and decide if it needs to be discussed. This part of the governance process is not documented as far as I know so I thought as a best practice it should be clarified before taking action. Simply using this as an exercise to set precedence. I don't think changes to charters have happened since we created this new model (I'm not 100% sure).

andrii-i commented 3 months ago

Seeing how #231 is already merged, changes are trivial (adding missing links), and changes merged don't affect meaning of the document, should we check in with EC and revert after if needed?

Ruv7 commented 2 months ago

Seeing how #231 is already merged, changes are trivial (adding missing links), and changes merged don't affect meaning of the document, should we check in with EC and revert after if needed?

Sure, that works for me. I do think we should reflect the flow in these comments so anyone viewing this thread sees the amended process.

jasongrout commented 2 months ago

Copying my comment from here:

We (the EC) discussed this in a recent meeting. Eventually we should set permissions on this repo so that only the EC and SSC can merge, but for situations like this:

  1. The voting members of the working group or standing committee must approve the change (done here)
  2. For small or unsubstantial changes to a working group/standing committee charter, any member of the EC can merge. For larger changes then they should notify the EC and ask for review. I think this falls under the "small changes" case. While Steve did the actual merging, Ana and I did approve the change here, so I think we are good.

Closing since I think this matter is resolved (Ana, feel free to reopen if you still feel like we need to discuss more).