search

openedx / open-edx-proposals

Proposals for Open edX architecture, best practices and processes
http://open-edx-proposals.readthedocs.io/
Other
46 stars 32 forks source link

docs: OEP 63 - TOC Resolution Request #484

Closed antoviaque closed 6 months ago

antoviaque commented 1 year ago

The TOC discussed during the April 2023 meeting a series of guidelines for operating and taking decisions. This includes establishing a way for the community to use the TOC to help take decisions, which this OEP implements.

openedx-webhooks commented 1 year ago

Thanks for the pull request, @antoviaque! Please note that it may take us up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR.

Feel free to add as much of the following information to the ticket as you can:

All technical communication about the code itself will be done via the GitHub pull request interface. As a reminder, our process documentation is here.

Please let us know once your PR is ready for our review and all tests are green.

antoviaque commented 1 year ago

@e0d This is a first draft, would you like to do a pass of review?

e0d commented 1 year ago

I will take a detailed pass through tomorrow. Thanks for pulling this together.

nedbat commented 1 year ago

It's great to clarify how the TOC can be involved with the community and vice-versa. One suggestion for this OEP: at least in US courts, an appeal is what happens if you don't like a decision that has been made, and you kick it up to a higher authority. That was my first thought when I saw "TOC Appeal."

Using some of your other words in this draft, maybe we could call it "Request for TOC Decision" ?

e0d commented 1 year ago

It's great to clarify how the TOC can be involved with the community and vice-versa. One suggestion for this OEP: at least in US courts, an appeal is what happens if you don't like a decision that has been made, and you kick it up to a higher authority. That was my first thought when I saw "TOC Appeal."

Using some of your other words in this draft, maybe we could call it "Request for TOC Decision" ?

I agree with this, I'd even soften it more, "Request of TOC input."

itsjeyd commented 1 year ago

label: core contributor

antoviaque commented 1 year ago

@nedbat @e0d Good point about the fact that, for a decision to be appealed, it needs to have been taken already :)

For a better name, "TOC Decision" would work for me. "TOC Input" seem weak - if people want to ask for only "input", they can already do that via the forum for example, or asking TOC members directly. Since we are trying to establish a formal decision process for the TOC based on community input/issues, the name should convey that notion imho. At the same time, since the TOC can also refuse to take the decision (or can have a hard time taking decisions too :) ), I understand the hesitation. So I've looked into alternatives words, and "TOC Arbitration" could be a good one - it conveys the authority and decision-making power of the TOC on the topics submitted, while giving plenty of room to give any type of response the TOC wishes.

antoviaque commented 1 year ago

@e0d Btw, since it can be tricky sometimes to get the group to take decisions on a topic, it could be a good occasion to describe a formal mechanism here to help with that? For example, something like that could help ensuring we are able to take decisions, after the topic has been discussed:

This way, there would be an easy way to take decisions when there is consensus on what is brought up to the TOC, while leaving the work of drafting a consensual proposal would be left to the community members posting the proposal (if they want a quick decision, they need to make sure there won't be objections to it). On the other side, asking TOC members to write a counter-proposal when they object would ensure people don't object too easily to everything :) and would ensure there is a clear next step when there is no consensus?

kdmccormick commented 1 year ago

For a better name, "TOC Decision" would work for me. "TOC Input" seem weak - if people want to ask for only "input", they can already do that via the forum for example, or asking TOC members directly. Since we are trying to establish a formal decision process for the TOC based on community input/issues, the name should convey that notion imho.

+1

antoviaque commented 1 year ago

@e0d @itsjeyd What is currently the next step for this OEP? I'm not sure from the current status - it's missing a new review pass from reviewers? @georgebabey @sarina not sure if this was explicit for you. If I'm blocking anything, let me know.

e0d commented 1 year ago
  • If the proposal contains a decision proposal, it could be submitted to the approval of the TOC during the meeting where it's on the agenda
  • Each TOC member can: approve, abstain or object to the proposed decision
  • The decision with the most approvals and no objection is considered taken.
  • If there are no decision without objection from any TOC member, then the TOC members who have objected to some of the proposed decisions are asked to write an alternative solution.

Just fully groking this now. I think that the TOC mechanism for voting is already covered in the charter. I'm not sure why we would create a different set of rules for this case. However, voting isn't really covered in the text of the OEP itself, so I don't see this as blocking merging of the OEP.

itsjeyd commented 1 year ago

@antoviaque I had marked this PR as waiting for review mainly because your latest comments (e.g. this one) were waiting for input from your reviewers, but also because it was (and still is) marked as waiting for review from @sarina and @georgebabey.

That said I'm not sure how many approving reviews are needed for an OEP like this one. So perhaps it could be merged once you've had a chance to respond to @e0d's most recent review and he's approved the changes?

antoviaque commented 1 year ago

@itsjeyd I have just done a pass - sorry for the delay on this, I was off for a few weeks. For the criteria for the merge, @e0d would likely be the one who can answer it.

itsjeyd commented 1 year ago

@sarina @antoviaque Sounds good, thanks.

itsjeyd commented 11 months ago

Hi @e0d, just checking in to see if you'll be able to get back to this PR in the coming days?

itsjeyd commented 10 months ago

Hi @e0d, just checking in to see what the next steps are for getting this PR over the line?

itsjeyd commented 9 months ago

@antoviaque @e0d What's the latest status of this PR? Are you still planning on getting it merged?

antoviaque commented 9 months ago

@itsjeyd I would definitely still want to get this to the finish line! @e0d Do you want to pick a time to iron this out? https://calendly.com/antoviaque/30min

itsjeyd commented 6 months ago

Hi @antoviaque and @e0d, any updates here?

e0d commented 6 months ago

@georgebabey did you have any further input you wanted to provide?

georgebabey commented 6 months ago

Also apologies for the delay - I think this is a great starting point and appreciate all the work and revisions @antoviaque! I think we should land this as is, we can always make future improvements based on how people are leveraging the TOC.

antoviaque commented 6 months ago

@e0d @georgebabey Thank you for the reviews! And for the improvements you have contributed. It's great to see the TOC take this step to invite interactions with the broader community. Curious to see what the community will make of it!

@itsjeyd FYI ^ I don't have merge rights here so someone else will need to merge the OEP. I can announce it on the forums afterwards.

openedx-webhooks commented 6 months ago

@antoviaque 🎉 Your pull request was merged! Please take a moment to answer a two question survey so we can improve your experience in the future.