[PROPOSED TASK FORCE] Infrastructure Task Force

[wyc]

New Task Force Proposal

See W3C-CCG New Work Item Process.

Include Link to Abstract or Draft

This description is WIP. This task force's job is to:

• Manage the CCG's technology inventory, including the teleconferencing system, minutes publishing, npm repositories, GitHub actions, cloud services, and budget estimations.
• Maintain and extend communications capabilities such as teleconferencing to support regular meetings for the weekly meetings, chair meetings, and task force meetings, minimizing issues around availability and reliability.
• Ensure meeting minutes are of high quality and published shortly after our meetings ("shortly" TBD by the task force).
• Maintain and evolve the technical security posture and profile of the CCG to match the desired governance structure of the chairs and the community.
• Create and update documentation so that it always reflects our systems, allowing anyone to join this task force and come up to speed asynchronously.

Task Force Members

@wyc (Owner) @vmwvmw @rhiaro @msporny @clehner @{this could be you!!}

SEEKING CO-OWNERS AND CONTRIBUTORS. REPLY BELOW.

[wyc]

@kimdhamilton @TallTed @vsnt

I've made some edits to the governance section, would love feedback. Planning to present them later today on our call as well.

Community Governance

The actions of the ITF are subject to community approval. To ensure a balance between transparency and efficacy, the CCG chairs will first exercise their discretion by majority vote amongst the chairs on actions, and then publicly disclose the decisions immediately after on the public mailing list.

While the CCG chairs are expected to exercise their judgement of disclosable actions in the best interests of the community, any member of the ITF may also designate actions as subject to community approval and/or transparency. This is done by disclosing on the public mailing list (1) a summary of the action, (2) who the action affects, and (3) involved parties implementing the action. Because any CCG members may join the ITF, this creates transparency and accountability across its actions.

After disclosure, community members have the opportunity to review and comment upon the appropriateness of the actions approved or rejected to be taken by the ITF. Community members may also strongly object to decisions. If two or more community members strongly object to the decision within one week of its disclosure, then the matter is to be discussed and then brought forth to the W3C Management team (W3M) for an ultimate decision.

[msporny]

then brought forth to the W3C Management team (W3M) for an ultimate decision.

W3M is exceedingly busy and I don't think there is an expectation that they would weigh in on community issues unless it impacts W3C directly. There is a sort of a firewall between W3C CGs and W3C proper (which is different depending on which country you are in) -- W3C proper typically doesn't deal in the affairs of CGs unless there is something that's being transitioned from a CG to an official W3C WG. The line isn't always as well defined as that, but I'd be careful assuming that things can be escalated to W3M.

Have the Chairs talked to W3M about this? I expect they may not be receptive to the idea (but perhaps something has changed internally at W3C since I last spoke w/ them about this)?

[wyc]

@msporny thanks for the feedback, I do agree they would likely be averse to additional burden. Perhaps we could put it up for community vote on the specific action, using the same voting qualifications as for chair voting. I do not anticipate many of these exceptions. Do you have thoughts on this direction?

[msporny]

Perhaps we could put it up for community vote on the specific action, using the same voting qualifications as for chair voting.

Since this would most likely be an exceptional case, yes, that sounds fine to me. We should try to use a consensus process and avoid voting as much as possible. Note chair voting could break down if there are only 2 chairs -- split vote. I expect W3M would appreciate that the community deal with their own issues and the community /is/ the final say in any matter (can override the chairs).

[kimdhamilton]

+1 to the changes with Manu's corrections. That sounds like the best balance.

At first I was envisioning the only situation leading to W3M escalation is if there is lack of confidence that a chair is acting in the community's best interest. However, that's also covered within the community; see removing a chair from our charter.

Also yes to consensus rather than need to vote.

[wyc]

Okay great, and agreed that these should be exceptional cases. I am trying to steer the default mode of acceptance to be consensus-based, and only in the circumstance of 2+ strong objections will we prompt a community vote.

[wyc]

Updated the last paragraph:

After disclosure, community members have the opportunity to review and comment upon the appropriateness of the actions approved or rejected to be taken by the ITF. Community members may also strongly object to decisions. If two or more community members strongly object to the decision within one week after its disclosure, then the matter is escalated to voting by the community to arrive at an ultimate decision, using an identical process for voter qualification and ballots as chair elections.

[vsnt]

Updated the last paragraph:

After disclosure, community members have the opportunity to review and comment upon the appropriateness of the actions approved or rejected to be taken by the ITF. Community members may also strongly object to decisions. If two or more community members strongly object to the decision within one week after its disclosure, then the matter is escalated to voting by the community to arrive at an ultimate decision, using an identical process for voter qualification and ballots as chair elections.

Works for me.

[wyc]

I will announce a kickoff date by next Wednesday's meeting.

[wyc]

I'll be making the repo and sending out a Doodle for a kickoff meeting.

[wyc]

Hi all, could you please indicate your availability if you're interested in the kick-off?

https://doodle.com/poll/aghvr4p32c58xzyu

[wyc]

Created here:

https://github.com/w3c-ccg/infrastructure