Comments on current governance.md

[mkopinsky]

Here are my thoughts on the current governance doc:

1. The structure is good, with the 3-tier thing going on. This is the right starting point and high-level structure.
2. Much of the actual language of the document needs to be tightened up and fleshed out (at some point) into something more solid which could withstand contentious points.
3. A quorum of 2/3 of voters is high. Maybe 2/3 of SC is reasonable but I imagine that the end goal is to have tens of contributors (?) and you don't want to e.g. unable to elect a SC because only 60% of people voted.
4. The doc talks about how maintainers are removed but not contributors. Once a contributor always a contributor? That's not necessarily the wrong answer, but it plays into point 3 above about the quorum.
5. It's not clear whether Maintainers are selected by other maintainers or by SC. Or are they nominated by 1 existing maintainer and approved by majority vote of SC?

Thanks for doing this! I am glad someone is creating this project and paying a close eye to governance thereof.

[jonbartels]

@mkopinsky - the steering committee has seen and read your comments.

We'll break this down and address each point in a PR.

I wanted to reply and say that you were seen, heard, and deeply appreciated! Thank you!!

[ppazos]

Correct me if I'm wrong, to be a contributor there is no appointment, but to be a maintainer there is. To be a contributor you don't need to be appointed, just contribute. I'm guessing that's why there is no "contributor removal".

Though a clear definition of what a contributor and a maintainer is would be useful for the governance process.

[jonbartels]

@ppazos and @mkopinsky - Take a look at #24

This is not my area of expertise. Do my changes help address your feedback?

[mkopinsky]

What is a Contributor?

I think @ppazos 's comment is getting at exactly the confusing point here. On the one hand, "contributor" means someone who has contributed, and there isn't an appointment required. On the other hand, if the body of contributors are electing the steering committee, Contributor becomes a formal title which requires clear definition, and for which stale/inactive members becomes a problem. "A Contributor may be removed for inactivity" is an extraordinarily vague and unprescriptive phrase, which makes it very politically manipulable. Take someone like me: I don't use Mirth anymore in my day job, I hang out very occasionally in the Mirth Slack (and now the BL slack and OIE discord), I haven't meaningfully contributed in almost a year. Would I remain a contributor in such a state? Does it depend on whether I exhibit good vibes or bad vibes in community spaces? It feels weird to say "mkopinsky (or for that matter, narupley) isn't a contributor anymore because he's inactive" but it also doesn't make sense to give me voting rights indefinitely because from 2022-2024 I was a good community member.

My recommendation is to separate out Contributors (i.e. people who deserve to be recognized) from Active Members (i.e. people who can vote).

One model to consider here is what the OpenStreetMap Foundation does - membership is available under certain criteria, but if you edited the map on 42 days in the last 365, you become a voting member for free. I wouldn't take this as far as OSM does by e.g. counting days active in slack/github, but I think it's reasonable to with something like: "Contributors (whether to OIE core code, plugins, community projects, support forums, etc.) are recognized in contributors.md. Anyone recognized as a contributor is automatically an Active Member of OIE for one year. They remain an Active Member as long as they continue to contribute in a similar fashion in subsequent years. Members can be deemed Inactive or removed for misconduct or loss of trust by a 2/3 vote of the Maintainers or a majority vote of the steering committee."

Selection and removal

I'd suggest something like this: (clearly separating nomination which doesn't actually mean anything, from appointment/approval, which does)

• Anyone in the OIE community (including the candidate themself) can nominate a new Contributor for recognition. This is done by submitting a PR to the contributors.md document in the governance repo.
• Recognition/approval of a contributor requires approval from a majority of maintainers or a majority of steering committee members. This is done by providing 👍 responses to the PR. Once a majority of either group has approved, the PR shall be merged recognizing the Contributor.

Voting mechanics

What you have is still inadequate, and wouldn't stand up to a contentious election. Some questions it doesn't answer:

• Is the vote public or private? (i.e. if I'm a contributor, will the whole world know how I voted?)
• Is there a minimum period to vote (e.g. 14 days) or can someone declare a vote, get their friends to vote, close the vote 2 hours later?

What you shouldn't do: try to improve this section to be bullet-proof. None of us should be devoting the kind of energy it would take to do that. What you should do: steal this from a template somewhere.

[jonbartels]

The steering committee has reviewed PR #24 and come back with further questions.

We're now looking at adopting project templates such as (but not limited to) [https://github.com/cncf/project-template/tree/main](Cloud Native Computing Foundation) or from Linux Foundation or similar.

These templates build on existing successful projects.