Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

WIP - Improvements toward Addressing #173 #240

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

WIP - Improvements toward Addressing #173 #240

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
78eeaba
Update GOVERNANCE.md
jorydotcom Jun 5, 2023
5cf590e
Update MEMBER_EXPECTATIONS.md
jorydotcom Jun 5, 2023
56c359c
Fix typo
tobie Jun 14, 2023
ba90aa3
Update MEMBER_EXPECTATIONS.md
tobie Aug 8, 2023
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
47 changes: 11 additions & 36 deletions GOVERNANCE.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,46 +1,39 @@
# OpenJS Standards Working Group

<!-- yet to add -->
For the current list of the Working Group members, see the project [README.md](./README.md).
For the current list of the Working Group members, see the project [README.md](https://github.com/openjs-foundation/standards#working-group-members).

## Members

The [openjs-foundation/standards](https://github.com/openjs-foundation/standards) GitHub
repository is maintained by the Working Group and additional Members who are
added on an ongoing basis.

* Invited to all meetings
* Can participate in [consensus seeking process](#consensus-seeking-process)
* Counted towards quorum in [Working Group Meetings](#working-group-meetings)
* Participates in voting
* Anyone is invited to attend meetings
* OpenJS Foundation community members participate in [consensus seeking process](#consensus-seeking-process)
* Working Group Members count towards quorum in [Working Group Meetings](#working-group-meetings)
* Working Group Members are eligible to vote

## Working Group Membership

Working Group Membership is not time-limited. There is no fixed size of the Working Group.

There is no specific set of requirements or qualifications for Working Group Membership beyond these rules.
There is no specific set of requirements or qualifications for Working Group Membership beyond the governance and policies defined in this repository. We recommend that prospective Working Group Members attend meetings and join our [slack channel]() prior to applying for membership.

The following groups automatically qualify for membership and can request to be added to the GitHub team:
The following groups automatically qualify for membership:

* OpenJS Foundation CPC Members
* OpenJS Foundation Project Maintainers

To request membership or change your membership status, open a pull request to add yourself to the [README.md](https://github.com/openjs-foundation/standards#working-group-members).

## Working Group Meetings

The Working Group meets bi-weekly on Zoom.us. A designated moderator
approved by the Working Group runs the meeting. Each meeting should be
published to YouTube.

Items are added to the Working Group agenda that are considered contentious or
are modifications of governance, contribution policy, Working Group membership,
or release process.

The intention of the agenda is not to approve or review all patches;
that should happen continuously on GitHub and be handled by the larger
group of Collaborators.

Any community member or contributor can ask that something be added to
the next meeting's agenda by logging a GitHub Issue. Any Collaborator,
the next meeting's agenda by logging a GitHub Issue. Any
Working Group member or the moderator can add the item to the agenda by adding
the ***standards-agenda*** tag to the issue.

Expand All @@ -49,25 +42,7 @@ members of the Working Group. Working Group members can add any items they like
agenda at the beginning of each meeting. The moderator and the Working Group
cannot veto or remove items.

The moderator is responsible for summarizing the discussion of each
agenda item and sends it as a pull request after the meeting.

## Attending External Standards Meetings

At various times members of the Standards Working Group or foundation projects will attend Standards Meetings
at external organizations as a representative of the OpenJS Foundation.
If a member would like to attend a meeting as a delegate of the OpenJS Foundation
they should open an issue stating:

* The standards meeting or series of meetings they wish to attend
* The OpenJS Foundation's relationship to this standards organization
* The date and location of the meeting or meetings
* If they will be attending in person or remotely
* The estimated cost to the foundation of their participation
* The scope of the work they plan to participate in

This issue should be labelled with `standards-agenda` and will be approved in the
next working group meeting via the consensus seeking process.
The moderator is responsible for recording the meeting notes, and sends it as a pull request after the meeting.

## Consensus Seeking Process

Expand Down
75 changes: 51 additions & 24 deletions MEMBER_EXPECTATIONS.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,31 +1,58 @@
# Member Expectations
# Working Group Member Expectations

All participants in the OpenJS Foundation projects and groups must follow the [Code of Conduct](https://github.com/openjs-foundation/cross-project-council/blob/HEAD/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md).
There are further expectations for members who represent the Standards Working Group (hereafter called representatives).
All participants in OpenJS Foundation projects and Working Groups must follow the [Code of Conduct](https://github.com/openjs-foundation/cross-project-council/blob/HEAD/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md). Standards Working Group Members are expected to participate in discussions related to OpenJS Foundation Projects, open source software, and the standards and specifications that bear on them. They are also expected educate and mentor newcomers to the field of standardization, lending support and advice to projects pursuing specification development. Finally, they are expected to help export OpenJS Foundation values to the standards communities they work with in order to make standards bodies nicer places to do work.
tobie marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

It is understood that representatives may form opinions based on the needs of their employers' or their personal projects. While representing
the Standards Working Group, however, they should decide/discuss/promote based on the interest of the Standards Working Group.
If there is a conflict (due to personal or company specific projects), then the representative should be explicit
about the hat they are wearing while deciding/discussing/promoting the project.
There are further expectations for [OpenJS Foundation Representatives](https://github.com/openjs-foundation/standards/blob/main/MEMBER_REPRESENTATION.md) to standards and liaison organizations (hereafter called Representatives).

Since many members are often a part of one or more projects in the foundation, feel free to discuss it with the members
if there is a potential conflict while representing. The representative can raise an issue and discuss them during
the Standards Working Group meeting.
## Expectations for Representatives
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could we consider starting off by saying that consensus of the Standards WG allows a Representative to represent the position of OpenJSF as a whole on a particular topic? And that conversely, unless Rep has said consensus, you're not in a capacity to represent OpenJSF's position on that topic?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

tl;dr: this would effectively prevent participation

This would be a very high bar to meet. Organization representatives are practically always representing their organization's positions on topics. For example, where participants in W3C working groups or delegates in Ecma committees represent an organization, those are the terms of their participation. Strictly speaking, they do not participate in a personal capacity at all, so, at least in matters pertaining to normative topics, they are unable to represent a personal position, and as such are exclusively representing the position of their organization.

The OpenJS standards group does not have time to get consensus on all topics that may come up at standards bodies, and would very often find it difficult to even get a quorum of members that could speak to a given proposal. We also typically only know topics one or two weeks in advance, if that.

Copy link
Member

@ctcpip ctcpip May 29, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

having read some of your comments further below, it sounds like you may be referring to things at, for example, the AC (W3C) or GA (Ecma) level rather than at the WG or TC level. I think this section on member representation of the OpenJS standards group refers to participation in WGs/TCs.

in any case, it's good to be on the same page one way or the other

It is understood that Representatives may form opinions based on the needs of their employers, personal projects, or other experiences. While representing the Foundation, however, Representatives should participate based on what is in the best interest of the Foundation and its projects. If there is a conflict (e.g. between the Foundation, its projects, and/or personal or company positions), the Representative should be explicit about which perspective they are speaking from given the issue at hand.

If the representative or any member of Standards Working Group feels there will be a controversial topic, they can call for a
`pre-meeting` to discuss it with the other members of the Working Group. Our representatives should always need to focus on
representing the foundation and the consensus/expectations that we’ve built to those organizations (if they are representing
OpenJS Foundation).
Representatives must also conduct themselves in a professional and respectful manner. General guidelines include:
* Avoid invoking multiple "roles" when discussing challenging topics. This helps avoid [appeals to authority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority) or the allusion that one's opinion is fully shared by multiple groups.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm a little confused about this first bullet point. My initial reaction was to try and spin it the other way round, e.g.: "Always be specific about whose position you are representing." But that then is just a repeat of the first paragraph of this section. Furthermore, if you are representing the consensus of multiple groups, or there is documented consensus that you can point to, that seems valuable information to share. So I guess what you're alluding to is listing your titles and then trying to pass personal opinion as somehow shared by these different organizations? That's just so unethical. I don't even know where to begin.

Could we maybe reaffirm (1) being explicit about whose position is being represented, (2) not speculating about other group's position, (3) never, in any circumstances trying to pass personal or employer-held positions as group consensus?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This addresses the importance of avoiding "pulling rank" and misrepresenting others' positions. You're right that there's nothing wrong with "documented consensus that you can point to" and this can help clarify things and/or prevent bikeshedding.

* If conflict arises, aim to remediate first and then discuss. If other members of the group express concerns about actions, acknowledge their concerns by stopping the actions in question and then discuss within the group to come to a common agreement.
* Treat all community members with respect, consideration, and highest standards of ethical conduct. Build trust by clearly communicating and keeping your promises.
* Be the model of accountability and leadership. Provide the example of ownership and stewardship that everyone can follow to success.
* Commit to ongoing development and governance best practices. Contribute good ideas, successful policies, better workflows, and other lessons learned back to the Working Group.
* Follow the contribution guidelines of the organization or project to which you are contributing.

If a representative has an objection or dissent they should express it as early as possible to ensure
there is ample time to discuss and reach consensus before representing Standards Working Group.
### Building Consensus
Representatives may belong to one or more projects in the Foundation, and as such should feel free to discuss topics with each relevant group. In the case of conflicting opinions between Foundation projects, the Representative may raise an issue to the Standards Working Group for support.

Representatives must also conduct themselves in a professional and respectful manner. Some general guidelines include:
Representatives or Working Group Members may also call for an ad-hoc meeting to discuss controversial topics, or topics wherein a general consensus view has not yet emerged. Representatives are strongly encouraged to schedule ad-hoc meetings to refine thinking and inform stakeholders prior to plenary or liaison meetings where they will be discussed. Representatives should focus on developing and sharing the consenus of the Foundation and the projects impacted by the topic at hand.
tobie marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

* When in doubt/foreseeing any potential conflict, a representative should choose one "role" with which to express an opinion instead of invoking multiple at once.
* Aim to remediate first and then discuss. If other members of the group express concerns about actions, acknowledge their concerns by stopping the actions in question and then discuss within the group to come to a common agreement.
* Treat all community members with respect, consideration, and highest standards of ethical conduct.
* Build trust by keeping your promises.
* Be the model of accountability and leadership. Provide the example of ownership and stewardship that everyone can follow to success.
* Commit to ongoing development and learning best practices for governing.
* Follow the code of conduct of both the Open JS Foundation, _and_ the organization they are a representative to.
### Representatives and Decision-making
Some of OpenJS Foundation's memberships and liaison relationships permit Representatives to participate in their formal decision-making processes (e.g. voting). Representatives should disclose any vote to the Standards Working Group, and provide a recommendation. If the Representative has an objection or plans to cast a dissenting vote, they should express it as early as possible to ensure there is ample time to discuss and reach consensus on the intended approach.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it's important to make a distinction between whether the person casting the vote is operating as a representative of OpenJSF in that particular vote or in a personal capacity.

For example, W3C's AC rep voting in an AC vote is representing OpenJSF's position and should honor the group's consensus. If they dissent and refuse to cast that vote, they should resign from them position or be demoted.

On the other hand, if the same AC rep is then further elected in an individual capacity to say an AB or TAG role, votes they may cast in that context aren't subject to this group consensus. Actually, this group might not even be privy to the content of the vote.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
Some of OpenJS Foundation's memberships and liaison relationships permit Representatives to participate in their formal decision-making processes (e.g. voting). Representatives should disclose any vote to the Standards Working Group, and provide a recommendation. If the Representative has an objection or plans to cast a dissenting vote, they should express it as early as possible to ensure there is ample time to discuss and reach consensus on the intended approach.
Some of OpenJS Foundation's memberships and liaison relationships permit Representatives to participate in their formal decision-making processes (e.g. voting). Representatives should disclose any vote to the Standards Working Group, and provide a recommendation. If the Representative has an objection or plans to cast a dissenting vote while representing the Foundation, they should express it as early as possible to ensure there is ample time to discuss and reach consensus on the intended approach.

Copy link
Contributor

@tobie tobie Jun 8, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That a good step forward. I'd be a little more prescriptive:

Suggested change
Some of OpenJS Foundation's memberships and liaison relationships permit Representatives to participate in their formal decision-making processes (e.g. voting). Representatives should disclose any vote to the Standards Working Group, and provide a recommendation. If the Representative has an objection or plans to cast a dissenting vote, they should express it as early as possible to ensure there is ample time to discuss and reach consensus on the intended approach.
Some of OpenJS Foundation's memberships and liaison relationships permit Representatives to participate in their formal decision-making processes (e.g. voting). Representatives should update the Standards Working Group of such opportunities that are relevant to the interests of OpenJSF or its projects well ahead of time so that the group is able to reach consensus on the intended approach. The Representative must represent the group's decision and abstain in case the group hasn't been able to reach consensus.

I feel that this covers dissent (as the WG won't reach consensus in case the Rep disagrees with the majority).

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm a bit confused.

While wearing the Foundation hat, we've already discussed and decided on how objections work - brought to Standards beforehand, and if it can't be for any reason, best judgement can be used and may need defending at the next Standards meeting.

While not representing the Foundation, an individual is under no obligation to interact with the Standards group about objections, even if they're a member of the Standards group.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think I understand the source of confusion.

Following some of the discussion and proposed changes in #239, I was using the term Representative in a much narrower way, i.e. to specifically mean when a person is representing OpenJSF (e.g. "@jorydotcom is OpenJSF's W3C Representative") but not when a person is operating in a working group in more of an Invited Expert capacity.

Would it make sense to distinguish these roles more precisely? I think @rginn used the term subject matter expert (SME) in a related issue which is more common than Invited Expert. Would that work for folks?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

While wearing the Foundation hat, we've already discussed and decided on how objections work - brought to Standards beforehand, and if it can't be for any reason, best judgement can be used and may need defending at the next Standards meeting.

Sorry, I didn't see this documented anywhere. To be clear, I much prefer this as a solution. I think trusting that people will do the right thing and be proactive about building consensus if the topic feels more contentious is the right thing to do. However, I don't think it is acceptable for a Representative of the OpenJSF in the narrow sense (i.e. not an SME), to vote against the consensus of the WG (and if the WG can't get to consensus, the Rep should abstain).

While not representing the Foundation, an individual is under no obligation to interact with the Standards group about objections, even if they're a member of the Standards group.

100%. We should also make very clear that the persons is acting in an SME capacity in that case and not representing OpenJSF.

Copy link
Contributor

@tobie tobie Jun 8, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry, your last comment didn't show up until I finished writing the above.

A person might be operating as a delegate of their employer while still being associated with OpenJS, and as such they don't need to answer to the Standards WG, so it's got nothing to do with IE/SME status imo.

I think we're saying the same thing but don't agree on terms.

I'm suggesting there are two kinds of roles:

  1. Someone representing the opinion of the OpenJSF as a whole. They need to get consensus from the WG (before the fact if the topic is contentious). Maybe we should call them Liaisons instead of Representatives.
  2. Someone participating in standardization activities but who isn't representing OpenJSF's position. They don't need to get consensus from the WG at all. I was suggesting to call those SMEs. (Note: We might need to make a distinction between folks who are affiliated with OpenJSF in those circumstances and folks who are just loosely associated with it, but maybe we don't).

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

See #84 for previous discussion.

I completely agree with your two roles, and I think that's basically what #84 came to decide :-) we can bikeshed the terms later.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Awesome. I wasn't aware of that thread. Thanks for sharing. I don't really care what the terms are either. It would just be good if we could avoid them creating more confusion by overlapping with common terms already used by SDOs (e.g. delegate which means completely different things for Ecma and OSI).

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

it does seem like we need a mapping table 😄


### Responsibilities of Representatives

Representatives are expected to:
* Abide by the code of conduct of both the Open JS Foundation _and_ the liaison organization in which they are participating.
* Keep the [OpenJS Foundation Standards Calendar](https://calendar.openjsf.org) current with upcoming liaison meetings, conferences, events, or other deadlines.
* Notify the Standards Working Group of any discussion points, issues, topics, or opportunities for collaboration by opening an issue on this repo.
* Gather input from other Members, OpenJS Foundation Staff, Project Maintainers, and community members on topics and discussion points relevant to OpenJS Foundation and its projects.
* Provide liaison update reports to the Standards Working Group following liaison meetings. In the case that there are multiple Representatives participating in a meeting, only one needs to provide an update.
* Help develop and circulate positions on key issues from among relevant OpenJS Foundation projects and stakeholders. Where differences of opinion exist among Foundation participants, Representatives should work to establish a consensus opinion, and/or represent the opposing viewpoints as clearly as possible.

### Becoming a Representative
Community members who would like to officially represent the Foundation or their Project to an external organization should file an issue with the following information:
* The OpenJS Foundation's current relationship to this standards organization
* The scope of the work they plan to participate in (specific technical committees, proposals, interest groups, etc.)
* The relevance and potential impact of the work to OpenJS Foundation Projects
* Any participation costs (e.g. membership dues) needed

Note that new liaisons or memberships must be discussed with OpenJS Foundation Executive Director Robin Ginn and must be approved by the Board of Directors.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
Note that new liaisons or memberships must be discussed with OpenJS Foundation Executive Director Robin Ginn and must be approved by the Board of Directors.
Note that new liaisons or memberships must be approved by the CPC.

My understanding is this role is actually delegated to the CPC via its charter (see § 5.15)

The CPC serves as the OpenJS Foundation's primary technical liaison body with external open source projects, consortiums and groups and is also responsible for ensuring that the OpenJS Foundation has appropriate technical participation in standards bodies by finding an encouraging members from individual projects to participate in these bodies.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Update this: this group is empowered to decide whether to participate; ED will be required if a signature on legal agreement; Board approval may be required if $$ is required for the membership.


## Guidance for Attending External Standards Meetings
Representatives may attend any meeting(s) of the organization they liaise with on behalf of the Foundation. Meetings should be disclosed and later summarized as outlined in [Responsibilities of Representatives](/MEMBER_EXPECTATIONS.md#responsibilities-of-representatives). In-person meetings requiring Travel Fund support should be disclosed as early as possible; note that travel support must be requested in advance and is not guaranteed.

From time to time, non-Representative community members may be asked to participate in a standards meeting as a function of their OpenJS Foundation project, for example as an invited expert. Whether in-person or virtual, any OpenJS community member who will be representing the viewpoint of their Foundation project to an external body should inform the Standards Working Group by filing an issue on this repo. Taking this step helps the Standards Working Group and OpenJS Foundation staff better support you and your project. Please include:

* The meeting or series of meetings you wish to attend
* Topic(s) or proposals you'll be discussing
* The date and location of the meeting or meetings
* If they will be attending in person or remotely
* If you plan to request travel assistance

Non-Representative community members shall not claim to represent the Foundation without prior approval of the Standards Working Group, and should not claim to wholly represent the viewpoint of a Foundation project without the agreement of the project's TSC or leadership group.

**In all cases, it is your responsibility to ensure you have the consent of your employer to participate in any standards organization or project.**