Chartering the Modules team

[MylesBorins]

Hey all, I'm beyond ecstatic that we were able to reach consensus on unflagging today!

With this consensus behind us I think we should actively explore being chartered by the TSC. Steps to doing so include are documented here

Requirements include

• Need at least 3 members
• Bootstrap Governance

Which we have already done. I do think we should likely do a cleanup of membership before chartering though.

We would then need to open a PR against the TSC repo to add our group to WORKING_GROUPS.md and likely make some small tweaks to README.md and GOVERNANCE.md to s/team/working group

Thoughts?

[devsnek]

I was kind of hoping after it was unflagged we could just leave it to normal core processes. People from the group could continue as maintainers of modules in core if they chose to do so.

In honesty, my experiences working normal node core processes have been order of magnitudes more positive than with these kind of groups (not just this one).

[MylesBorins]

I've seen both Release and Build (for example) get a lot done by being chartered. There is still quite a bit of work that needs to be done including cross ecosystem collaboration with groups like TC39, WhatWG, IETF, etc. Having the regular cadence of meetings and clear ownership over the roadmap will make it possible to engage in those external groups representing node officially. If we only work upstream using defined process we don't really have a good way to officially represent the project, only individuals view points.

Perhaps this is something we decide as a group to not explore though, added the agenda label for discussion.

[zackschuster]

is it possible to remain an observer within the charter? i greatly appreciate the notifications.

[MylesBorins]

Before chartering the group will likely want to review existing governance and reach consensus if we wish to continue with the existing structure.

…

On Mon, Nov 4, 2019, 4:59 PM zackschuster ***@***.***> wrote: is it possible to remain an observer within the charter? i greatly appreciate the notifications. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#412?email_source=notifications&email_token=AADZYVYKNQDS33543APJYLLQSCLNHA5CNFSM4JG65K52YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEDA3R7Q#issuecomment-549566718>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADZYV2TNYYSGB75IC5WG33QSCLNHANCNFSM4JG65K5Q> .

[jdalton]

I dig chartering.

[SMotaal]

Before chartering, there needs to be a discussion about D&I within the team, there is a lot that imho "hangs" on a "mutual understanding" of including the "often misunderstood boilerplate".

I personally will push for strong D&I text, which I hope others can help write in more clear ways (ie more typical/conventional ways — ie different but not "right" or "wrong" — ie there is more than one way).

Update: I decided to share with the team privately my genuine thoughts on the matter before our next meeting, please consider me choosing to "self-exclude" myself from all chartering matters, my previous remark withdrawn.

[ljharb]

What is “D&I”?

[jkrems]

"Diversity and Inclusion" I assume. :)

[MylesBorins]

We are going to move forward with asking to charter unless there are objections from the team in the next week.

[MylesBorins]

Closing as we haven't gotten traction on this

[ljharb]

What sort of traction are we missing?

[MylesBorins]

We have punted on the discussion in meetings for months. No one has done the work of putting together a charter. TBH at this point I don't think we need to charter.