governance: remove target size for CTC #5879

Trott · 2016-03-23T21:03:15Z

Pull Request check-list

Does make -j8 test (UNIX) or vcbuild test nosign (Windows) pass with
this change (including linting)?
Is the commit message formatted according to [CONTRIBUTING.md][0]?
If this change fixes a bug (or a performance problem), is a regression
test (or a benchmark) included?
Is a documentation update included (if this change modifies
existing APIs, or introduces new ones)?

Affected core subsystem(s)

doc

Description of change

CTC target size of 6 to 12 seems out of date. Proposing increase to 9 to 15.

Refs: #5866

ChALkeR · 2016-03-23T21:05:47Z

is between 9 and 15

But there are 18 now.

Trott · 2016-03-23T21:17:15Z

@ChALkeR Right. My thinking was: It's a target size, not an upper limit. Go for a modest, incremental move in the right direction.

If there's consensus around between 9 and 18, I wouldn't object. I was just trying to be conservative. After all, we can always modify it again later.

jbergstroem · 2016-03-23T21:28:52Z

The lower boundary of "50% group attendance" for consensus makes sense to me. My LGTM probably doesn't matter here, but I think this is the right approach.

jasnell · 2016-03-23T22:03:34Z

GOVERNANCE.md

-However, the expected target is between 6 and 12, to ensure adequate
-coverage of important areas of expertise, balanced with the ability to
+However, the expected target is between 9 and 15 to ensure adequate
+coverage of important areas of expertise balanced with the ability to
 make decisions efficiently.


I would just take the bound out entirely...

CTC seats are not time-limited. While there is no fixed size of the CTC, it is expected to contain adequate membership to ensure coverage of important areas of expertise with the ability to make decisions efficiently.

Trott · 2016-03-24T21:54:19Z

Based on @jasnell's suggestion, I removed the material about size of the CTC entirely. PTAL

jasnell · 2016-03-24T22:27:09Z

LGTM

cjihrig · 2016-03-24T22:42:16Z

LGTM

bnoordhuis · 2016-03-25T11:35:33Z

LGTM

Trott · 2016-03-27T03:00:45Z

@nodejs/ctc

indutny · 2016-03-27T05:04:21Z

LGTM

Fishrock123 · 2016-03-28T14:55:23Z

GOVERNANCE.md

@@ -64,10 +64,6 @@ A guide for Collaborators is maintained in
 ## CTC Membership

 CTC seats are not time-limited.  There is no fixed size of the CTC.
-However, the expected target is between 6 and 12, to ensure adequate
-coverage of important areas of expertise, balanced with the ability to
-make decisions efficiently.


I Would keep in the

(Attempts to) ensure adequate coverage of important areas of expertise, balanced with the ability to make decisions efficiently.

Or something of the like.

@Fishrock123 If others agree strongly with that, then sure. I took it out for three reasons, from least important to most important:

All other things being equal, less text is better than more.

I feel like what's stated there is a given and so doesn't need to be stated explicitly. Of course we're looking to cover all important areas of expertise. Of course we want to be able to operate efficiently.

I also want to avoid the possible misunderstanding that things listed there are the only factors to be considered. Let's imagine the CTC were hypothetically composed of only Americans in San Francisco, Austin, and New York. Even if all areas of expertise were covered, and even if it hampers operational efficiency, it would (in this purely hypothetical situation) be worthwhile to seek out voices from other parts of the world. But that's not covered (or at least it isn't if you infer "important areas of expertise" to be strictly technical, which I suspect most readers do).

So those were my reasons, but again, if others feel strongly that it ought to remain, then that's fine. There are other considerations and that one sentence of text is not something I want to have a prolonged discussion about, certainly not at this time when all I'm really trying to do is fix the number of members part.

I feel like what's stated there is a given and so doesn't need to be stated explicitly. Of course we're looking to cover all important areas of expertise. Of course we want to be able to operate efficiently.

If it's not stated, it becomes assumptions. I don't have an immediate suggestion on how to make it better though, other than also covering "use-cases".

How about:

There is no fixed size of the CTC. The goal is to ensure
adequate coverage of important areas of expertise and
diversity of representation.

There's always the option of some "including, but not limited to, X, Y, and Z" language....

I'm restoring the original language and just removing the part about target size. We can alter the original language, I suppose, but hopefully it can be agreed that that would be a separate issue from simply removing the target sizes.

Refs: nodejs#5866

Trott · 2016-03-30T18:02:02Z

I've restored some text that @Fishrock123 and perhaps others thought shouldn't be removed. Effectively, this now only removes the target size information. If I can get a few LGTMs (repeat or new), that would be swell.

jasnell · 2016-03-30T18:03:37Z

GOVERNANCE.md

-coverage of important areas of expertise, balanced with the ability to
-make decisions efficiently.
+CTC seats are not time-limited. There is no fixed size of the CTC. The CTC
+should be of such a size as to ensure adequate coverage of important areas of


... should be of such a size and diversity to ensure... ?

If we want to add diversity as a consideration, I support that. But it was not in the original text and I think it should go in as a separate PR. This PR is for getting rid of the obsolete target size.

works for me

jasnell · 2016-03-30T18:03:48Z

LGTM with a minor nit.

mhdawson · 2016-03-30T19:50:37Z

LGTM

evanlucas · 2016-03-30T20:05:09Z

LGTM

Trott · 2016-03-30T21:04:21Z

Landed in bb28770

PR-URL: #5879 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]>

Trott added doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. ctc-agenda labels Mar 23, 2016

jasnell reviewed Mar 23, 2016
View reviewed changes

jasnell added the meta Issues and PRs related to the general management of the project. label Mar 23, 2016

Trott force-pushed the upto9 branch from 04af6a8 to 3588d88 Compare March 24, 2016 21:52

Fishrock123 reviewed Mar 28, 2016
View reviewed changes

rvagg mentioned this pull request Mar 30, 2016

Node.js Foundation Core Technical Committee (CTC) Meeting 2016-03-30 #5957

Closed

Trott force-pushed the upto9 branch from 3588d88 to 7437339 Compare March 30, 2016 17:41

governance: remove target size for CTC

00004b2

Refs: nodejs#5866

Trott force-pushed the upto9 branch from 7437339 to 00004b2 Compare March 30, 2016 17:58

jasnell reviewed Mar 30, 2016
View reviewed changes

Trott changed the title ~~governance: increase target size for CTC~~ governance: remove target size for CTC Mar 30, 2016

Trott removed the ctc-agenda label Mar 30, 2016

Trott closed this Mar 30, 2016

Trott added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 30, 2016

governance: remove target size for CTC

bb28770

PR-URL: #5879 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]>

evanlucas pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 31, 2016

governance: remove target size for CTC

ae15d68

PR-URL: #5879 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]>

evanlucas mentioned this pull request Mar 31, 2016

v5.10.0 Release Proposal #5970

Closed

evanlucas pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 31, 2016

governance: remove target size for CTC

c7dcffb

PR-URL: #5879 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]>

MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Apr 11, 2016

Audit commits not found on v4.x #5647

Closed

MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 11, 2016

governance: remove target size for CTC

dfe9e15

PR-URL: #5879 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]>

MylesBorins added the land-on-v4.x label Apr 11, 2016

MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Apr 11, 2016

V4.4.3 proposal #6149

Merged

Trott deleted the upto9 branch January 13, 2022 22:42

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

governance: remove target size for CTC #5879

governance: remove target size for CTC #5879

Trott commented Mar 23, 2016

ChALkeR commented Mar 23, 2016

Trott commented Mar 23, 2016

jbergstroem commented Mar 23, 2016

jasnell Mar 23, 2016

Trott commented Mar 24, 2016

jasnell commented Mar 24, 2016

cjihrig commented Mar 24, 2016

bnoordhuis commented Mar 25, 2016

Trott commented Mar 27, 2016

indutny commented Mar 27, 2016

Fishrock123 Mar 28, 2016

Trott Mar 28, 2016

Fishrock123 Mar 28, 2016

mhdawson Mar 28, 2016

Trott Mar 29, 2016

Trott Mar 30, 2016

Trott commented Mar 30, 2016

jasnell Mar 30, 2016

Trott Mar 30, 2016

jasnell Mar 30, 2016

jasnell commented Mar 30, 2016

mhdawson commented Mar 30, 2016

evanlucas commented Mar 30, 2016

Trott commented Mar 30, 2016

governance: remove target size for CTC #5879

governance: remove target size for CTC #5879

Conversation

Trott commented Mar 23, 2016

Pull Request check-list

Affected core subsystem(s)

Description of change

ChALkeR commented Mar 23, 2016

Trott commented Mar 23, 2016

jbergstroem commented Mar 23, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Trott commented Mar 24, 2016

jasnell commented Mar 24, 2016

cjihrig commented Mar 24, 2016

bnoordhuis commented Mar 25, 2016

Trott commented Mar 27, 2016

indutny commented Mar 27, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Trott commented Mar 30, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jasnell commented Mar 30, 2016

mhdawson commented Mar 30, 2016

evanlucas commented Mar 30, 2016

Trott commented Mar 30, 2016