adds a draft charter template #279
Conversation
| ## Section 2: Relationship with OpenJS Foundation CPC. | ||
|
|
||
| _directions: describe how the project intersects with the Cross Project_ | ||
| _Council._ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I’m not sure if it’s clear what to fill in this section.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The Node TSC charter has these 2 paragraphs under its Section 2 about the relationship between the Node TSC and the CPC, I think they're good paragraphs & was imagining something like that would go here. I agree it's not super clear as written!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps the template would benefit from having links to good examples, such as this one that you mention from the Node.js TSC charter https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/TSC-Charter.md#section-2-evolution-of-openjs-foundation-governance
| _directions: describe the structure of the group responsible for managing_ | ||
| _the project and its respective organization and repositories. If there are_ | ||
| _specific rules for membership or participation in the group, list them here or_ | ||
| _by reference to a governance.md document._ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I’m not sure that the term “Establishment” can be widely understood. Maybe “Leadership” would be better?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What about "Creation" - since this is more about the structure and arguably we'd want the projects to put "Leadership" pieces in their governance docs as much as possible to avoid the issue of them having to update their charter too frequently?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about something more generic like "Project Structure"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think "Project Leadership" would be a good mix of what has been suggested and I think that is what is covered in the "Etablishment" section in the Node.js TSC charter.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the call yesterday, we discussed using 'Governing Body' which was well received because we already have a definition of that in our charter document. Updating PR with this language.
joesepi
left a comment
joesepi
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM. I've made a few suggestions for adding examples. I find examples can give some clarity or spur thinking.
|
It was suggested in today's meeting that foundation legal review this as well. The thinking being that legal will need to approve any charters for existing or new projects. |
Co-Authored-By: Joe Sepi <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Joe Sepi <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Joe Sepi <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Joe Sepi <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Joe Sepi <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Joe Sepi <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Joe Sepi <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Joe Sepi <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Joe Sepi <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Joe Sepi <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Joe Sepi <[email protected]>
|
accepted @joesepi 's suggestions for example links. Another thing we could do is provide an example version of the Node Charter. |
|
Pre-CPC meeting note: waiting on review from @kborchers & @mhdawson specifically as they are community board reps. If no other comments or edits are needed after that, Jory will send it off to @mkdolan & @aupdegrove per last week's discussion. |
kborchers
left a comment
kborchers
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I left a question and a comment but otherwise this LGTM
| _OpenJS Foundation's governance._ | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ## Section 0: Guiding Principles (optional) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How do we want projects to handle these optional sections? IMO, the sections should still exist in every charter and if the project chooses not to complete it, they leave it blank or add N/A or something like that so that all charters have consistent numbering, sections, order, etc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've seen the phrase 'Intentionally Omitted' or 'Section Intentionally Left Blank' used for that purpose, if that works
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 Works for me as long as the section heading remains to maintain consistency.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Of the 2 suggestions I prefer 'Section Intentionally Left Blank'
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I pushed a commit that adds the sentence: "If you are not using this section, please indicate your intent with the phrase, 'Section Intentionally Left Blank'." to the optional sections
| _directions: describe the structure of the group responsible for managing_ | ||
| _the project and its respective organization and repositories. If there are_ | ||
| _specific rules for membership or participation in the group, list them here or_ | ||
| _by reference to a governance.md document._ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about something more generic like "Project Structure"?
|
@jorydotcom thanks for putting this together. Looks great :) |
|
Would be good to have a review from @aupdegrove before a project uses this. |
|
Just to update: this has been sent off to @mkdolan & @brianwarner to get @aupdegrove legal review. |
|
removed the agenda label for now since this is at legal for review, and is tracked on our onboarding project. |
|
This draft is good to go. |
13 participants
This is a draft charter template - a need per #207. Wasn't sure if this should go through the proposal process since it's a document we need to unblock other issues - if that's the case LMK and I will update the PR to put this is a proposal folder.
I used the Node TSC charter and the Kubernetes SIG Charter template as a basis. The trick is to make the charter document work for projects of different sizes, as there will be some information that will be applicable to large projects but not to the small ones. Hence, some of the sections I marked 'optional' but please do share your thoughts and comments on this!