|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [MirageOS-devel] [PATCH v5 3/3] Significant changes to decision making; some new roles and minor changes
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Lars Kurth wrote:
> List of changes
> - Added Goal: Local Decision Making
> - Split roles into project wide and sub-project specific roles
> - Added new roles: Community Manager, Security Response Team, Leadership Team
> - Added RTC Policy
> - Added +2 ... -2 scheme for expressing opinions more clearly
> - Clarified lazy consensus / lazy voting with examples
> - Added Informal Votes or Surveys
> - Added Project Team Leadership decisions (majority vote, non-monotonicity)
> - Clarified and Adapted Conflict Resolution to previous changes
> - Updated Elections to cover new roles and terminology
> - Changed Project Wide Decision making (per project, non-monotonicity)
> - Clarified scope of Decision making
> - Added section on Community Decisions with Funding and Legal Implications
> - Modified all other sections which have dependencies on changes above
> - Added Per Sub-Project Governance Specialisation
> - Fixed various typos
> - Fixed changelog
>
> Signed-off-by: Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> governance.pandoc | 628
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 496 insertions(+), 132 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/governance.pandoc b/governance.pandoc
> index 2ce780c..188fa41 100644
> --- a/governance.pandoc
> +++ b/governance.pandoc
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> This document has come in effect in June 2011 and will be reviewed
> periodically
> -(see revision sections). The last modification has been made in July 2016.
> +(see revision sections). The last modification has been made in December
> 2016.
>
> Content
> -------
> @@ -11,8 +11,10 @@ Content
> - [Making Contributions](#contributions)
> - [Decision Making, Conflict Resolution, Role Nominations and
> Elections](#decisions)
> -- [Formal Votes](#formal-votes)
> +- [Project Wide Decision Making](#project-decisions)
> +- [Community Decisions with Funding and Legal
> Implications](#funding-and-legal)
> - [Project Governance](#project-governance)
> +- [Per Sub-Project Governance Specialisations](#specialisations)
>
> Goals {#goals}
> -----
> @@ -54,7 +56,12 @@ The Xen Project is a meritocracy. The more you contribute
> the more
> responsibility you will earn. Leadership roles in Xen are also merit-based
> and
> earned by peer acclaim.
>
> -Xen Project Wide Roles {#roles-global}
> +### Local Decision Making
> +
> +The Xen Project consists of a number of sub-projects: each sub-project makes
> +technical and other decisions that solely affect it locally.
> +
> +Xen Project Wide Roles {#roles-global}
> ----------------------
>
> ### Sub-projects and Teams
> @@ -64,9 +71,22 @@ the [Project Governance](#project-governance) (or Project
> Lifecycle) as
> outlined in this document. Sub-projects (sometimes simply referred to as
> projects) are run by individuals and are often referred to as teams to
> highlight the collaborative nature of development. For example, each
> -sub-project has a [team portal](/developers/teams.html) on Xenproject.org.
> +sub-project has a [team portal](/developers/teams.html) on Xenproject.org.
> +Sub-projects own and are responsible for a collection of source repositories
> +and other resources (e.g. test infrastructure, CI infrastructure, ...),
> which
> +we call **sub-project assets** (or team assets) in this document.
> +
> +Sub-projects can either be **incubation projects** or **mature projects** as
> +outlined in [Basic Project Life Cycle](#project-governance). In line with
> the
> +meritocratic principle, mature projects have more influence than incubation
> +projects, on [project wide decisions](#project-decisions).
> +
> +### Community Manager
>
> -### Xen Project Advisory Board
> +The Xen Project has a community manager, whose primary role it is to support
> +the entire Xen Project Community.
> +
> +### Xen Project Advisory Board {#roles-ab}
>
> The [Xen Project Advisory Board](/join.html) consists of members who are
> committed to steering the project to advance its market and technical
> success,
> @@ -76,7 +96,7 @@ shared project infrastructure, marketing and events, and
> managing the Xen
> Project trademark. The Advisory Board leaves all technical decisions to the
> open source meritocracy.
>
> -### The Linux Foundation
> +### The Linux Foundation {#roles-lf}
>
> The Xen Project is a [Linux Foundation](/linux-foundation.html)
> Collaborative
> Project. Collaborative Projects are independently funded software projects
> that
> @@ -95,21 +115,48 @@ members or other distinguished community members.
> ### Sponsor
>
> To form a new sub-project or team on Xenproject.org, we require a sponsor to
> -support the creation of the new project. A sponsor can be a project lead or
> -committer of a mature project, a member of the advisory board or the
> community
> -manager. This ensures that a distinguished community member supports the
> idea
> -behind the project.
> +support the creation of the new project. A sponsor can be a member of the
> +project leadership team of a mature project, a member of the advisory board
> or
> +the community manager. This ensures that a distinguished community member
> +supports the idea behind the project.
>
> Project Team Roles {#roles-local}
> ------------------
>
> +Sub-projects or teams are driven by the people who volunteer for the job.
> This
> +functions well for most cases. This section lists the main roles which
> projects
> +use. This section lists the default roles, which are based on how the
> +Hypervisor project operates. Sub-projects can deviate from the default, but
> are
> +required to document deviations from the default and link to it from this
> +[document](#specialisations). The only exception is that each project is
> +required to have a project leadership team, as without it, the project will
> not
> +be able to function.
> +
> +The following table lists how each project uses these roles. Note that
> +**incubation projects** have more flexibility in experimenting with roles
> that
> +work for them, but need to define specializations before they can **mature**.
> +
> + --------------------- ------------ ----------------- ----------------
> ------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
> + **Project** **Mature** **Maintainers** **Committers**
> **Security Team** **Leadership Team**
> + **Hypervisor** YES YES YES YES
> Committers and Release Manager, without a Project Lead
> + **Windows Drivers** NO YES YES NO
> Committers, with a Project Lead
> + **XAPI** YES YES YES NO
> Committers, with a Project Lead
> + --------------------- ------------ ----------------- ----------------
> ------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
> +
> ### Maintainers
>
> -Maintainers own one or several components in the Xen tree. A maintainer
> reviews
> -and approves changes that affect their components. It is a maintainer's
> prime
> -responsibility to review, comment on, co-ordinate and accept patches from
> other
> -community member's and to maintain the design cohesion of their components.
> -Maintainers are listed in a MAINTAINERS file in the root of the source tree.
> +Maintainers own one or several components in the sub-projects source
> tree(s). A
> +maintainer reviews and approves changes that affect their components. It is
> a
> +maintainer's prime responsibility to review, comment on, co-ordinate and
> accept
> +patches from other community member's and to maintain the design cohesion of
> +their components. Maintainers are listed in a MAINTAINERS file in the root
> of
> +each code repository that the project owns.
> +
> +Larger sub-projects such as the Hypervisor may have special maintainer roles
> +such as a release manager and stable branch maintainers. In addition, larger
> +projects may award different maintainers different levels of influence. Any
> +specialisations and implications are documented in the respective
> MAINTAINERS
> +file.
>
> ### Committers
>
> @@ -119,17 +166,34 @@ applies changes that have been approved by the
> respective maintainer(s) to the
> source tree. Due to their status in the community, committers can also act
> as
> referees should disagreements amongst maintainers arise. Committers are
> listed
> on the sub-project's team portal (e.g. [Hypervisor team
> -portal](/developers/teams/hypervisor.html)).
> +portal](/developers/teams/hypervisor.html)) and/or in the projects
> MAINTAINERS
> +files.
>
> -### Project Lead
> +### Security Response Team (short: Security Team)
>
> -Sub-projects and teams hosted on Xenproject.org are managed by a Project
> Lead,
> -who also is a committer of the sub-project/team he/she leads. Project Leads
> are
> -the public figurehead of the project and is responsible for the health of
> the
> -project. Due to their status in the community, project leads can also act as
> -referees should disagreements amongst committers of the project arise. The
> -project lead typically also has write access to resources, such as the web
> page
> -of a specific project.
> +Each sub-project may have a security response team, that is responsible for
> +receiving, reviewing, and responding to security incident reports for the
> +sub-projects assets according to its security response process (e.g.
> +[Hypervisor Security Problem Response Process](/security-policy.html)).
> +
> +### Project Leadership Team and Project Lead
> +
> +Sub-projects and teams hosted on Xenproject.org are managed by a Project
> +Leadership Team. The leadership team is made up of distinguished community
> +members, but the exact composition may depend on the sub-project. For
> example,
> +in the case of the Hypervisor sub-project, all committers and the release
> +manager, are part of the leadership team. The leadership team owns the
> +sub-projects processes, the overall architecture and all assets within the
> +project and makes [sub-project wide decisions](#decisions) on behalf of its
> +community.
> +
> +A sub-projects leadership team members are listed on the sub-project's team
> +portal (e.g. [Hypervisor team portal](developers/teams/hypervisor.html)).
> +
> +The Leadership Team may elect a Project Lead who is also a member of the
> +Leadership Team. Project Leads are the public figurehead of the project and
> are
> +responsible for the health of the project. Project Leads can also act as
> +[referees](#conflict) should the Project Leadership Team become paralysed.
>
> Making Contributions {#contributions}
> --------------------
> @@ -146,62 +210,253 @@ More information on making contributions can be found
> in the following
> documents:
>
> - [Contribution Guidelines](/help/contribution-guidelines.html)
> +- [Review Then Commit Policy](#RTC)
>
> -Decision Making, Conflict Resolution, Role Nominations and Elections
> -{#decisions}
> +Decision Making, Conflict Resolution, Role Nominations and Elections
> {#decisions}
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -### Consensus Decision Making
> -
> Sub-projects or teams hosted on Xenproject.org are normally auto-governing
> and
> driven by the people who volunteer for the job. This functions well for most
> -cases. When more formal decision making and coordination is required,
> decisions
> -are taken with a lazy consensus approach: a few positive votes with no
> negative
> -vote are enough to get going.
> -
> -Voting is done with numbers:
> -
> -- +1 : a positive vote
> -- 0 : abstain, have no opinion
> -- -1 : a negative vote
> -
> -A negative vote should include an alternative proposal or a detailed
> -explanation of the reasons for the negative vote. The project community then
> -tries to gather consensus on an alternative proposal that resolves the
> issue.
> -In the great majority of cases, the concerns leading to the negative vote
> can
> -be addressed.
> -
> -### Conflict Resolution
> -
> -#### Refereeing
> +cases. This section lists the main mechanisms by which projects make
> decisions.
> +This section lists the default mode of operation, which is based on how the
> +Hypervisor project operates. Sub-projects can deviate from the default, but
> are
> +required to document deviations from the default and link to it from this
> +[document](#specialisation). The only exception is that each project is
> +required to adhere to the **Review Then Commit Policy**, **Leadership Team
> +Decisions** and **Conflict Resolution**.
> +
> +### Review Then Commit {#RTC}
> +
> +The vast majority of technical decisions within the Xen Project are code
> +related decisions (e.g. patches and design documents), which determine
> whether
> +a specific change can be accepted into the code base. The default decision
> +making process is a review and commit process, which requires that all
> changes
> +receive explicit approval from respective code owners (maintainers) before
> they
> +are committed. The exact workflow and details of this policy between
> +sub-projects may differ and are documented in one or several of the
> following
> +places: MAINTAINERS/README/CONTRIBUTING files in repositories and/or the
> +sub-project team portal.
> +
> +### Expressing Agreement and Disagreement {#expressingopinion}
> +
> +Within the community, we follow the following number notation to explicitly
> +express opinions on proposals, formal or informal votes.
> +
> +- **+2** : I am happy with this proposal, and I will argue for it
> +- **+1** : I am happy with this proposal, but will not argue for it
> +- **0** : I have no opinion
> +- **-1** : I am not happy with this proposal, but will not argue against it
> +- **-2** : I am not happy with this proposal, and I will argue against it
> +
> +A **-2** should include an alternative proposal or a detailed explanation of
> +the reasons for the negative opinion. A **+2** should include reasons for
> the
> +positive opinion.
> +
> +How we tally results and their implications depend on the context in which
> is
> +is used and are marked with Passed/Failed: in one of the following sections:
> +
> +- [Lazy Consensus / Lazy Voting](#lazyconsensus)
> +- [Leadership Team Decisions](#leadership)
> +- [Project Wide Decision Making](#project-decisions)
> +
> +### Lazy Consensus / Lazy Voting {#lazyconsensus}
> +
> +Lazy Consensus is a useful technique to make decisions for specific
> proposals
> +which are not covered by the Review Then Commit Policy or do not require a
> more
> +formal decision (see below). Lazy Consensus is extremely useful, when you
> don't
> +anticipate any objections, or to gauge whether there are objections to a
> +proposal. The concrete process in this section is a mixture between Lazy
> Consensus
> +and Lazy Voting and is designed to avoid unnecessary multiple stages in
> decision
> +making.
> +
> +To make use of it, post something like the following on the project's
> +mailing list (or some other communication channel):
> +
> + > I am assuming we are agreed on X and am going to assume lazy
> consensus: <
> + > if there are no objections within the next seven days.
> <
> +
> +You should however ensure that all relevant stake-holders which may object
> are
> +explicitly CC'ed, such as relevant maintainers or committers, ensure that
> +**lazy consensus** is in the body of your message (this helps set up mail
> +filters) and choose a reasonable time-frame. If it is unclear who the
> relevant
> +stake-holders are, the project leadership can nominate a group of
> stake-holders
> +to decide, or may choose to own the decision collectively and resolve it.
> +
> +Objections by stake-holders should be expressed using the [conventions
> +above](#expressingopinion) to make disagreements easily identifiable.
> +
> +__Passed/Failed:__
> +The proposer of Lazy Consensus decision is assumed to implicitly have an
> +opinion of **+1**, unless otherwise stated.
> +
> +- Failed: A single **-2** by a stake-holder whose approval is necessary
> +- Failed: A total sum of opinions **<=0**
> +- Passed: A total sum of opinions **>0**
> +
> +It can only be overturned if the project leadership agrees collectively,
> that
> +the decision is too important to be settled by lazy consensus / lazy voting.
> +In situations where a proposal is failed, an alternative solution needs to
> be
> +found, or if a decision is formally challenged, [conflict resolution
> mechanisms](#conflict) may need to be used to resolve the situation.
> +
> +__Further Examples:__
> +A Lazy Consensus decision starts out with the implicit **+1** opinion of the
> +proposer. If there is no explicit response, the proposal passes as the sum
> +is **>0**.
> +
> +If there is a single **-1** without any **+** votes, the proposal fails.
> +
> +If there are multiple **+1**'s or **+2**'s, more **-1**'s than positive votes
> +are needed for the proposal to fail. This mechanism, is often also called
> +**Lazy Voting**.
> +
> +The process does allow for a proposer to state a starting opinion of **0**
> or
> +**-1**. In this case, the Lazy Consensus label does not work for the
> process,
> +as positive opinions are needed for the proposal to pass. To make use of
> this
> +mechanism, post something like the following on the project's mailing list
> +(or some other communication channel)
> +
> + > I want to solicit opinions on X and am going to assume lazy voting:
> <
> + > My starting position is **0**, as I feel that at least one other
> <
> + > stake-holder should agree with the proposal.
> <
> + > If there is a majority in favour, without a **-2** objection within
> the <
> + > next seven days, I assume that the proposal holds and does not need
> <
> + > require further discussion.
> <
> +
> +Unlike in the lazy consensus case, a single **+1** vote is needed. Otherwise
> +the proposal fails. Otherwise, the counting rules follow the general case.
> +
> +This can be useful in situations, where the proposer is not quite sure about
> +his/her position, or where the invoker acts on behalf of the community to
> +resolve a discussion which has become stuck. A starting position of **-1**
> can
> +be used to verify that a specific approach may be a bad idea: whether this
> is
> +really useful, has to be verified as we start using this process.
> +
> +### Informal Votes or Surveys
> +
> +Generally the Xen Project community tries to achieve consensus on most
> issues.
> +In situations where several concrete options are possible, community members
> +may organize an informal vote on the different proposals and use the
> +[conventions above](#expressingopinion) to identify the strongest proposal.
> +Once the strongest candidate has been identified, [lazy
> +consensus](#lazyconsensus) could be used to close the discussion. In some
> +situation, a specific survey may need to be created, to help identify
> gauging
> +consensus on specific issues. For informal votes and surveys, we do not
> +prescribe specific rules, as they are non-binding: it is up to the organizer
> of
> +an informal vote or survey to interpret the result and explain it to the
> +community. If the vote/survey relates to an area that is owned by the
> project
> +leadership, the project leadership has to formally confirm the decision.
> +
> +Note that informal votes amongst a small set of stake-holders that disagree
> on
> +a position during technical disagreements in code, design reviews and other
> +discussions can be useful. In technical discussions it is not always clear
> how
> +strong agreement or disagreement on a specific issue is. Using the
> [conventions
> +above](#expressingopinion), can help differentiate between minor and major
> +disagreements and reduce the time a discussions continues unnecessarily.
> This
> +is true in particular for cases, where several maintainers may need to agree
> to
> +a proposal.
> +
> +When having an informal vote or survey, they creator should consider whether
> +conducting a vote or survey in public, may be divisive and damaging for the
> +community. In such cases, the vote/survey should be conducted anonymously.
> +
> +### Leadership Team Decisions {#leadership}
> +
> +Each sub-project has a leadership team, which is typically made up of the
> most
> +senior and influential developers within the sub-project (e.g. the project's
> +committers). The project leadership team owns decisions, such as:
> +
> +- Sub-project wide policy decisions (e.g. policies, procedures and
> processes
> +whose scope is specific to the sub-projects). This includes deviations from
> +project global governance, where permissible.
> +- Decisions related to sub-project assets that are not clearly owned (e.g.
> +unowned code, project wide assets such as test infrastructure, etc.).
> +- Decisions related to nominating and confirming leadership roles within
> the
> +sub-project. This includes [decisions to creating and filling specialised
> new
> +roles](#elections), such as release managers or similar, including their
> scope
> +and set of responsibilities.
> +- Resolving [conflicts](#conflict) within the sub-project that cannot
> +otherwise be resolved.
> +
> +Leadership team decisions can be made in private (e.g. a private IRC
> meeting,
> +on a private mailing list, through a private vote) or on a public mailing
> list
> +using [decision making conventions](#expressingopinion). If a decision is
> made
> +in private, the outcome must be summarized in terms of number of votes in
> +favour or against on a public mailing list. Decisions should **not**
> generally
> +be made in an anonymous vote, unless there is a good reason to do so. For
> +example, if the decision may be divisive and damage the cohesion of the
> +leadership team, an anonymous vote is preferred. In such cases, the
> leadership
> +team, can ask the community manager, to arrange an anonymous vote on behalf
> +of the leadership team.
> +
> +Decisions (also called Resolutions) require a **2/3rd** majority amongst
> active
> +leadership team members in favour of a proposal. The tallying of votes
> follows
> +the rules outlined below. Note that a minimum of 3 leadership team members
> is
> +needed for a [leadership team to function](#exceptional-circumstances).
> +
> +Leadership team decisions normally have to be made actively: in other words
> +each team member has to cast a vote **explicitly** expressing their opinion.
> +The only exception are face-2-face or on-line meetings with a quorum of
> +**2/3rd** of active leadership team members present at the meeting: in such
> +cases a meeting chair is required who calls for decision on a resolution and
> +asks for objections. This allows to conduct meetings more quickly.
> +
> +__Passed/Failed Resolutions:__
> +
> +Voting is conducted in line with the following rules:
> +
> +- Project leadership team members vote for (**+1**) or against (**-1**) a
> +resolution. There is no differentiation between **+1**/ **+2** and
> +**-1**/**-2**: in other words a **+2** is counted as a vote for, a **-2** as
> a
> +vote against the resolution. The number of votes for and against a
> resolution
> +is called **active vote**. **0** votes **are not counted** as an active vote.
> +- A **quorum of at least 1/3 of positive votes for a proposal** is
> required for a
> +resolution to pass. In other words, if the leadership team has 7 members, at
> +least 3 members need to vote for the resolution.
> +- The resolution passes, if a 2/3 majority of active votes is in favour of
> +it.
> +
> +The table below maps the number of leadership team members against the
> +required quorum:
> +
> + ------------------------------------- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
> + **Leadership team members** 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
> + **Positive votes needed for quorum** 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1
> + ------------------------------------- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
> +
> +The table below maps active votes against votes needed to pass:
> +
> + ------------------------------------- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
> + **Active Votes (+1 or -1)** 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
> + **Positive votes needed to pass** 7 6 6 5 4 4 3 2 2
> + ------------------------------------- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
> +
> +### Conflict Resolution {#conflict}
>
> Sub-projects and teams hosted on Xenproject.org are not democracies but
> meritocracies. In situations where there is disagreement on issues related
> to
> -the day-to-day running of the project, Committers and Project Leads are
> -expected to act as referees and make a decision on behalf of the community.
> -Referees should however consider whether making a decision may be divisive
> and
> -damaging for the community. In such cases, the committer community of the
> -project can privately vote on an issue, giving the decision more weight.
> -
> -#### Last Resort
> +the day-to-day running of the project, the [project leadership
> +team](#leadership) is expected to act as referee and make a decision on
> behalf
> +of the community. Projects leadership teams can choose to delegate entire
> +classes of conflict resolution issues to community members and/or the
> project
> +lead (e.g. the project can choose to delegate refereeing on committer
> +disagreements to the project lead; or it could choose a specific committer
> to
> +always act as referee amongst a group of committers). Any such delegation
> needs
> +to be approved as normal and has to be documented.
>
> -In some rare cases, the lazy consensus approach may lead to the community
> being
> -paralyzed. Thus, as a last resort when consensus cannot be achieved on a
> -question internal to a project, the final decision will be made by a private
> -majority vote amongst the committers and project lead. If the vote is tied,
> the
> -project lead gets an extra vote to break the tie.
> +Should a project leadership team become dysfunctional or paralysed, the
> project
> +leadership team or project lead should work with the community manager or
> +advisory board to find a way forward.
>
> -For questions that affect several projects, committers and project leads of
> -mature projects will hold a private majority vote. If the vote is tied, the
> -[Xen Project Advisory Board](/join.html) will break the tie through a
> casting
> -vote.
> +In situations where the entire Xen Project community becomes paralysed the
> +impacted project leadership teams or project leads should work with the
> +community manager or advisory board to find a way forward.
>
> -### Elections
> +### Elections {#elections}
>
> #### Maintainer Elections
>
> -Developers who have earned the trust of maintainers (including the project
> -lead) can be promoted to Maintainer. A two stage mechanism is used
> +Developers who have earned the trust of existing maintainers can be promoted
> to
> +maintainer. A two stage mechanism is used
>
> - Nomination: A maintainer should nominate himself by proposing a patch to
> the MAINTAINERS file or mailing a nomination to the project's mailing list.
> @@ -211,15 +466,15 @@ as a scope (set of owned components). Where the case is
> not obvious, evidence
> such as specific patches and other evidence supporting the nomination should
> be
> cited.
> - Confirmation: Normally, there is no need for a direct election to
> confirm a
> -new maintainer. Discussion should happen on the mailing list using the
> -principles of consensus decision making. If there is disagreement or doubt,
> the
> -project lead or a committer should ask the community manager to arrange a
> more
> -formal vote.
> +new maintainer. Discussion should happen on the mailing list using the
> normal
> +decision making process. If there is disagreement or doubt, the decision is
> +handled by the project leadership.
>
> -#### Committer Elections
> +#### Committer and other Project Leadership Elections
>
> Developers who have earned the trust of committers in their project can
> through
> -election be promoted to Committer. A two stage mechanism is used
> +election be promoted to Committer or Project Leadership (if not covered
> otherwise).
> +A two stage mechanism is used
>
> - Nomination: Community members should nominate candidates by posting a
> proposal to *appointments at xenproject dot org* explaining the candidate's
> @@ -230,58 +485,130 @@ review all proposals, check whether the nominee would
> be willing to accept the
> nomination and publish suitable nominations on the project's public mailing
> list for wider community input.
> - Election: A committer will be elected using the decision making process
> -outlined earlier. Voting will be done by committers for that project
> privately
> -using a voting form that is created by the community manager. Should there
> be a
> -negative vote the project lead and community manager will try and resolve
> the
> -situation and reach consensus. Results will be published on the public
> mailing
> -list.
> +outlined earlier. In other words, the decision is delegated to the [project
> +leadership team](#leadership).
> +
> +#### Security Response Team Members
> +
> +Developers who have earned the trust of other security team members can
> +be promoted to be on the security team. Due to the specific needs of the
> +security team, promotions are typically made by the security team itself
> +and confirmed by lazy consensus within the team.
>
> #### Project Lead Elections
>
> -Projects which lose their project lead are at risk of failing. Should this
> -occur, the project's maintainer community should agree who would want to
> be/be
> -able to be the new project lead and follow the election process as outlined
> -above.
> -
> -Formal Votes {#formal-votes}
> -------------
> -
> -Sometimes it is necessary to conduct formal voting within the community
> -(outside of elections). Formal votes are necessary when processes and
> -procedures are introduced or changed, or as part of the [Project
> -Governance](#project-governance). Who is eligible to vote, depends on
> whether
> -the scope of a process or procedure is **local** to a sub-project or team,
> or
> -whether it affects **all sub-projects** (or in other words, is **global**).
> -Examples of local scope is the [Security Policy](/security-policy.html)
> which
> -applies to the [Hypervisor Project](/developers/teams/hypervisor.html) only.
> -Examples of global scope are changes to this document or votes outlined in
> the
> -Project Governance.
> -
> -
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> - **Scope** **Who reviews?** **Who votes?**
> - ------------ ----------------------
> -----------------------------------------
> - **Local** Members of developer Maintainers of the project (or
> projects),
> - mailing lists of the which are affected by the process,
> - affected projects. procedure, etc. are allowed to vote.
> - This includes maintainers from
> incubation
> - projects (if the scope affects the
> - project).
> -
> - **Global** Members of all Maintainers of **all mature** projects
> - developer mailing and the Xenproject.org community
> manager
> - lists of all are allowed to vote.
> - sub-projects hosted on
> - Xenproject.org.
> -
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -\
> +Projects which have a project lead, should vote for a project lead in an
> +anonymous vote amongst the project leadership.
> +
> +### Project Wide Decision Making {#project-decisions}
> +
> +Project wide decisions are made through **formal global votes** and are
> +conducted in rare circumstances only, following the principle of [local
> +decision making](#principles). Global votes are only needed, when all
> sub-projects
> +hosted on Xenproject.org are affected. This is true, only for:
> +
> +- Specific votes on creating, graduating, completing/archiving of
> +sub-projects as outlined in [project governance](#project-governance).
> +- Changes to this document, where sub-projects cannot specialise. In
> +particular the sections: [goals](#goals), [principles](#principles),
> [project
> +wide decision making](#project-decisions) and [project
> +governance](#project-governance) (and small parts of [Xen Project wide
> +roles](#roles-global), [project team roles](#roles-local) and [decision
> +making](#decisions) that are needed for project governance or **apply to all
> +sub-projects** as stated in those sections).
> +- Changes to this document where sub-projects can specialise require at
> least
> +one mature project other than the Hypervisor project to be impacted
> +significantly by the change. The sections in question, are [project team
> +roles](#roles-local) and [decision making](#decisions). These sections
> define
> +the **gold standard** of how the original Hypervisor Project operates. In
> other
> +cases, the Hypervisor project leadership team can agree changes to these
> +sections, as they are essentially reference definitions. Other sub-projects
> +have to be consulted, and have to be given time to adapt to changes.
> +- Changes to existing global namespace policies (e.g. [Mailing List
> +Conventions](/help/mailing-list/100-misc/139-mailing-list-conventions.html))
> +and creation of new project wide namespace policies.
> +- Changes to the boundary of what policies are project local and global
> +decision: e.g. a decision to introduce a global Security Vulnerability
> Response
> +Process that affects all sub-projects.
> +
> +Global votes are arranged by the community manager when needed (e.g. for a
> +project review or a global process change). Who exactly has input on a
> proposal
> +and can vote on it, depends on the type of change as outlined below:
> +
> +
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> + **Proposal** **Who reviews?** **Who votes?**
> + ----------------------------- -----------------------------
> -----------------------------
> + Creating, graduating, Members of developer mailing Leadership
> teams of
> + completing/archiving of lists of qualifying projects **mature**
> sub-projects,
> + sub-projects with the
> exception of the
> + project which
> is being
> + reviewed (e.g.
> for an
> + archivation
> review, the
> + leadership
> team of the
> + project under
> review, cannot
> + vote).
> +
> + Global Process Changes Members of developer mailing Leadership
> teams of
> + lists of qualifying projects **mature**
> sub-projects,
> + within the
> scope described
> + above.
> +
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> +
>
> The community manager first arranges a public review, followed by a timed
> private vote. Public review and voting should be open for a minimum of a
> week
> each. For voting a traceable poll mechanism (e.g. voting form that keeps
> -auditable and tamper proof records) must be used. Voting follows the
> -conventions as laid out in "Principle: Consensus Decision Making".
> -
> -Project Governance {#project-governance}
> +auditable and tamper proof records) must be used.
> +
> +Voting is conducted **per project** in line with the following rules:
> +
> +- Each qualifying project's vote is counted per project and then
> aggregated
> +as outlined below.
> +- Project leadership team members vote for or against a proposal (there is
> no
> +differentiation between **-1**/**-2** and **+1**/**+2**). A **0** vote is
> not
> +counted as a valid vote.
> +- A **quorum of at least least 1/3 of positive votes** of each project's
> +leadership team members is required. In other words: if a project's
> leadership
> +team does not achieve the quorum, the entire sub-project's vote is not
> counted.
> +This avoids situations where only a minority of leadership team members
> vote,
> +which would skew the overall result. If it becomes clear, that a sub-project
> is
> +not likely to meet the quorum, the voting deadline can be extended by the
> +community manager.
> +
> +__Passed/Failed Resolutions:__
> +
> +- If none of the qualifying projects achieve a quorum, the change cannot
> +hold. In that case, we consider that there is not enough momentum behind a
> +change.
> +- For each qualifying project with a quorum, the percentage of votes in
> +favour and against is calculated (e.g. if 5 people voted in favour, 2
> against
> +and 1 abstains, the share is 5/7th and 2/7th respectively).
> +- Votes in favour are averaged as percentages across all projects (say we
> +have per project figures of 50%, 80%, 70% in favour, then the total vote in
> +favour is 66.67%).
> +- If the total vote achieves a 2/3rd majority in favour, the proposal
> passes.
> +Otherwise it fails.
> +
This is basically the same voting mechanism described under "Leadership Team
Decisions", counted per project, then averaged, isn't?
It worries me that it could lead to very different results depending on
the project leadership team sizes.
For example, let's say that only 2 projects reach the quorum:
project A, leadership team size 2, total positive votes 2, 100%
project B, leadership team size 12, negative votes 8, positive votes 4, 33%
Total favor 66.5% -> pass (or very close to)
However I don't have a concrete suggestion on how to improve this. Given
that any project could appoint any number of people in their leadership
teams, I am not sure that accounting for the size of the teams would
make things much better. On the other hand the number of people in the
leadership team should represent the size of the project somewhat, so it
could make sense to account for the votes proportionally.
Any opinions?
For everything else, you have my +1.
For this section, I'll think about it a bit more :-)
_______________________________________________
MirageOS-devel mailing list
MirageOS-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mirageos-devel
|
 |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |