Consider changing TSC membership structure.

[cjihrig]

@joshgav and @bnoordhuis brought this up in #142 (comment) and #142 (comment). Subsequently, @williamkapke asked for a new issue to discuss. FWIW, I'm also in favor of doing this.

[addaleax]

/cc @nodejs/ctc @nodejs/tsc

[Trott]

I wasn't involved in the project's governance when the TSC split (or perhaps more accurately, cloned) into TSC and CTC, so I may be lacking some context, but based on what I do know now, I am in favor of this too. The split seems artificial.

Perhaps people who have stepped down from one entity but not the other might have insight as to benefits of the separation. I think that would be @piscisaureus and @misterdjules

[indutny]

I think this makes sense. It is fine for a technical group to discuss non-technical questions occasionally, but to summon technical people only to discuss non-technical stuff is kind of a waste of time IMO.

[bnoordhuis]

I'll play devil's advocate for two paragraphs: the reason for the split was to shorten meeting times (laudable!) and to split off the administrative minutiae for people that weren't interested in that (also laudable.)

I think a secondary goal was to make room for people with a non-technical background but with an interest in the administrative side, which also seems laudable even if it blurs the T in TSC a little.

I'm a member of both committees and I'm in favor of merging them again. I don't feel the benefits of having separate bodies really manifested; the goals were noble but it didn't really pan out. Like Rich says, the split seems fairly artificial by now.

[williamkapke]

I think the current setup make sense if there are multiple projects within the Foundation that are loosely coupled:

TSC
├─ Core
│  └─ The many Core related things
├─ Project 1
│  └─ Maybe sub projects here?
└─ Project 2

This setup helps each project stay autonomous and focused on their project. If a project is considering moving to the Node Foundation, it seems like it wouldn't be as attractive to be governed by a body that is very busy with the Core focus.

However, we haven't done this to date (except kind of with the Inclusivity group). Maybe, with this, we would also be declaring that we do not accept loosely related projects? If so- yeah, lets merge them.

... BUT, also consider that the Board has the power to make additional TSCs. Those TSCs would only need to report to the Board. (For example, maybe pretend Microsoft decides the we are too focused on V8 and wants Node-Chakracore on its own?) That seems like it would be a mess! Especially if they share the GitHub org. I'd rather strive for a structure that avoids that happening.

Next lets talk about the logistics of merging. How would that work (step-by-step)? To me it seems like both the TSC and CTC would need to vote- and both to agree.

Would the TSC repo go away?
Would the CTC repo go away?
Would the TSC repo issues need to go to the Node repo? (oh please no!)
Would meeting notices go in the Node repo or the TSC repo or the CTC repo?

Anyhow, if we decide to move forward with this, I want to strongly suggest these steps to completing it:

• Vote confirming the desire to merge.
• PR(s) to the documentation (there will be a lot!)
• Vote to accept the PR changes and then it is official.

[jasnell]

Agreed.

On Friday, September 23, 2016, Ben Noordhuis notifications@github.com
wrote:

I'll play devil's advocate for two paragraphs: the reason for the split
was to shorten meeting times (laudable!) and to split off the
administrative minutiae for people that weren't interested in that (also
laudable.)

I think a secondary goal was to make room for people with a non-technical
background but with an interest in the administrative side, which also
seems laudable even if it blurs the T in TSC a little.

I'm a member of both committees and I'm in favor of merging them again. I
don't feel the benefits of having separate bodies really manifested; the
goals were noble but it didn't really pan out. Like Rich says, the split
seems fairly artificial by now.

—
You are receiving this because you are on a team that was mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#146 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAa2edbTDAr-MoRHBnL_dVuWCE7zpOkwks5qs4jDgaJpZM4KEcEq
.

[joshgav]

@williamkapke

If a project is considering moving to the Node Foundation, it seems like it wouldn't be as attractive to be governed by a body that is very busy with the Core focus.

Exactly, and the split was made at a time when we were evaluating what to bring in next - express, libuv, npm... Soon after we decided it best to focus on core, so the "new TSC" hasn't really had a lot to do.

consider that the Board has the power to make additional TSCs...

There's been concern about that in previous threads, but it seems orthogonal to this discussion and something to save for another time. The board is aware of our concerns and if another top-level project/TSC is proposed there will be a long discussion. Who knows, perhaps it would make sense for some.

maybe pretend Microsoft decides that we are too focused on V8 and wants Node-ChakraCore on its own?

FWIW I promise that won't happen 😉 , but if it did the Board and TSC could and hopefully would oppose a separate TLP/TSC.

[mikeal]

I'm a bit concerned that we would be overloading a single body with too much work. At this time, both TSC and CTC meetings are full of agenda, and it has been difficult to get the majority of technical folks engaged in non-technical decisions. I remember how difficult it was to get simple administrative stuff passed through the old TSC and I don't see how it would be easier now that the group has doubled in size :(

[bnoordhuis]

I don't think it's going to be any worse than it is now; not enough people show up at TSC meetings to get quorum anyway (and yes, I'm guilty of that too.)

[MylesBorins]

I think it is also worth mentioning that we have been seeing a decent amount of success in getting issues handles asynchronously via github, primarily under the guidance of @Trott.

If we have individuals who take time to co-ordinate the voting process it is very possible that we could limit the amount of time we need to spend on issues in the call, thus opening it up to cover greater ground

[mhdawson]

I think having the 2 different meetings has been useful as the TSC has focused on different topics than typically discussed at the CTC meetings. Having said that, we don't necessarily need the separation to have 2 meetings, however, the problem is being able to vote/pass items if we only have a subset of people at one of the meetings.

[mikeal]

That's a thought, you could merge the TSC/CTC and have a separate "administrative" meeting and eliminate any quorum rules since the purpose of the separate meeting is to give people the option of not attending.

Another thought: one of the reasons for the separation was to try and bring a project wide perspective into the TSC rather than just being focused on Core. However, the CTC has actually done a better job of bringing in new members with a broader perspective than the TSC has and it may make more sense to merge them back together and continue the work of bringing in new members with a wider perspective.

[mikeal]

Also, quick point of fact, they would need to merge under the name "TSC" because that is embedded in the bylaws.

[Fishrock123]

Does this mean that Libuv would then technically be under the CTC? Same with Express which IIRC is technically under the CTC domain?

Edit: (Changed names to clarify, although we'd be just called the TSC)

[mikeal]

@Fishrock123 yes, but in practice both are granted the same level of autonomy so it wouldn't make any practical difference.