Comments on the proposal itself below, but I wanted to sort of diverge a bit here first.
I think our first order of business should basically be to figure out some sort of long term decision making process. In my eyes, things like some sort of communication (realtime, async, whatever) or any of our other really open questions sort of should generally a back seat to the question of how do we, as a group, make decisions. We currently have the “BDFRN” distinction, but I view that as a fairly adhoc idea, sort of like “emergency powers” where the ultimate goal should be to to define our real decision making process, and then transition us to that. Once we have that, then I think we should start focusing on communication and other structure.
On Jun 4, 2018, at 9:33 PM, Ernest W. Durbin III firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Hello PyPA Committers!
I'd like to start discussion on a possible governance model for the PyPA.
The model described here is what I consider a minimum viable governance for the Python Packaging Authority that would open realtime and asynchronous channels of communication for two purposes:
- Keeping PyPA projects up to date on what one another are up to, and where they are headed.
- Allowing the PSF Packaging Working Group insight into the PyPA's activities.
This model is intended for coordination and communication among Python Packaging Authority projects and does not have bearing on the existing project structure or governance of individual projects beyond the existing requirement of adhering to the PyPA Code of Conduct.
Recurring (weekly, monthly, or quarterly) synchronous meeting of the PyPA via a communications channel TBD. This channel should allow for a log of discussions and some moderation.
Structure of meeting TBD, but a something along the lines of: Announcements, Old Business, New Business.
A moderator and minute-taker would be responsible for summarizing the meeting, collecting project updates, and publishing minutes and updates for archival purposes and public review. Meeting note publication method TBD.
Adherence to the PyPA Code of Conduct would be required for all attendees.
This sounds reasonably OK to me as long as we tune the recurrence correctly. My primary concern is that the PyPA is getting larger (and is likely to continue to do so), and we have members from all across the globe, so scheduling a single time when everyone who wants to participate is able to could prove difficult. To my knowledge we basically have people on complete opposite ends of the world, and everywhere in between now.
We likely also want to add in some mechanism to prevent these from becoming very long or trying to boil the ocean (particularly the first couple are likely to be more prone to this).