Re: Proposal for TSC RFCs?
The minutes and recordings of the TSC meetings are the formal recording of decisions made and should be considered canonical. Since Jan 24th of this year, those notes are taken & stored on the Wiki:
Previously, minutes were taken either as emails to the TSC list or as pages on Google Docs, and then posted along with recordings on a similar page, but on our older wiki:
It would be Really Cool if volunteers emerged to do two things:
1) Faithfully copy over the hypertext from the old Wiki's archive page to the current one
2) Migrate all the minutes stored on Google Docs to wiki pages.
Doing both will make it easier to search across the minutes, ensure they don't get modified without visibility, etc. Any takers? This is on the long long backlog for HL's small staffed community architecture team, but seems like an easy thing we could ask for help with.
New project proposals are formally tracked:
However, it's clearly not kept up to date well enough, and that's another example of history that has not been ported over to the new Wiki. Any volunteers to help clean that up? It's annoying enough to me in its current state and the air temperature is still too warm to fall asleep so I may get to it myself tonight. But if someone feels up for it, feel free to tag in.
Requiring a formal proposal template for all topics for TSC conversations, or those that would result in decisions, feels a bit process-heavy, as often small suggestions during a conversation become decisions made. But for the larger concepts, such as new graphical takes on the greenhouse, I've been encouraging people to make these suggestions in longer form ahead of time, giving TSC members a chance to read & consider before discussing on the calls. I'm also completely happy (as anyone who knows my antipathy for calls knows) to see issues opened, discussed, and decided completely outside of the calls. Getting people to at least use the mailing list and Wiki for these proposals rather than Google Docs would be an improvement; seeing a page in the TSC space of outstanding issues (much like the "backlog" queue maintained in the current agenda) would as well. But the calls are at least a place where the TSC can reach and formally record a consensus on an issue, even if that only takes 5 minutes to reflect the consensus arrived at over an email conversation. So the minutes to those meetings should still be the canonical source of what was decided, even if the why and rationales are a bit more spread out.
While using Git to manage RFCs makes sense for code-level decisions, using Git/Github for TSC proposals and discussions feels like it might exclude quite a few people. Needing to do a git clone to change text is a fair uplift from going to a wiki page and clicking edit - totally justified when you're all maintainers and already have git copies of your core projects' repos locally, but harder outside that context. In both systems you get visibility into who's changed what. In a wiki you get search for free (yes, one could grep locally...). In either scenario you need gardeners, which feels like the most precious resource we have.
On 6/11/19 3:22 PM, hmontgomery@... wrote:
-- Brian Behlendorf Executive Director, Hyperledger bbehlendorf@... Twitter: @brianbehlendorf