Repository navigation
Re-merge TSC and CTC #312
Description
@nodejs/ctc @nodejs/tsc - We have discussed this for quite some time now. There is little continued reason for the TSC and CTC to continue as separate entities. I propose that we merge the CTC and TSC back into a single body. Essentially, what this means is (a) dechartering the CTC and (b) adding all current members of the CTC to the TSC. No TSC Charter changes are required. Some documentation would need to be updated, and the existing nodejs/ctc repository would be archived.
Activity
cjihrig commentedon Aug 22, 2017
+1
jasnell commentedon Aug 22, 2017
Here's my +1
MylesBorins commentedon Aug 22, 2017
+1
Fishrock123 commentedon Aug 22, 2017
+1
mhdawson commentedon Aug 22, 2017
+1
indutny commentedon Aug 22, 2017
+1
jasnell commentedon Aug 22, 2017
@nodejs/ctc and @nodejs/tsc members, while leaving emoji responses is fine in general, for this issue please indicate your position explicitly in a comment. I will prepare the necessary pull requests to kick this process off tomorrow.
mscdex commentedon Aug 22, 2017
+1
ofrobots commentedon Aug 22, 2017
joyeecheung commentedon Aug 22, 2017
+1
ChALkeR commentedon Aug 22, 2017
+1. I think that I liked the earlier proposal at #263 more, though, but the change discussed here looks better than the current situation.
flickz commentedon Aug 22, 2017
+1
mcollina commentedon Aug 22, 2017
I'm +1.
shigeki commentedon Aug 22, 2017
+1
Trott commentedon Aug 22, 2017
I'm not opposed to this (yet), but I do think some additional things need to happen at the same time or else this is going to cause more problems than it will solve.
I'm going to greatly simplify things here (e.g., splitting problems into "technical" problems vs. "human" problems).
As it stands now, this will basically result in the TSC being CTC + Josh Gavant. That's more representative of the project as a whole (in my opinion anyway) than the current remaining 9 members of the TSC, but...
This is much larger than the current TSC. (It will be 23 people.) The CTC has been able to scale this big (again, in my opinion) in part because we've dealt with thorny technical problems mostly, and not thorny human problems or even thorny administrative problems. We discuss whether or not we should deprecate the
Bufferconstructor or whatever. Some people may feel strongly. Some may not have much of an opinion at all. Hopefully, we come to consensus. When we can't, we vote. After the vote, people on the committee are rarely resentful or bitter (as far as I know). If the vote doesn't go your way, you accept it and maybe plan to bring it up again in 6 months to see if things have changed. (Again, this is an oversimplification. Yes, we need to highly value the wider community in these decisions, have empathy for the impact our decisions have on users, etc.)That process fundamentally does not work with thorny human problems (interpersonal disputes, accusations of misconduct, etc.). People are understandably more invested in outcomes and far more likely to be resentful when things don't go the way they believe they should. These problems need more care and attention, or at least a different kind of care and attention.
A person who does well on a technical committee is not necessarily also skilled at community leadership and governance. (I'm not trying to excuse unacceptable behavior on the part of technical people. This is not "Oh, that person is a tech person, of course they don't know how to communicate." This is "Knowing a lot about Domain A does not automatically make you an expert in Domain B, even if Domain B has overlap with Domain A.")
Additionally, I think we've yet to see excellent results in using our technical governance as a model for non-technical governance. Acceptable results? Sometimes. Great results? I could be wrong, but I'm not seeing it. Maybe engineering-focused solutions aren't the answer here.
Here are some thoughts. (And if I talked with you about this stuff today/tonight and I'm basically using your idea, feel free to call me out on it. Everything is a blur right now and I'm just typing what I think is important and correct.)
I have lots more thoughts, but those are the big ones, at least right now. Thanks for reading.
jasnell commentedon Aug 22, 2017
@Trott ... already in progress. See 1, 2 and 3
fhemberger commentedon Aug 22, 2017
@jasnell Whatever you decide, please remember to open an issue/PR after the merge for the nodejs.org website.
Fishrock123 commentedon Aug 22, 2017
Re: @Trott
As (at least partially) previously discussed we should form two groups:
mcollina commentedon Aug 22, 2017
I'm definitely 👍 on both. I personally do not want to engage in moderation activities (as other CTC members) and having a separate moderation team will solve the problem.
jasnell commentedon Aug 22, 2017
Re: the admin team, please see #219
maxmckenzie commentedon Aug 25, 2017
+1
meta: merge the TSC and CTC back into a single entity
joshgav commentedon Aug 29, 2017
+1, the members of the CTC are best qualified to technically steer the Node.js project(s) and should be part of the top-level decision-making body, glad to see this happening. I'd like to remain a TSC member and I try to put Node's interests first but if my membership is controversial do what's necessary with me :). Feel free to contact me directly too. [Postscript: I'm on parental leave at the moment.]
jasnell commentedon Aug 29, 2017
This has landed. The CTC and TSC are now one.
@joshgav ... you're still on the TSC.