Initial draft of roles and responsibilities. by juliepagano · Pull Request #101 · nodejs/inclusivity

juliepagano · 2016-01-31T01:25:22Z

This is a very rough initial draft of roles and responsibilities based on discussions in #65. I have a bunch of open questions that I've thrown in here in bold and need feedback on in addition to general feedback on what's here.

beaugunderson · 2016-01-31T03:33:04Z

re: the time commitment of 10 hours a month; there will be two meetings which have usually been about an hour including setup/post-meeting conversation, leaving 8 additional hours of commitment, or roughly 15 minutes a day--my feeling then is that we shouldn't expect less than 10 hours of commitment form members

beaugunderson · 2016-01-31T03:34:56Z

re: responsibilities around the CoC, it's probably important to list enforcement of the CoC as one of those responsibilities

juliepagano · 2016-02-04T19:49:55Z

+- Have **INSERT PERMISSION/ORG LEVEL INFORMATION HERE** access on github.
+- Has priority for participation in working group meetings (because there are limited slots available in google hangouts).
+
+### Collaborator


It sounds like we may want a different label for this role as the term "collaborator" has some different meanings outside the WG and could lead to confusion.

Thinking "contributor" might be a better term here. I'll check it to reflect that unless I hear any objections.

What does collaborator mean elsewhere? Contributor sounds good to me :)

nebrius · 2016-02-04T20:13:00Z

+Contributors are people who contribute to the inclusivity working group, but do not have specific responsibilities and commitments.
+
+#### Becoming a contributor
+**QUESTION FOR PR: Do we have a policy for becoming a contributor? Should we? How does this work?**


I think this depends on how we define "contributor." The other working groups don't identify a "contributor" role, they just have "members" and "everyone else." Will this role be something that's in between "member" and "everyone else"?

It seems like it's the "everyone else working in good faith" role (i.e. everyone else minus trolls).

nebrius · 2016-02-04T20:22:56Z

So a broad question about contributor: Do we want to introduce a third role with them (on top of members and non-members/"everyone else"), or is contributor the term we use for "everyone else"? If it's the former, do we want to construct the role as "we vet candidates first via an application process"? Or do we want to do a "everyone who asks gets it, and we can ban later if they violate the CoC"? If it's the later, this can be automated.

varjmes · 2016-02-04T21:05:29Z

+
+**Question for PR: Do we want to have requirements around attending meetings? If so, I'd like them to be a little loose to account for difficulties with time zones and accessibility, so we aren't losing diversity in our membership.**
+
+**Question for PR: Do we want to have anything about the member-only slack channel here, since we sometimes use it for discussions?**


I see no harm in mentioning the members-only (private) part of the Slack channel, so someone can know their full responsibilities when they apply to join :)

varjmes · 2016-02-04T21:07:06Z

This is really great and clear to understand ✨

carlosrymer · 2016-02-17T01:09:04Z

+
+**Question for PR: Do we want to add something here about responsibilities around the code of conduct? I feel like members may be held to a higher standard.**
+
+If a member will be unavailable to meet these responsibilities, they are expected to notify the group in a timely manner, so resources can be planned accordingly. A member who cannot maintain these responsibilities for a significant amount of time will be asked to transition to a contributor role.


@beaugunderson brought up a good point about potentially having an SLA around responsibilities for members. It's pretty vague right now how "a significant amount of time" will be determined.

While I think it's perfectly fine to start off enforcing responsibilities based on WG members' personal considerations, it might be more fair to have something like an SLA to point at when WG members raise concerns or suggest transitioning to a contributor role.

This might be unnecessary at the moment, but as new members become part of the WG over time, it might be useful to ensure that folks are held accountable to some level of participation and contribution.

So I've been thinking about this a lot recently. I think there are two basic approaches we can take.

we strive for a low number of members and high level of participation, which is more or less what we have now. This would necessitate an SLA or something like it, and would effectively need an arbitration/moderation process to manage members not meeting expectations. This approach has the advantage of keeping it obvious who the "go to" people are, and should also make the decision making process easier. This approach has the disadvantage of being more work to implement and sustain, especially if an arbitration process gets messy, and puts the group at greater risk of burnout.

we strive for a higher number of members with lower participation. Maybe in the neighborhood of 20 members, say. This method has the advantage of simpler administration (no SLA) and greater robustness to burnout. This has the disadvantage of making it harder to make decisions, and may place a greater burden on the most active members in terms of management (not sure about this)

I used to be strongly in favor of 1), but these days I'm starting to think 2) may have its benefits.

I can see how 2) can be beneficial. Even if there are some members that consistently are more active than others, it's still a win-win having more members being able to contribute, even if it's not as much as the current level of contribution of existing WG members.

At the same time, I do think that the side effect -- greater difficulty in make decisions -- can be pretty huge and potentially divisive if there are a lot of members. It would be ideal of voting could be flexible such that the most active members carry more weight, but then that's not going to be quite easy to figure out in a fair way.

It would be great to strive for 2) while minimizing its side effects. Might be something worth researching to see if there are case studies of groups that allow for greater membership while remaining effective in its decision-making process.

- Renamed contributors to non-members. - Added details about github permissions for members and non-members. - Added reminders about the code of conduct for members and non-members.

juliepagano · 2016-02-27T23:47:33Z

Sorry it's been taking me so long to make updates to this. I've been swamped at work. I've made a few updates. Could folks take a look some time this week, so we can hopefully land this soon?

juliepagano · 2016-02-29T18:53:06Z

@Charlotteis Good catch! Added that for both members and non-members.

juliepagano · 2016-02-29T18:57:20Z

@carlosrymer Good question. I think that's potentially out of scope for this document, but something the WG needs to figure out, so that we have a good process ahead of time instead of trying to come up with something ad hoc if something bad happens.

At a minimum, it probably includes removing someone from slack and not allowing them to attend as a participant in WG meetings.

nebrius · 2016-03-01T17:34:23Z

Maybe we can add a blurb such as

Members are expected to follow the our [Code of Conduct](link). Members
who violate the Code of Conduct may face temporary or permanent suspension
of their membership.

carlosrymer · 2016-03-01T18:09:24Z

@juliepagano I agree. It does sound more like something that doesn't need to be specified in this document, but can instead be agreed upon by the WG. Right now the document already implies that non-member permissions (with the exception of Github permissions since that can't really be controlled) would be lost.

nebrius · 2016-03-11T01:12:12Z

+See the [admissions policy](https://github.com/nodejs/inclusivity/blob/master/docs/POLICY_ADMISSIONS.md) for details about the process for becoming a member.
+
+#### Responsibilities
+Members are expected to commit at least 10 hours a month (**Question for PR: is this time commitment too much/little?**) towards the working group's responsibilities. Members are expected to contribute in some way every two weeks because the group delivers on a biweekly basis.


Reflecting back to the meeting last week, what do you think about dropping the first sentence, at least for now?

juliepagano · 2016-03-11T05:34:17Z

Is there any chance another member has time to put the final touches on this and respond to some of the comments? I've been overloaded at work this week and will be out at an offsite next week, and I'm worried about leaving it untouched for that long.

nebrius · 2016-03-12T00:25:23Z

@hg, do you think you can help out @juliepagano with this PR? If not, I can help.

ghost · 2016-03-12T10:27:50Z

@nebrius aye

Initial draft of roles and responsibilities.

a3d7fa5

juliepagano reviewed Feb 4, 2016
View reviewed changes

juliepagano added 2 commits February 4, 2016 12:08

s/collaborator/contributor

f19578d

Add code of conduct enforcement to list of member responsibilities.

7a10e2d

nebrius reviewed Feb 4, 2016
View reviewed changes

varjmes reviewed Feb 4, 2016
View reviewed changes

nebrius mentioned this pull request Feb 11, 2016

Inclusivity WG Meeting - 2016-03-03 10:30 PST #103

Closed

carlosrymer reviewed Feb 17, 2016
View reviewed changes

Updates based on discussions.

f30271b

- Renamed contributors to non-members. - Added details about github permissions for members and non-members. - Added reminders about the code of conduct for members and non-members.

Add create issues to github permissions.

4fb7926

nebrius reviewed Mar 11, 2016
View reviewed changes


		Question for PR: Do we want to have requirements around attending meetings? If so, I'd like them to be a little loose to account for difficulties with time zones and accessibility, so we aren't losing diversity in our membership.

		Question for PR: Do we want to have anything about the member-only slack channel here, since we sometimes use it for discussions?


		Question for PR: Do we want to add something here about responsibilities around the code of conduct? I feel like members may be held to a higher standard.

		If a member will be unavailable to meet these responsibilities, they are expected to notify the group in a timely manner, so resources can be planned accordingly. A member who cannot maintain these responsibilities for a significant amount of time will be asked to transition to a contributor role.

Conversation

juliepagano commented Jan 31, 2016

Uh oh!

beaugunderson commented Jan 31, 2016

Uh oh!

beaugunderson commented Jan 31, 2016

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nebrius commented Feb 4, 2016

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

varjmes commented Feb 4, 2016

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

juliepagano commented Feb 27, 2016

Uh oh!

juliepagano commented Feb 29, 2016

Uh oh!

juliepagano commented Feb 29, 2016

Uh oh!

nebrius commented Mar 1, 2016

Uh oh!

carlosrymer commented Mar 1, 2016

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

juliepagano commented Mar 11, 2016

Uh oh!

nebrius commented Mar 12, 2016

Uh oh!

ghost commented Mar 12, 2016

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Uh oh!

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

7 participants