There are confusing, if not conflicting, pieces in several Governance group charters in regards to who is making decisions about "tools" (software on Drupal.org to support various functions), and what happens if the different WGs do not agree about priorities and plans.
a) Documentation WG charter:
Mission: ... recommend and guide development of tools and infrastructure that are needed for documentation ....
Scope: The DocWG is responsible for the ... tools, and processes that are required to create and maintain on-line documentation for the Drupal community. ... Tools: The DocWG may also develop guidelines and/or recommendations regarding the introduction of new tools, infrastructure, and technologies .... Where implementation of these recommendations is dependent on Drupal Association funding, Drupal.org integration, or significant investment from the infrastructure team, the DocWG will work with these groups to evaluate feasibility of any particular option or recommendation.
Process: ... The DocWG aims to be as transparent as possible by documenting its decisions publicly, and specifically seeking out feedback from key stakeholders ...
b) Technical WG charter:
Scope: The TWG may also develop guidelines and/or recommendations regarding the introduction of new tools and technologies for the benefit of the community. Where implementation of these recommendations is dependent on Drupal Association funding, Drupal.org integration, or significant investment from the infrastructure team, the TWG will work with these groups to evaluate feasibility of any particular option or recommendation.
Specific duties: Provide recommendations to the Drupal Association, Drupal.org working groups, and infrastructure teams regarding proposed tool changes that will help accelerate contribution or otherwise enable the community.
c) D.o Software WG charter:
Mission: ... provide the tools and processes for the community to make Drupal.org an extraordinary experience ... empower teams responsible for individual sub-sites and portions of Drupal.org to build and maintain this vision, and to provide them best practices, guidance, and coordination to help expedite decision-making.
Scope: ... The DSWG is responsible for the overall strategy, planning, architecture, development, and maintenance of the software ... used by the Drupal.org websites. ... DSWG appoints and empowers different teams, each responsible for a particular aspect of the Drupal.org websites ... Each team has the authority to make decisions within their scope ...
Specific duties: ... Ideation: Working with the different Drupal.org target audiences ... to understand their needs and coordinate with the different teams on implementation. ... Planning: Collaborate with the Drupal community, the Drupal Association Board of Directors, and individual teams on maintaining an up-to-date plan for the Drupal.org websites ...
Processes - Collaboration: The DSWG must establish a process that balances timely decision-making with involvement of a broad spectrum of the Drupal community. The DSWG should also work closely with all other working groups, ...
Make modifications to these three charters to clarify who is making recommendations, who is making final decisions, and what happens if there is a disagreement.
Decide on the modifications. Amend charters.
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #2 | 2266431-suggested-clarification.patch | 12.46 KB | jhodgdon |
Comments
Comment #1
jhodgdonIn the issue summary, I just wanted to point out what was in the charters and open up the discussion. In this comment, I want to add some more thoughts...
What I'm most concerned about, as a member of the Docs WG, is that we're coming up with a strategy for better managing/maintaining documentation, and it will involve some tools changes. If the Software WG does not agree on our tool changes, then our strategy will not work out, and if the Software WG decides to make other changes to drupal.org, they could have impact on documentation maintenance. I don't see how the Docs WG can make a strategy if we don't have any decision-making authority about the tools... and yet I also don't see how the Docs WG can make final decisions on software -- the Software WG has to consider things like budget, feasibility, and infrastructure constraints.
So... Basically I think the charters are trying to say is "Docs and Technical WGs recommend tools to Software WG, but Software has final say over what gets done." I do not think they are all that clear in saying this -- the Docs and Technical charters do not even mention the Software WG. That should be clarified, and I would also like it if the Software WG charter made stronger mention of getting input and buy-in from the Docs/Technical WG rather than "community" so much.
And I also don't know how the Docs WG can decide on policies and procedures if it cannot make decisions on tools that would be needed... so I am kind of questioning the viability of the DocsWG charter and mission.
My other concern is over gathering community input. Each WG has authority to define procedures for contacting them and "ideation", if you want to call it that. So which procedures are used to gather community ideas and input, when they're ideas about documentation or development tools? Do we use the Software WG tools and procedures, or the procedures of the Docs or Technical WGs? This also needs to be clarified.
Comment #2
jhodgdonHere is a suggested update to the charters for Documentation, Technical, and D.o Software WGs in the form of a patch. I do not think that it changes the substance of what we probably mean by any of the charters, but I think it clarifies who has what role/responsibility. Thoughts?
Comment #3
tvn commentedLooks good to me overall. Except for this small part:
I think this should stay "Governance Working Group". Community WG is about community health / conflicts, etc. It does not create new Working Groups, for example, or do other governance decisions.
Comment #4
jhodgdonWhere/what is this "Governance Working Group"? I do not see any charter for it or anything under drupal.org/governance about this working group.
Comment #5
tvn commentedIt never was "officially" chartered, but it's Dries + Angie + whoever works on the charters for the new Working Groups and appoints them.
Comment #6
jhodgdonOh. Well if it exists, there should at least be a mention of it on drupal.org/governance? I don't think a Charter should refer to a group that doesn't exist and isn't even documented anywhere?
Comment #7
webchickI actually think "Dries Buytaert" is the right name to put there, since he's who all community working groups ultimately derive. I only just help him out with boring monkey work; we're not a real "working group," per se. :)
The patch unfortunately no longer applies. I also think we should probably postpone this on the changes being discussed at #2386847: Revamp Drupal.org WG charters . Once we're more clear on where the DSWG/DCWG/etc. sit now that the DA has a non-trivial amount of staff who work on D.o every day, it should be easier to adjust these charters about who ultimately owns the decision-making process.