Comments (18)
I also think that being a member shouldn't really make much of a difference.
Not a major objection here- BUT at the same time- we should recognize that membership to ANY committee/working group/team:
- Gives a feeling of ownership & belonging
- Motivates people to get and STAY involved
- Is a way of showing recognition and appreciation for volunteers time
- ... even bragging rights. (resume material)
While we can certainly see the dark side of that last one, it's why the participation rules were so important... and well, if the Community is actually benefitting- then it's net positive.
from community-committee.
My 2 cents is that we should look to enable anybody who is active and regularly contributing to become a member. I think the problem of having "too many" active contributors seems like a good place to be :).
If numbers become a problem then maybe the model in core where there are different kinds of members could be used (collaborators, CTC, and TSC members). My guess though is that it would not be a problem in the foreseeable future.
Agreeing with @williamkapke, key to making this approach work are the participation rules.
from community-committee.
I'd happily be a guinea pig for this process 😁 (does that count as self-nomination?)
Not necessarily sure if a private forum would be an easy thing to implement and work into a simple GitHub workflow. I think two things that may be nice:
- Encouraging current members to actively Invite/onboard new members. I know as a part of the Website/Evangelism onboarding I was never quite sure about the definitions of merit.
- I think a good way to ensure there's a level of quality (new members will contribute and are engaged) and maintainability (not having a limbo of process around membership) is, as you mentioned, an observation period. This way they can be off-boarded if they lose interest after
a few days or weeks (which happened a lot in the Evangelism WG).
from community-committee.
@nebrius I think the history subject is important - don't require history, but have an on-boarding process that enables context, understanding, and history to be gained via experience and tangible interaction.
Tangible code contributions is what Open-Open Source hints at, but the concept in the intro paragraph is super solid. We did apply this to the Evangelism WG. Purely discussion, action, and engagement based, and there were always people that were interested and engaged - even in times of otherwise seeming inactivity (@JungMinu, @vdeturckheim).
I don't see a huge barrier with having an on boarding process if it's friendly, welcoming, and open - by no means should it scare people off, but simply inviting to engage and join would be key. Nominate those who current members think have merited membership, and have a process for those interested in membership to become engaged and participate in the project.
from community-committee.
Yep, totally agree w.r.t. onboarding and making that context easy to understand.
It should be easy to become a member, but I also think that being a member shouldn't really make much of a difference. Ideally we won't need to vote on much, and ideally voting would be the only real privilege to being a member. My ideal vision for this group, and other Node.js groups, is that becoming a member simply means you're willing to tackle a bit of paperwork but are otherwise just like observers :)
from community-committee.
adding to what we discussed in today's meeting (and we forgot to talk about) - should we define an independent process while we're still in our early stages? should it be easier to become a member during the times where we're actively looking for them to build our initial lineup?
from community-committee.
I'd really like to find a good solution to this. Some thoughts/reflections on how we handled this in the old inclusivity WG.
In the Inclusivity WG, we realized we couldn't follow the open open source policies that a lot of the Node project uses because we didn't have code. We ended up creating a self-nomination process and membership policy, which has since been deleted.
There were some good things about this approach we may want to borrow from, but we did see one issue: people would usually apply to become a member without any prior history in the Node.js project (including within the Inclusivity WG). My suspicion is that people thought they had to become members before they could participate, although I don't have any evidence to back this up. Either way, we'll probably have to deal with this again if we go with a self-nomination process.
from community-committee.
adding to what we discussed in today's meeting (and we forgot to talk about) - should we define an independent process while we're still in our early stages? should it be easier to become a member during the times where we're actively looking for them to build our initial lineup?
I lean towards no, myself. We already have a lot of members, and the charter specifies (and I agree with), that the target size is 6-12 people. We might even be bigger than the TSC, even though the TSC oversees a lot more.
That said, I think the real thing we should be asking ourselves is why are we trying to add a lot of members, specifically? Does this indicate a flaw in our process where people can't contribute if they're not a member? Are we giving off the perception that you can't contribute if you're not a member?
Members really shouldn't be anything special, the only thing members should be able to do that observers can't is vote, and we shouldn't be voting much at all to begin with. If people need to become members to contribute, then I think that indicates a flaw in how we've structured things and we should be addressing that problem instead.
from community-committee.
Re-reading my comment, I realize I maybe didn't make this explicit. The answer to the two questions I asked are probably "yes," and I'd love for people who are watching this repo and aren't members to weigh in on this with the barriers to entry you've noticed with CommComm. I think I can safely speak for everyone when I say we want to fix this and make things better! What do you think?
from community-committee.
@nebrius i get what you mean and i agree with it wholeheartedly - anyone should be able to contribute to commcomm without having to go through a long process. in that case, i believe that fact should be more clearly outlined in the readme or anywhere else where it could become a question. like, there should be a general explanation that you don't need to be a member to contribute in the README.md
's Governance and current Members section, because the GOVERNANCE.md
file can be quite hard to skim through. something like:
## Governance and current Members
The Community Committee is an autonomous committee that collaborates alongside the TSC
and whose governance is strongly influenced by the TSC's example. Members of this committee
are not granted any special status other than being able to vote on issues concerning this group.
Contributions can come from any person without having to be a member.
See GOVERNANCE.md to learn more about the group's evolving structure and
CONTRIBUTING.md for guidance about the expectations for all contributors to this project.
also, there should be more information about how to contribute other than just
Please contribute! The best way to do that right now is watching this repo, participating in the
issues, and asking questions in TSC meetings as they help to advise the formation of this
autonomous committee.
ideally, i'd love for there to be an exhaustive list of things you could do and the ways in which you can do them. not everyone knows how to join a tsc meeting
from community-committee.
also, there should be more information about how to contribute other than just
Agreed. Sounds like a good PR for someone to make hint hint. ;-)
ideally, i'd love for there to be an exhaustive list of things you could do and the ways in which you can do them. not everyone knows how to join a tsc meeting
🤔
I'm wary of creating an exhaustive list, they tend to end up being prescriptive and can imply "if you want to do something that's not one of these, tough luck," which is absolutely not what we want. (also, I don't think anyone knows what that list is)
That said, leaving little to no direction and can also discourage people from contributing due to indecision paralysis.
¯_(ツ)_/¯
from community-committee.
I'm wary of creating an exhaustive list, they tend to end up being prescriptive and can imply "if you want to do something that's not one of these, tough luck,"
oh yeah, now that you mention it, i agree. maybe settle for something inbetween the two extremes?
from community-committee.
oh yeah, now that you mention it, i agree. maybe settle for something inbetween the two extremes?
Something yeah. I don't really know what that is yet though (I doubt anyone does, we're new after all!). I'm all for iterative improvement. Make tweaks, see how they work out, make more tweaks.
from community-committee.
@williamkapke Totally agree with you
from community-committee.
🤔 good points
from community-committee.
@nebrius @bnb was this ever PRed in any way to our documentation?
from community-committee.
@nebrius @bnb was this ever PRed in any way to our documentation?
AFAIK we have not
from community-committee.
I believe we did merge this in #101 - going to close for now. Please feel free to re-open or create a new issue if we need to discuss further ❤️
from community-committee.
Related Issues (20)
- Node.js Community Committee Meeting 2021-05-13 HOT 3
- hummus-recipe of Node JS is secure or not? & Trusted or not?
- Node.js Community Committee Meeting 2021-05-27 HOT 5
- Send me an invitation to join your organisation as the member of it !
- Does Argv array have a limit in the number of characters it can parse?
- Error
- Node.js Community Committee Meeting 2021-06-10 HOT 2
- Node.js Community Committee Meeting 2021-06-24 HOT 2
- My test
- test
- Node.js Community Committee Meeting 2021-07-08
- Node.js Community Committee Meeting 2021-07-22 HOT 1
- Node.js Community Committee Meeting 2021-08-05 HOT 2
- CommComm Chairperson Election for 2021-2022 HOT 3
- Node.js Community Committee Meeting 2021-08-19 HOT 2
- Mentorship Initiative reaching out to Node.js community HOT 5
- Please invite me to the GitHub Community Organization HOT 1
- Node.js Community Committee Meeting 2021-09-02 HOT 5
- Node.js Community Committee Meeting 2021-09-16 HOT 2
- Please add me as an observer on the community-committee's meetings. HOT 1
Recommend Projects
-
React
A declarative, efficient, and flexible JavaScript library for building user interfaces.
-
Vue.js
🖖 Vue.js is a progressive, incrementally-adoptable JavaScript framework for building UI on the web.
-
Typescript
TypeScript is a superset of JavaScript that compiles to clean JavaScript output.
-
TensorFlow
An Open Source Machine Learning Framework for Everyone
-
Django
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
-
Laravel
A PHP framework for web artisans
-
D3
Bring data to life with SVG, Canvas and HTML. 📊📈🎉
-
Recommend Topics
-
javascript
JavaScript (JS) is a lightweight interpreted programming language with first-class functions.
-
web
Some thing interesting about web. New door for the world.
-
server
A server is a program made to process requests and deliver data to clients.
-
Machine learning
Machine learning is a way of modeling and interpreting data that allows a piece of software to respond intelligently.
-
Visualization
Some thing interesting about visualization, use data art
-
Game
Some thing interesting about game, make everyone happy.
Recommend Org
-
Facebook
We are working to build community through open source technology. NB: members must have two-factor auth.
-
Microsoft
Open source projects and samples from Microsoft.
-
Google
Google ❤️ Open Source for everyone.
-
Alibaba
Alibaba Open Source for everyone
-
D3
Data-Driven Documents codes.
-
Tencent
China tencent open source team.
from community-committee.