To clarify, the TSC for ODK 1.x and ODK 2.x are currently planned to be separate. There will be two separate committees with likely different members focused on different roadmaps.
2 Likes
OK. That's what I had thought was happening - it was more that the language in the document wasn't clear on that point.
"TSC members are expected to regularly participate in TSC activities. Members who have not consistently taken meaningful actions as TSC members in the past 6 months". - I think 2-3 months is a more reasonable time.
"No more than 1/2 of the TSC members may be affiliated with the same organization." - This should depend on size of the TSC (e.g. if 12 I think 6 from the same organization would be too much)
"best candidates for TSC members will be Committers". - do you think one representative of the "community" would be not possible?
2 Likes
I read the document. It generally looks fine. I don't have any comments in this area.
Quick question:
I realize there is yet to be some additional documentation about successor group to today's PMC, and what is roles & responsibilities are. However, does that new org have oversight over the TSC described above? Specifically:
- Can the TSC decide new Big Things like "let's make a new ODK product to do X"?
- Does the TSC itself make changes to this "charter" document or is that responsibility of the "PMC v2"?
Thanks for helping me untangle my easily-confused brain. 
Reduce the period of inactivity
I agree that we should reduce this period. 3 months would be reasonable.
Reduce the maximum from one organization
I agree that 1/2 from one organization is high. I think 1/3 would be reasonable
Can community members be on the TSC?
There are no specific requirements for TSC, but I do think it's important to say that the best candidates are likely to be committers and not just community members.
A Committer doesn't have to be a technical person. It's someone who is trusted with direct access to the project's resources. So for example, for me, a moderator on the forum is a Committer because the community trusts then with the project's resources.
As far as getting community feedback, my expectation is that the TSC would form Working Groups as necessary to gather community feedback. This is why I think being Committers are good candidates for the TSC. That is, they've already established the trust that they are looking out for the good of the community.
It sounds like the need to gather community feedback isn't very clear in the document, so I think we should add language that the TSC should form appropriate working groups to gather community feedback.
3 Likes
Trying to answer the questions as far as I understand the intent. Relevant text from the document copied and pasted in quotes below.
Bolded Question:
"Note: As ODK transitions out of the University of Washington, the current PMC’s authority will be transferred to a Transition Board. Once the transition is finished, the authority will transfer to a more permanent governance body (likely another PMC). The TSC will remain active throughout the transition process and post-transition."
The intention was that the PMC role/authority will migrate to the proposed Transition Board (TB) and whatever the final form is post-TB there will be a new PMC v2 that will replace the TB.
Q1:
"The TSC has authority over all technical aspects of the project" ... "TSC controls the roadmap." so in my opinion yes the TSC could launch a new tool that becomes part of the ODK 1 Tool Suite. We can/should clarify this in the text.
Q2:
"Although the TSC may update the TSC governance (e.g. this document) as it finds appropriate, revisions are subject to PMC review and veto, as ultimate authority over the project rests with the PMC. It is expected that the TSC will have a collaborative relationship (perhaps some overlap in membership) with the PMC."
I want to reiterate that the PMC would love community feedback and we are open to changes/suggestions. Community members should feel free to make suggestions for improvement.
1 Like
The PMC has iterated on the community feedback and posted new language for the ODK 1 TSC governance below for community feedback. You can see a diff of the changes here: http://dpaste.com/0Q9A3ZA. The big changes are:
- Clarified in the overview that there are going to be two TSCs.
- Clarified that PMC majority can overrule changes in TSC governance.
- Reduced the scope of each TSC to technical leadership and road map of project suite (code of conduct, IP, etc is up to PMC).
- Added language for each TSC to aim for consistency in process, but administrative separation. Where there isn't consensus, the PMC decides.
- Pushed committer process to TSC. Note that Committer doesn't have to be a technical committer. It's anyone who is trusted with direct access to project resources.
- Reduced inactivity to 3 months
- Reduced minimum affiliation to 1/3
- Added language about lazy consensus
The PMC is ready to move forward with this governance, so let's have one more week of discussion. Just hit reply and leave your feedback!
If there is no opposition to the language below, the PMC will adopt this governance on Nov 7th.
Governance Overview
The Open Data Kit (ODK) project is governed by multiple governing committees. There are two categories of governing bodies, the Project Management Committee (PMC) and the Technical Steering Committees (TSC). The PMC is the ultimate authority over the project. The TSC is the authority over the technical direction of the project’s tool suite.
Note: As ODK transitions out of the University of Washington, the current PMC’s authority will be transferred to a Transition Board. Once the transition is finished, the authority will transfer to a more permanent governance body (likely another PMC). The TSC will remain active throughout the transition process and post-transition.
Technical Steering Committee
The Technical Steering Committee (TSC) is responsible for high-level technical direction of their tool suite. The TSC has authority over all technical aspects including:
- Suite roadmap (feature addition/removal, tool addition/removal,incorporating community feedback,etc.).
- Forming appropriate Working Groups (e.g., User Feedback, Documentation, Translation) to gather the necessary community feedback before making decisions.
- Technical resources (e.g., code repositories, servers)
- Maintaining the list of Committers
Wherever possible, the TSCs should choose shared policies and infrastructure which allow for consistent process, but administrative separation across tool suites. In the case where the TSCs cannot reach consensus on policies and infrastructure, the final decision will be made by a majority vote by the PMC.
Although the TSC may update the TSC governance (e.g. this document) as it finds appropriate, revisions are subject to PMC review and veto, as ultimate authority over governing the ODK project rests with the PMC. Any update to the TSC governing document must be approved by the majority of the PMC. It is expected that the TSC will have a collaborative relationship (perhaps some overlap in membership) with the PMC.
For the current list of TSC members, see the project DOCUMENT TO BE CREATED.
Committers
Committers are community members who have shown that they are committed to the continued development of the project through ongoing engagement with the community. Commit/write access allows contributors to more easily carry on with their project related activities by giving them direct access to the project’s resources.
The project’s technical resources are managed by the TSC. Individuals making significant and valuable contributions are made Committers and given commit or write access to those resources. These individuals are identified by the TSC and their addition as Committers is discussed during the regular TSC meeting. The process for identifying and granting Committer access is determined by the TSC.
Note: If you make a significant contribution and are not considered for commit/write access on the appropriate resource, file an issue, post on the forum, or contact a TSC member directly and it will be brought up in the next TSC meeting.
Modifications of project resources are made on a collaborative basis. Anybody may file an issue or propose a modification and it will be considered by project Committers. All changes must be reviewed and accepted by a Committer with sufficient expertise who is able to take full responsibility for the change.
In the case of changes proposed by an existing Committer, an additional Committer is required for review. Consensus should be sought if additional Committers participate and there is disagreement around a particular modification.
Committers may opt to elevate significant or controversial modifications or modifications that have not found consensus to the TSC for discussion by assigning the tsc-agenda tag to a pull request or issue or forum post. The TSC should serve as the final arbiter where required.
For the current list of Committers, see the project INSERT LINK.
A guide for Committers is maintained in INSERT LINK.
TSC Membership
TSC will be elected via a public application process. The application requirements will focus on relevant experience, contributions to the project ecosystem, and availability to guide technical parts of the project.
The initial TSC membership and term lengths will be determined by the PMC; after that TSC members are elected/re-elected by the TSC itself.
Members will be elected by a 2/3rds (rounded up) majority of the current TSC and serve for a term of 2 years, unless they resign or are removed. Initial membership term lengths may vary in order to provide staggered elections.
The TSC must have at least three members, but there is no fixed size. The expected target is between 6 and 12, from a minimum of 3 separate organizations, to ensure long-term sustainability, adequate coverage of important areas of expertise, and ability to make decisions efficiently.
There is no specific set of requirements or qualifications for TSC membership beyond these rules. That said, the likely best candidates for TSC members will be Committers.
The TSC may add additional members to the TSC by a standard TSC motion. A TSC member may be removed from the TSC by voluntary resignation, or by a 2/3rds majority (rounded up).
TSC members are expected to regularly participate in TSC activities. Members who have not consistently taken meaningful actions as TSC members in the past 3 months or have not complied with the project’s code of conduct will be considered for removal. Examples of meaningful actions are participating regularly in calls, reviewing code, committing code, providing technical mentorship, leading working groups, etc.
No more than 1/3 of the TSC members may be affiliated with the same organization. If removal or resignation of a TSC member, or a change of employment by a TSC member, creates a situation where more than 1/2 of the TSC membership belong to the same organization, the situation must be immediately remedied by the resignation or removal of one or more TSC members affiliated with the over-represented organization(s).
Changes to TSC membership should be posted in the agenda, and may be suggested as any other agenda item.
TSC Meetings
The TSC will meet regularly (generally every two weeks). The meeting will be run by a moderator chosen by the TSC and each meeting will be conducted and published to a publicly accessible platform (e.g., YouTube). Meeting frequency, times, agenda, and notes will also be published to a publicly accessible platform (e.g., the forum, Google Docs).
The TSC will default to working in public, but sensitive topics (e.g., pre-disclosure security problems, confidential pre-agreement discussions with third parties, personal conflicts among personnel) should only be discussed on private channels.
Items typically discussed by the TSC include project roadmap, feature addition/removal, etc. Items are added to the TSC agenda which are considered contentious or are modifications of governance, contribution policy, TSC membership, or release process. Working Groups that the TSC forms may also add items to the TSC agenda.
The intention of the agenda is not to approve or review modifications to project resources. That should happen continuously on the relevant resources and are handled by the larger group of Committers.
Any community member or contributor can ask that something be added to the next meeting's agenda by filing an issue or writing a forum post. Any Committer, TSC member, or the moderator can add the item to the agenda by adding the tsc-agenda tag to the issue or post.
Prior to each TSC meeting, the moderator will share the agenda with members of the TSC. TSC members can add any items they like to the agenda at the beginning of each meeting. The moderator and the TSC cannot veto or remove items.
The TSC may invite non-members to participate in a non-voting capacity. These invitees will be listed on the agenda.
The moderator is responsible for summarizing the discussion of each agenda item and publishing it on a publicly accessible platform (e.g., the forum). If appropriate, the moderator will also update the relevant issue, pull request or forum post.
Decision Making
For internal project decisions, Committers shall operate under Lazy Consensus. The TSC shall establish appropriate guidelines for implementing Lazy Consensus (e.g. expected notification and review time periods).
The TSC follows a Consensus Seeking decision-making model. When an agenda item has appeared to reach a consensus, the moderator will ask "Does anyone object?" as a final call for dissent from the consensus.
If an agenda item cannot reach a consensus, a TSC member can call for either a closing vote or a vote to table the issue to the next meeting. The call for a vote must be approved by a majority of the TSC or else the discussion will continue. If all members of the TSC are not present during the meeting for contentious issues, the final vote should happen asynchronously (e.g., via email). Simple majority wins.
2 Likes
- Should the above be clarified that ~50% will have 1 year terms and ~50% will have 2 year terms? (If that's the intention?)
- Who makes the call on this? How is it reviewed and carried out (or dropped)?
- Should there be a mechanism for "new blood" on the TSC?
1 Like
Good questions, @danbjoseph.
-
The intention is that the PMC will select the first TSC from the list of public applications. I agree that the language around initial term lengths is unclear. I propose we make it 1 year for the initial TSC and 2 years after that.
-
The intention is that the TSC will self-regulate on members who are not taking action. But note that any community member can also add a TSC member's inactivity as an agenda item for the TSC to vote on. I propose we remove the language about code of conduct since that is really under the control of the PMC.
-
The mechanism for "new blood" is the TSC selecting a new person, preferably from the Committer pool. Is there another mechanism that you have in mind?
- Initial 1 year terms for the full TSC doesn't address the staggering of elections?
- Rather than remove the language, just specific that the PMC can remove a TSC member based on CoC violations?
- I'm just worried about a small group of individuals on the TSC keeping the group limited to themselves and their friends, even if there are other committers that should maybe be involved?
2 Likes
- An oversight on my part. I propose we remove the language about staggering of elections.
- Our existing Code of Conduct already says maintainers face repercussions if they violate the CoC. My preference is to leave that language in the CoC and let the PMC figure out what those repercussions are.
- That'd be bad, but it's not a risk I'm very worried about. We require TSC members be from different organizations and have to do actual work or they are booted. I considered term limits, but then you are potentially kicking useful leaders out of the leadership. I also considered voting, but it's really hard to get a representative sample of the active community. What other mitigation strategies would you propose?
- Sounds good.
- Also sounds good.
- I agree that term limits would be bad, especially since the pool of people qualified and interested could be quite small. Admittedly, I don't have any good suggestions (for what is admittedly probably a small risk).
2 Likes
Am I correct that the PMC could re-charter the TSC should the community press the need to have more "democratic" TSC membership?
1 Like
Yes, the PMC can change the governance charter. I expect that the community will eventually move to a more democratic model as more people get engaged with the project.
1 Like
I'm pleased to announce that, after integrating the latest round of feedback, the PMC has unanimously approved the TSC governance. Thank you so much for the thoughtful feedback and discussion!
You can find the official copy of the governance here: https://github.com/opendatakit/governance/blob/master/TECHNICAL-STEERING-COMMITTEE.md.
And as far as next steps, per our Transition status post, the next step is to solicit applications for people to serve on the TSC. We'll be posting about the process shortly, so stay tuned for that!
1 Like
Request my friend to consider a representation from each country, so that the community / ODK can be expanded in a much paced manner
This is a very interesting idea, Anup! I think it'd be great to get as broad of representation as possible, but I don't know if the TSC is the best venue for that many people to provide their input.
Have you seen the India users 🇮🇳 topic in the Local category? Perhaps that can be a place where country-specific problems can be discussed and then brought to the broader community.
1 Like
Thanks, Yaw.
Regards,
Senthil