Skip to content

doc: improve transparency and inclusivity of TSC meetings#58837

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
joyeecheung wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

doc: improve transparency and inclusivity of TSC meetings #58837

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
159afbf
doc: improve transparency and inclusivity of TSC meetings
joyeecheung Jun 25, 2025
d5ccfd6
Apply suggestions from code review
joyeecheung Jul 1, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
16 changes: 16 additions & 0 deletions GOVERNANCE.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -125,6 +125,22 @@ the issue tracker is:
member approvals and no TSC voting member opposition.
* If there is an extended impasse, a TSC member may make a motion for a vote.

While TSC meeting may be used to improve the efficiency of the discussion,

@jasnelljasnellJul 1, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
While TSC meeting may be used to improve the efficiency of the discussion,
While TSC meetings may be used to improve the efficiency of the discussion,

decision making must be taken back to asynchronous communication to ensure
that all members can participate and that the context of the decision is
documented for posterity.

@mcollinamcollinaJul 1, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not in agreement with this change. If there is quorum, we should be able to deliberate synchronously.

@jasnelljasnellJul 1, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agreed. That's why we have quorum rules in the first place. I would say that decisions can be made during meetings, the outcome of those decisions should always be documented and we should allow for a 48 hour grace period to give absent TSC members an opportunity to weigh in before the decision becomes binding.

@aduh95aduh95Jul 1, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree that, if there's quorum and the decision is unanimous (among folks present at the meeting), going async provides less value. But if the goal is to discourage us to defer decisions until the next meeting, and to ensure "TSC decisions" are properly documented, that would be quite effective.

the outcome of those decisions should always be documented and we should allow for a 48 hour grace period to give absent TSC members an opportunity to weigh in before the decision becomes binding.

That seems to be inline with the PR: if we have to open an issue anyway and wait 48h, sure you can say the decision was taken during the meeting, or one could say it was taken in the issue thread – or is there a nuance I'm missing?

@joyeecheungjoyeecheungJul 1, 2025•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we can probably make it close to the fast-track process: not only the decision itself needs consensus, but there should also be consensus that no more consensus seeking is needed outside the meeting (because it is trivial/obvious enough). Given how careful we are usually I am fairly certain for things that are controversial enough, someone at the meeting would raise that it must be taken back to async communication in the second consensus seeking process, just like how we treat fast-tracks.


In principle, topics discussed in the TSC meetings should be public and
streamed or recorded, so that a recording can also be made publicly available afterwards.
Exception may be given to discussions related to security, legal matters,
personnel, or other sensitive topics that require confidentiality. In these
cases, the discussion should at least be summarized and posted to a written
channel. If the outcome of the discussion is public, a summary should be

@jasnelljasnellJul 1, 2025•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"to a written channel" ... this should clarify that discussions about private matters should only be written to a private channel. It also would need to be clarified exactly what would be written. A literal transcript of what is said and exactly who said it can be just as bad as a recording as a form of surveillance and privacy violation. We need to be clear and have to recognize that there are very real practical limitations.

We also need to be sensitive to the reality that certain kinds of discussions are sensitive even among TSC members. If, for instance, we need to have a private discussion about a possible Code of Conduct report against a TSC member, then we cannot/should not document that in a channel where the TSC member in question has access to it.

@joyeecheungjoyeecheungJul 2, 2025•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A literal transcript of what is said and exactly who said it can be just as bad as a recording as a form of surveillance and privacy violation.

The text says:

the discussion should at least be summarized and posted..
a summary should be...

I think it's fairly clear that it's a summary, not a transcript. I think anyone who looks at out our minutes and summit notes would be fairly certain to say that getting the TSC to produce a literal transcript without a recording is impossible even if we want to (I'd say even with a recording, it's impossible, because nobody would be willing to do that much work).

If, for instance, we need to have a private discussion about a possible Code of Conduct report against a TSC member, then we cannot/should not document that in a channel where the TSC member in question has access to it.

In that case the weekly TSC meeting is probably not the right place for that discussion in the first place and it has to be an extraordinary meeting, unless we tell that person "please don't come to the meeting this week", or not tell them and hope that they don't show up...

It's also worth noting that the if a discussion must exclude a TSC member, then the TSC is probably not the host of the meeting in the first place. In the example above, the host must be the moderation team and there might be some TSC members being invited as guests, but usually the TSC members invited are as few as possible. In those cases, it's not a TSC meeting, it's a meeting where some TSC members but not all are invited.

@jasnelljasnellJul 2, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it's fairly clear that it's a summary, not a transcript...

I've seen many meeting summaries that include literal quotes. We need to be clear what the expectations are. There's obvious lots of disagreement in this are so let's not assume that what is clear to one person is clear for another.

A summary could be, "We discussed dinner", or it could be, "James said pineapple on pizza is a good thing. Matteo started crying," which I'm sure we can agree are very different kinds of summaries.

When we're talking about private discussions around sensitive topics, we should be explicit what the expectations are.

@jasnelljasnellJul 2, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Either way, this is the more relevant part of my comment above:

"to a written channel" ... this should clarify that discussions about private matters should only be written to a private channel. It also would need to be clarified exactly what would be written.

For folks participating in a private meeting, it's critical that they can be assured that what they have to say is going to be held in confidence and not end up in a public writeup somewhere.

@joyeecheungjoyeecheungJul 2, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do you have a concrete suggestion using the GitHub suggestion feature?

@jasnelljasnellJul 2, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Easier to provide a concrete alternative in a separate PR: #58925

made public as well, even with a delay to prevent premature disclosure
(e.g. in the case of security), so that the community can understand the
context and decisions made, even if they cannot see the details of the
discussion.

@mcollinamcollinaJul 1, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

+1 for this.


## Collaborator nominations

### Who can nominate Collaborators?
Expand Down
Loading