Driver about clarifying full tension-through-review process
Our agreed decision process currently starts at making proposals. Although sometimes jumping right to proposals is okay, we ran into tensions and confusion doing that even just for updating the process document itself. We can decide how flexible to be, but it will help us get on the same page and make the best decisions if we specify how we start with tensions and driver statements before (or at least alongside) making proposals, as described in S3’s navigate-via-tension.
This tension I’m bringing up is related to https://gitlab.com/snowdrift/governance/-/issues/69 which captures a mess where many tensions arose but were lumped together too much without consent on the drivers individually.
Right now, I’m asking @team and anyone else ( @photm notably has been involved in this topic) for feedback and then consent on the driver above. After we are clear on the driver, we’ll do proposal forming (which I expect to look like just spelling out how we intend specifically do our version of the S3 process asynchronously; i.e. adding the missing steps from S3 to the decision process we have currently).
This is the first of many tensions to address in tweaking our process to make it thorough and yet flexible and practical.