Reviewing the process for consent decisions

[smichel17]

@photm

Timebox for a few hours, write the best proposal you can write in this very short time, and get it out there soon.

I’d adjust the phrasing to “a few hours at most”, otherwise it might seem like this is expected to take a few hours, which is quite a lot for the initial step, I think.

@photm

At the review date of a decision, the secretary will post an invitation for reflection and discussion. One week later, the secretary will start a consent decision on whether to keep the decision until the next review (they will propose the next review date as part of that consent decision).

I started composing this message and this was not clear to me. Then I got distracted, came back and re-read it and it was clear. I think it’s probably too complicated. Here’s an attempt at an update

On the review date, we will follow the same process again — this time to decide whether to keep the decision. It’s the secretary’s job to kick this off, by posting an invitation for reflection and discussion, along with the next proposed review date.

I also have a concern that so much reviewing may be hard to keep track of for the secretary and/or undue bureaucracy for everyone. The first issue can be mitigated by using the forum’s shared draft feature (for moderators only?), which allows auto-publishing a post at a future date. The second can be mitigated by choosing review dates that are far enough in the future.

I debated whether I should delete this part because I am not proposing it: It’s also a lot of burden on the secretary — alternatively, the original proposer

@photm

The power remains with the team

I think this section could be condensed and then moved to a bullet point under the initial instructions, something like “decide whether non-team members can vote” with another short sentence for clarification. But I don’t feel strongly.

@photm

There seems to be a lack of clarity at the very end of the process – how do we make sure the documentation is updated?

I agree the process is missing a final step of capturing it somehow. I think this we should amend the decision to add a section on this, which says there are two ways to resolve this:

1. If it’s easy to integrate the decision into the governance docs, do that.
2. If not, open an issue on the governance repo with the step to close it of integrating the decision.

@smichel17

Let’s find out — if I have the capacity, I’ll take a look this afternoon

I did, but maybe only because I committed to it this morning

1-2 weeks is a little bit long for turnaround to make a decision. I think it’s ok for now, because this is specifically governance changes we’re talking about; regular day-to-day decisions are made by whoever fills the relevant roles. An idea for later, if it turns out 1-2 weeks is too long, is that any discussion/proposal can be expedited by discussion in a meeting.