PEP 8016 - initial draft (#827)
This commit is contained in:
parent
80833bd420
commit
5175b24a04
12
pep-8000.rst
12
pep-8000.rst
|
@ -91,6 +91,18 @@ PEPs.
|
|||
(Guido van Rossum) with a new "Python board" of 3 members which has
|
||||
limited roles, mostly decide how a PEP is approved (or rejected).
|
||||
|
||||
* PEP 8016 - The Steering Council Model
|
||||
|
||||
This PEP proposes a model of Python governance based around a
|
||||
steering council. The council has broad authority, which they seek
|
||||
to exercise as rarely as possible; instead, they use this power to
|
||||
establish standard processes, like those proposed in the other
|
||||
801x-series PEPs. This follows the general philosophy that it's
|
||||
better to split up large changes into a series of small changes that
|
||||
can be reviewed independently: instead of trying to do everything in
|
||||
one PEP, we focus on providing a minimal-but-solid foundation for
|
||||
further governance decisions.
|
||||
|
||||
Additional governance models may be added before the final selection.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,345 @@
|
|||
PEP: 8016
|
||||
Title: The Steering Council Model
|
||||
Author: Nathaniel J. Smith, Donald Stufft
|
||||
Status: Draft
|
||||
Type: Informational
|
||||
Content-Type: text/x-rst
|
||||
Created: 2018-11-01
|
||||
|
||||
Abstract
|
||||
========
|
||||
|
||||
This PEP proposes a model of Python governance based around a steering
|
||||
council. The council has broad authority, which they seek to exercise
|
||||
as rarely as possible; instead, they use this power to establish
|
||||
standard processes, like those proposed in the other 801x-series PEPs.
|
||||
This follows the general philosophy that it's better to split up large
|
||||
changes into a series of small changes that can be reviewed
|
||||
independently: instead of trying to do everything in one PEP, we focus
|
||||
on providing a minimal-but-solid foundation for further governance
|
||||
decisions.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Rationale
|
||||
=========
|
||||
|
||||
The main goals of this proposal are:
|
||||
|
||||
* Be **boring**: We're not experts in governance, and we don't think
|
||||
Python is a good place to experiment with new and untried governance
|
||||
models. So this proposal sticks to mature, well-known, previously
|
||||
tested processes as much as possible. The high-level approach of a
|
||||
mostly-hands-off council is arguably the most common across large
|
||||
successful F/OSS projects, and low-level details are derived
|
||||
directly from Django's governance.
|
||||
* Be **simple**: We've attempted to pare things down to the minimum
|
||||
needed to make this workable: the council, the core team (who elect
|
||||
the council), and the process for changing the document. The goal is
|
||||
Minimum Viable Governance.
|
||||
* Be **comprehensive**: But for the things we need to define, we've
|
||||
tried to make sure to cover all the bases, because we don't want to
|
||||
go through this kind of crisis again. Having a clear and unambiguous
|
||||
set of rules also helps minimize confusion and resentment.
|
||||
* Be **flexible and light-weight**: We know that it will take time and
|
||||
experimentation to find the best processes for working together. By
|
||||
keeping this document as minimal as possible, we keep maximal
|
||||
flexibility for adjusting things later, while minimizing the need
|
||||
for heavy-weight and anxiety-provoking processes like whole-project
|
||||
votes.
|
||||
|
||||
A number of details were discussed in `this Discourse thread
|
||||
<https://discuss.python.org/t/working-discussion-for-pep-8016-the-boringest-possible-steering-council-model/333/>`__,
|
||||
which may be useful to anyone trying to understand the rationale for
|
||||
various minor decisions.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Specification
|
||||
=============
|
||||
|
||||
The steering council
|
||||
--------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Composition
|
||||
~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||
|
||||
The steering council is an elected committee of 5 core team members.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Mandate
|
||||
~~~~~~~
|
||||
|
||||
The steering council's shall work to:
|
||||
|
||||
* Maintain the quality and stability of the Python language and
|
||||
CPython interpreter,
|
||||
* Make contributing as accessible, inclusive, and sustainable as
|
||||
possible,
|
||||
* Formalize and maintain the relationship between the core team and
|
||||
the PSF,
|
||||
* Establish appropriate decision-making processes for PEPs,
|
||||
* Seek consensus among contributors and the core team before acting in
|
||||
a formal capacity,
|
||||
* Act as a "court of final appeal" for decisions where all other
|
||||
methods have failed.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Powers
|
||||
~~~~~~
|
||||
|
||||
The council has broad authority to make decisions about the project.
|
||||
For example, they can:
|
||||
|
||||
* Accept or reject PEPs
|
||||
* Enforce the Python code of conduct
|
||||
* Work with the PSF to manage any project assets
|
||||
* Delegate their authority to other subcommittees or processes
|
||||
|
||||
However, they cannot modify this PEP, or affect the membership of the
|
||||
core team, except via the mechanisms specified in this PEP.
|
||||
|
||||
The council should look for ways to use these powers as little as
|
||||
possible. Instead of voting, it's better to seek consensus. Instead of
|
||||
ruling on individual PEPs, it's better to define a standard process
|
||||
for PEP decision making (for example, by accepting one of the other
|
||||
801x series of PEPs). It's better to establish a Code of Conduct
|
||||
committee than to rule on individual cases. And so on.
|
||||
|
||||
To use its powers, the council votes. Every council member must either
|
||||
vote or explicitly abstain. Members with conflicts of interest on a
|
||||
particular vote must abstain. Passing requires a strict majority of
|
||||
non-abstaining council members.
|
||||
|
||||
Whenever possible, the council's deliberations and votes shall be held
|
||||
in public.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Electing the council
|
||||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||
|
||||
A council election consists of two phases:
|
||||
|
||||
* Phase 1: Candidates advertise their interest in serving. Only core
|
||||
team members may be candidates.
|
||||
|
||||
* Phase 2: Each core team member can vote for zero to five of the
|
||||
candidates. Voting is performed anonymously. Candidates are ranked
|
||||
by the total number of votes they receive. In case of a tie, the
|
||||
candidate who joined the core team earlier wins.
|
||||
|
||||
Each phase lasts one to two weeks, at the outgoing council's discretion.
|
||||
For the initial election, both phases will last two weeks.
|
||||
|
||||
The election process is managed by a returns officer nominated by the
|
||||
outgoing steering council. For the initial election, the returns
|
||||
officer will be [TBD].
|
||||
|
||||
The council should ideally reflect the diversity of core Python
|
||||
contributors, and core team members are encouraged to vote
|
||||
accordingly.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Term
|
||||
~~~~
|
||||
|
||||
A new council is elected after each feature release. Each council's
|
||||
term runs from when their election results are finalized until the
|
||||
next council's term starts. There are no term limits.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Vacancies
|
||||
~~~~~~~~~
|
||||
|
||||
Council members may resign their position at any time.
|
||||
|
||||
Whenever there is a vacancy during the regular council term, the
|
||||
council may vote to appoint any willing core team member to serve out
|
||||
the rest of the term.
|
||||
|
||||
If a council member drops out of touch and cannot be contacted for a
|
||||
month or longer, then the rest of the council may vote to replace
|
||||
them.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Conflicts of interest
|
||||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||
|
||||
While we trust council members to act in the best interests of Python
|
||||
rather than themselves or their employers, the mere appearance of any
|
||||
one company dominating Python development could itself be harmful and
|
||||
erode trust. In order to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest,
|
||||
at most 2 members of the council can work for any single employer.
|
||||
|
||||
In a council election, if 3 of the top 5 vote-getters work for the
|
||||
same employer, then whichever of them ranked lowest is disqualified
|
||||
and the 6th-ranking candidate moves up into 5th place; this is
|
||||
repeated until a valid council is formed.
|
||||
|
||||
During a council term, if changing circumstances cause this rule to be
|
||||
broken (for instance, due to a council member changing employment),
|
||||
then one or more council members must resign to remedy the issue, and
|
||||
the resulting vacancies can then be filled as normal.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Ejecting core team members
|
||||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||
|
||||
In exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to remove someone
|
||||
from the core team against their will. (For example: egregious and
|
||||
ongoing code of conduct violations.) This can be accomplished by a
|
||||
steering council vote, but unlike other steering council votes, this
|
||||
requires at least a two-thirds majority. With 5 members voting, this
|
||||
means that a 3:2 vote is insufficient; 4:1 in favor is the minimum
|
||||
required for such a vote to succeed. In addition, this is the one
|
||||
power of the steering council which cannot be delegated, and this
|
||||
power cannot be used while a vote of no confidence is in process.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Vote of no confidence
|
||||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||
|
||||
In exceptional circumstances, the core team may remove a sitting
|
||||
council member, or the entire council, via a vote of no confidence.
|
||||
|
||||
A no-confidence vote is triggered when a core team member calls for
|
||||
one publically on an appropriate project communication channel, and
|
||||
another core team member seconds the proposal.
|
||||
|
||||
The vote lasts for two weeks. Core team members vote for or against.
|
||||
If at least two thirds of voters express a lack of confidence, then
|
||||
the vote succeeds.
|
||||
|
||||
There are two forms of no-confidence votes: those targeting a single
|
||||
member, and those targeting the council as a whole. The initial call
|
||||
for a no-confidence vote must specify which type is intended. If a
|
||||
single-member vote succeeds, then that member is removed from the
|
||||
council and the resulting vacancy can be handled in the usual way. If
|
||||
a whole-council vote succeeds, the council is dissolved and a new
|
||||
council election is triggered immediately.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
The core team
|
||||
-------------
|
||||
|
||||
Role
|
||||
~~~~
|
||||
|
||||
The core team is the group of trusted volunteers who manage Python.
|
||||
They assume many roles required to achieve the project's goals,
|
||||
especially those that require a high level of trust. They make the
|
||||
decisions that shape the future of the project.
|
||||
|
||||
Core team members are expected to act as role models for the community
|
||||
and custodians of the project, on behalf of the community and all
|
||||
those who rely on Python.
|
||||
|
||||
They will intervene, where necessary, in online discussions or at
|
||||
official Python events on the rare occasions that a situation arises
|
||||
that requires intervention.
|
||||
|
||||
They have authority over the Python Project infrastructure, including
|
||||
the Python Project website itself, the Python GitHub organization and
|
||||
repositories, the bug tracker, the mailing lists, IRC channels, etc.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Prerogatives
|
||||
------------
|
||||
|
||||
Core team members may participate in formal votes, typically to nominate new
|
||||
team members and to elect the steering council.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Membership
|
||||
----------
|
||||
|
||||
Python core team members demonstrate:
|
||||
|
||||
- a good grasp of the philosophy of the Python Project
|
||||
- a solid track record of being constructive and helpful
|
||||
- significant contributions to the project's goals, in any form
|
||||
- willingness to dedicate some time to improving Python
|
||||
|
||||
As the project matures, contributions go beyond code. Here's an
|
||||
incomplete list of areas where contributions may be considered for
|
||||
joining the core team, in no particular order:
|
||||
|
||||
- Working on community management and outreach
|
||||
- Providing support on the mailing lists and on IRC
|
||||
- Triaging tickets
|
||||
- Writing patches (code, docs, or tests)
|
||||
- Reviewing patches (code, docs, or tests)
|
||||
- Participating in design decisions
|
||||
- Providing expertise in a particular domain (security, i18n, etc.)
|
||||
- Managing the continuous integration infrastructure
|
||||
- Managing the servers (website, tracker, documentation, etc.)
|
||||
- Maintaining related projects (alternative interpreters, core
|
||||
infrastructure like packaging, etc.)
|
||||
- Creating visual designs
|
||||
|
||||
Core team membership acknowledges sustained and valuable efforts that
|
||||
align well with the philosophy and the goals of the Python Project.
|
||||
|
||||
It is granted by receiving at least two-thirds positive votes in a
|
||||
core team vote and no veto by the steering council.
|
||||
|
||||
Core team members are always looking for promising contributors,
|
||||
teaching them how the project is managed, and submitting their names
|
||||
to the core team's vote when they're ready.
|
||||
|
||||
There's no time limit on core team membership. However, in order to
|
||||
provide the general public with a reasonable idea of how many people
|
||||
maintain Python, core team members who have stopped contributing are
|
||||
encouraged to declare themselves as "emeritus members". Those who
|
||||
haven't made any non-trivial contribution in two years may be asked to
|
||||
move themselves to this category, and moved there if they don't
|
||||
respond. Emeritus team members lose their privileges such as voting
|
||||
rights and commit access.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Changing this document
|
||||
----------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Changes to this document require at least a two-thirds majority of
|
||||
votes cast in a core team vote.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
TODO
|
||||
====
|
||||
|
||||
- Maybe add compare-and-contrast with other 801x proposals?
|
||||
|
||||
- Ask Ian or Ernest if they're willing to be the initial returns officer.
|
||||
|
||||
- Lots of people contributed helpful suggestions and feedback; we
|
||||
should check if they're comfortable being added as co-authors
|
||||
|
||||
- It looks like Aymeric Augustin wrote the whole Django doc, so
|
||||
presumably holds copyright; maybe we should ask him if he's willing
|
||||
to release it into the public domain so our copyright statement
|
||||
below can be simpler.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Acknowledgements
|
||||
================
|
||||
|
||||
Substantial text was copied shamelessly from `The Django project's
|
||||
governance document
|
||||
<https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/internals/organization/>`__.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Copyright
|
||||
=========
|
||||
|
||||
Text copied from Django used under `their license
|
||||
<https://github.com/django/django/blob/master/LICENSE>`__. The rest of
|
||||
this document has been placed in the public domain.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
..
|
||||
Local Variables:
|
||||
mode: indented-text
|
||||
indent-tabs-mode: nil
|
||||
sentence-end-double-space: t
|
||||
fill-column: 70
|
||||
coding: utf-8
|
||||
End:
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue