375 lines
13 KiB
ReStructuredText
375 lines
13 KiB
ReStructuredText
PEP: 8016
|
||
Title: The Steering Council Model
|
||
Author: Nathaniel J. Smith, Donald Stufft
|
||
Status: Accepted
|
||
Type: Informational
|
||
Content-Type: text/x-rst
|
||
Created: 01-Nov-2018
|
||
|
||
Note
|
||
====
|
||
|
||
This PEP is retained for historical purposes, but the official
|
||
governance document is now PEP 13.
|
||
|
||
|
||
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.
|
||
|
||
|
||
PEP Acceptance
|
||
==============
|
||
|
||
PEP 8016 was accepted `by a core developer vote
|
||
<https://discuss.python.org/t/python-governance-vote-december-2018-results/546/>`__
|
||
described in PEP 8001 on Monday, December 17, 2018.
|
||
|
||
|
||
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/>`__,
|
||
and then `this thread has further discussion
|
||
<https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-8016-the-steering-council-model/394>`__. These
|
||
may be useful to anyone trying to understand the rationale for various
|
||
minor decisions.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Specification
|
||
=============
|
||
|
||
The steering council
|
||
--------------------
|
||
|
||
Composition
|
||
~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||
|
||
The steering council is a 5-person committee.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Mandate
|
||
~~~~~~~
|
||
|
||
The steering council 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 or update the project's code of conduct
|
||
* Work with the PSF to manage any project assets
|
||
* Delegate parts of 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 support from a 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. Candidates
|
||
must be nominated by a core team member. Self-nominations are
|
||
allowed.
|
||
|
||
* 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. If a tie occurs, it may
|
||
be resolved by mutual agreement among the candidates, or else the
|
||
winner will be chosen at random.
|
||
|
||
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 nominated by the PSF Executive Director.
|
||
|
||
The council should ideally reflect the diversity of Python
|
||
contributors and users, 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 a replacement 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.
|
||
|
||
If the ejected core team member is also on the steering council, then
|
||
they are removed from the steering council as well.
|
||
|
||
|
||
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 publicly 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 "inactive". 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. To
|
||
record and honor their contributions, inactive team members will
|
||
continue to be listed alongside active core team members; and, if they
|
||
later resume contributing, they can switch back to active status at
|
||
will. While someone is in inactive status, though, they lose their
|
||
active privileges like voting or nominating for the steering council,
|
||
and commit access.
|
||
|
||
The initial active core team members will consist of everyone
|
||
currently listed in the `"Python core" team on Github
|
||
<https://github.com/orgs/python/teams/python-core/members>`__, and the
|
||
initial inactive members will consist of everyone else who has been a
|
||
committer in the past.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Changing this document
|
||
----------------------
|
||
|
||
Changes to this document require at least a two-thirds majority of
|
||
votes cast in a core team vote.
|
||
|
||
|
||
TODO
|
||
====
|
||
|
||
- 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/main/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:
|