These are some great points, James - let me try to tackle them roughly in order.
Proposing features - this is already in DEP 10, so I more just want to get that aspect of the Board actually going (and, as a side-effect, have something to aid fundraising). I am talking with the current Board separately on an internal thread, where the current stance (not everyone has responded) is that I am personally happy to take on all the work here for now - but I want to make sure it's not just me in the long run, be that merely proving that the idea works or attracting board members who want to specifically mediate such discussions and interaction with the wider community. Engagement - It's not about "lack of engagement", and I think any issues there are deeper problems with OSS communities and the fact that we have to learn to sustainably work with the people we have rather than throwing everything at trying to recruit fresh, new people. I have ideas around this topic specifically, but they will not be solved in terms of the Board alone. Loosening eligibility - If you're up for it I would very much value your help here in terms of refining wording once I have a first draft. My initial direction was to still require the 18 month history of contributions, but widen it from "technical" to more kinds of work (obviously the discussion part is in there too, but I think in general we can do a bit more of an OR rather than an AND on the current requirements, keeping a minimum time of contribution to prevent bad actors) Serving on the DSF Board - you are of course right, I misread the DEP last week. Overall, if all we do is change the name and start actually doing calls for features as outlined in DEP 10, I'll honestly be happy - but I think, given the most recent TB election was uncontested and several long-time Django contributors have told me they'd be more willing to join a TB that was less strictly technical-all-the-time, that it makes sense for us to also look at those requirements. Andrew On Mon, Oct 24, 2022, at 2:54 PM, James Bennett wrote: > Something I note here is that it's presenting a solution, but not clearly (at > least, from my reading) presenting the problem to be solved. > > Is it a lack of people proposing features? If so, I'm not sure this helps -- > it would, to me, suggest that only members of the Technical Board/Steering > Council/whatever-it's called are supposed to do that, since it's in their job > description. Would people then expect to, or be expected to, run for a seat > in order to contribute something? > > Is it a more general lack of engagement? If so, I'm still not sure how this > helps -- the idea of DEP 10 was to make it *easier* for people to step up and > get involved, since it got rid of the idea of the "core team" with their > special privileges, but I don't think any form of technical governance > actually solves engagement issues. At best it can make engagement-specific > efforts easier, but I don't see how re-centralizing authority (or creating > the impression of it) would achieve that. > > Is it to make fundraising easier? That sounds again like something that > technical governance really can't do on its own -- it needs to involve the > DSF Board, and there are reasons why the DSF was historically wary about > doing targeted fundraising for specific features in Django. > > Loosening eligibility is fine, though I agree it's going to be very difficult > to write down in an enforceable way -- the DEP 10 language and process was > intended primarily to prevent trolls and other bad-faith actors from being > able to run effectively for the Technical Board, and there's a balance where > the more you loosen it up, the more you also open the door for those kinds of > people. > > Also, regarding the multiple roles restriction: it currently is allowed for a > single person to simultaneously be on both the Technical Board and the DSF > Board, and there are even procedures in DEP 10 for things like mandatory > recusal for DSF Board votes and actions that affect the Technical Board. > What's not allowed is simultaneously being a Merger and on the Technical > Board. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAL13Cg-mWWK0%2Bzkvi%3DCWu0e%3DbX-rOsLq4gHHdBuKQ8UL_8pRSg%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAL13Cg-mWWK0%2Bzkvi%3DCWu0e%3DbX-rOsLq4gHHdBuKQ8UL_8pRSg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/6386c4ae-0dd1-41aa-af6e-24c1b879da64%40app.fastmail.com.
