All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* introducing the OpenBMC technical oversight forum
@ 2021-10-20  2:01 Brad Bishop
  2021-10-21  4:23 ` Patrick Williams
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Brad Bishop @ 2021-10-20  2:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: openbmc

Hi Everyone

It was pointed out to me that my technical oversight forum introductory 
email here:

https://lore.kernel.org/openbmc/20210927162528.tfh6igwuwef7rsk7@cheese/

had the unfortunate subject of "call for volunteers" and thus might not 
have been read :-)  - so I am sending it again in what I hope
is a more visible way.  Thanks!

-brad

Hi all

Myself, the volunteers that responded, and the TSC have been working for the
last few months to prepare a charter that outlines how this new workgroup will
operate and I'm happy to report that the workgroup is now online and
operational.  I've appended the workgroup charter for your reading, you can
also find it in the docs repository.

After you read the charter you will likely wonder what the role of the TSC is,
and that isn't documented in the charter so I will discuss it briefly here.
There are several types of open source governance models - a commonly used
model splits project leadership between a board of governors and a TSC.  A
board typically oversees project finances, handles personal and legal issues,
arbitrates or settles complaints and disputes, oversees the use of project
trademarks or other "community" assets, and most importantly is accountable for
the overall success and growth of the entire project and its community.  Many
of these apply to OpenBMC.  With the introduction of the new workgroup
(Technical Oversight Forum or "TOF"), OpenBMC effectively moves to this kind of
split governance model.  Since we are using non-standard and confusing
descriptions for these different leadership groups, I've included this little
decoder ring to help illustrate:

| Leadership Role | Typical Project | OpenBMC |
| ---             | ---             | ---     |
| General         | Board           | TSC     |
| Technical       | TSC             | TOF     |

In the longer term, my goal is to see these different teams formalized in the
OpenBMC project charter and we can use the standard descriptions, board for our
TSC, and TSC for our TOF.

thx - Brad

-------------
# OpenBMC Technical Oversight Forum (TOF)
This is a working document and subject to change.

The OpenBMC TOF or Technical Oversight Forum represents the technical
leadership of the OpenBMC project.

The TOF handles the processes around accepting new features into OpenBMC,
creating new subprojects (git repositories), approving subproject maintainers,
handling and enforcement of subproject maintainer issues, and many other
technical leadership concerns related to OpenBMC.  This source of this document
is in the OpenBMC documentation repository (https://github.com/openbmc/docs).
The TOF updates and maintains this document, using the process documented
within, and it can be considered authoritative unless directly overridden by
the TSC. 

## Working Principles
- Decision making is a spectrum between building broad consensus, in which
    everyone has agreement, and providing guidance quickly, even when there are
    strongly differing view-points.  This group should intend to work towards
    broad consensus, with a balance towards moving forward when there is minor
    disagreement.
- Members within this forum are representatives of the development community as
    a whole and not as representatives for the entities they are employed by.  As
    such, decisions should be made based on merits of the decision at hand and
    not on impacts to various member entities.
- Encouraging progress, experimentation, and decision making within the project
    is the core purpose of the TOF and not to create processes and barriers to
    development.  Velocity should be favored over perfection, except as a
    rationale for ignoring well-reasoned issues.

## Role and responsibilities
Issues the TOF handle include:
- Approval of new bitbake meta layers.
- Approval of new subprojects.
- Supervising subproject maintainers.
- Resolving subproject maintainer disputes.
- Guidance and oversight of the technical direction of OpenBMC.

## Current members
- Brad Bishop - radsquirrel
- Andrei Kartashev - Alatar
- Deepak Kodihalli - dkodihal
- Ed Tanous - edtanous
- Richard Thomaiyar - rthomaiy
- Patrick Williams - stwcx
- Lei Yu - LeiYU

The TOF shall have a minimum of 5 and maximum of 9 members at any given time.

The chair rotates month to month.

Chair responsibilities:
- Preparing the agenda.
- Taking meeting minutes.
- Documenting decisions on GitHub.

Members are elected by community contributors yearly.  The voting process will
be determined by the TOF at a later date and updated in this document.  TOF
candidates should have a breadth of knowledge about the OpenBMC project. Ideal
candidates will also have a public history of fostering collaboration between
teams.

Resignation of TOF members will be handled as an empty/reduced seat until the
next voting session.

## Github issues
The TOF tracks any ongoing decisions using GitHub issues (link to repo goes
here). Issues can be opened by anyone, including TOF members themselves. Issues
can be requests for process or technical changes, or solicitations for the
opinion of the TOF. When an issue is opened the TOF will respond to a proposal
or a solicitation, or add it to the next TOF meeting agenda for TOF discussion.

Once an issue has a proposal, TOF members have 8 days to vote on the proposal
in one of three ways: for, against, or “needs discussion”*.  After 8 days, if
the proposal has at least three votes for and no other votes, the proposal is
approved.  Alternatively, if the proposal has at least three votes against and
no other votes, the proposal is rejected and closed.  Any other vote count
results in the issue being put on the next TOF meeting agenda.   To ensure
proposals do not stagnate, if the initial 8 days elapses and the minimum number
of votes has not been met, the proposal is extended by an additional 6 days and
then put onto the next TOF meeting agenda after 2 weeks.

Issue vote indicators by reacting to the top post:
   - For - 👍 (`:+1:`) 
   - Against - 👎 (`:-1:`) 
   - Needs discussion - 👀 (`:eyes:`)

## Meetings
The TOF meets bi-weekly. Any requests for consideration by the TOF should be
submitted via a GitHub issue using the process documented earlier in this
document.

Meetings require a quorum of the TOF to be present; quorum is defined as:

| Active TOF membership | Quorum |
| ---                   | ---    |
| 5                     | 4      |
| 6                     | 5      |
| 7                     | 5      |
| 8                     | 5      |
| 9                     | 6      |

During the meeting, the TOF discusses proposals under dispute and votes on
them. A proposal is rejected if it does not reach majority approval or there is
more than one dissenting vote.

It is the responsibility of the TOF chairperson to make a public record of the
decisions of the meeting.

## Discord channel
The TOF has a private Discord channel for forum member coordination and, in
rare situations, potentially sensitive topics.  Sensitive topics would be
topics having security or privacy concerns, such as those involving actions of
an individual developer.  The TOF chairperson is responsible for coordinating
the public posting of any information or decisions that do not need to remain
private, using the same process as public issues.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

* Re: introducing the OpenBMC technical oversight forum
  2021-10-20  2:01 introducing the OpenBMC technical oversight forum Brad Bishop
@ 2021-10-21  4:23 ` Patrick Williams
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Patrick Williams @ 2021-10-21  4:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Brad Bishop; +Cc: openbmc

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2976 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 10:01:10PM -0400, Brad Bishop wrote:
> Hi Everyone
> 
> It was pointed out to me that my technical oversight forum introductory 
> email here:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/openbmc/20210927162528.tfh6igwuwef7rsk7@cheese/
> 
> had the unfortunate subject of "call for volunteers" and thus might not 
> have been read :-)  - so I am sending it again in what I hope
> is a more visible way.  Thanks!

I have a follow-on to this.

Recently the TOF began operating as according to the process Brad linked to
previously[1].  Some people may have seen an proposal[2,3] that I wrote and
wondered (among other thoughts):

   * What is an OTP / TOF issue about?
   * Am I allowed to interact with this?  How do I give feedback?
   * Is someone really thinking about deleting code in the project?

I want to give my thoughts to some of these questions.

a) OTP stands for "OpenBMC TOF Proposal".  The 'contract' discusses Github
   issues as the mechanism to alert the TOF that you would like to solicit an
   opinion or direction from the TOF, but the 'contract' doesn't really give
   details on how this works.  Based on our experience with issue#4, the TOF
   agreed that we needed a more concrete process and I am working on writing
   that up.

b) Anyone may give feedback to a TOF proposal and we all welcome and encourage
   it.  The TOF is not meant to be simply creating edicts for everyone else to
   follow, but instead is there to facilitate forward progress on technical
   designs and process improvements that we've often seen languish in the
   project.  Part of the "concrete process" will be guidelines on the best ways
   for any member of the community to provide this feedback.

c) We are not going to be deleting any code or recipes based on issue#4.  The
   TOF did agree that Meson is the best option for the project going forward,
   but that we need to work as a community to figure out how we get there.  I
   will be writing up the outcomes of the TOF discussion on issue#4.

d) The language in issue#4 was written in a way that may have been alarming.
   The TOF is new and we are figuring out, as a group, how we want to go about
   making improvements to the project.  The initial wording was, somewhat
   purposefully, chosen as the extreme end of how we could go about making
   changes and inspired quite a bit of useful discussion.  The biggest take-away
   was that, in general, the TOF should be communicating much more broadly
   before making sweeping changes; especially so given the newness.  As I
   mentioned under (a) and (c), we will be doing so in the near future.

Hopefully this gives some additional clarity and insight into what is going on.

1. https://github.com/openbmc/docs/blob/master/tof/contract.md
2. https://github.com/openbmc/technical-oversight-forum/issues/4
3. https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/docs/+/47732 
-- 
Patrick Williams

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2021-10-21  4:24 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-10-20  2:01 introducing the OpenBMC technical oversight forum Brad Bishop
2021-10-21  4:23 ` Patrick Williams

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.