Cross-project-council: Joint Foundation Bootstrap Team Meeting 2018-10-29

[MylesBorins]

Time

UTC Mon 29-Oct-2018 18:00 (06:00 PM):

| Timezone | Date/Time |
|---------------|-----------------------|
| US / Pacific | Mon 29-Oct-2018 11:00 (11:00 AM) |
| US / Mountain | Mon 29-Oct-2018 12:00 (12:00 PM) |
| US / Central | Mon 29-Oct-2018 13:00 (01:00 PM) |
| US / Eastern | Mon 29-Oct-2018 14:00 (02:00 PM) |
| London | Mon 29-Oct-2018 19:00 (07:00 PM) |
| Amsterdam | Mon 29-Oct-2018 20:00 (08:00 PM) |
| Moscow | Mon 29-Oct-2018 21:00 (09:00 PM) |
| Chennai | Mon 29-Oct-2018 23:30 (11:30 PM) |
| Hangzhou | Tue 23-Oct-2018 02:00 (02:00 AM) |
| Tokyo | Tue 23-Oct-2018 03:00 (03:00 AM) |
| Sydney | Tue 23-Oct-2018 05:00 (05:00 AM) |

Or in your local time:

• http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Node.js+Foundation+Bootstrap%20Team+Meeting+2018-10-22&iso=20181022T18
• or http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=06PM+UTC%2C+Oct+29%2C+2018+in+local+tim-

Links

• Minutes Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XB-r3UoqyxLPUlDsZ0hW6DO5ljQHvZO2JqiNLE6nJdI/edit
• _Previous Minutes Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/168pPLkyEslfr728xdobUJiawQSwDZ6n0KMmpC5h9-MU/edit?usp=sharing_

Agenda

Extracted from bootstrap-agenda labelled issues and pull requests from the nodejs org prior to the meeting.

Discussion

• Update from Legal:
  
  
  
  • 5 minute timebox
  
  
  • Discussion lead by Mike Dolan
  
  
  • Refs:
  
  
  • Question for Legal Committee: Node.js Trademark #25
  
  
  • Seek to understand and resolve foundation bylaw differences #8
  
  
• Governance of Bootstrap process
  
  
  
  • 20 minute timebox
  
  
  • Discussion lead by Jory + Myles
  
  
  • Refs:
  
  
  • Draft Staging Process #23
  
  
  • How often / when do we meet? #21
  
  
  • doc: initial governance #19
  
  
  • Guiding principles, concerns, general operations #9
  
  
  • doc: add vision and mission #1
  
  
  • How do we govern this group? #2
  
  
  • Add initial mission statement drafts from Governance Discussions #4
  
  
  • First Pass at Bootstrap Process #7
  
  
  • Decentralize Budget Authority #28
  
  
• Create expectations for foundation draft #6
  
  
  
  • 30 minute timebox
  
  
  • Discussion lead by tracy
  
  
  • Refs:
  
  
  • Do we want Board representation? #17
  
  
  • https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1qUcvZz4wmQtwcWu9rWjxFNmWw5plD9-4_7mtvQvCegk/edit#slide=id.g44767ee714_0_79
  
  

Invited

• Node.js Members: @nodejs/members
• JSF Project Maintainers
• JSF TAC
• Node.js Foundation Board of Directors
• JSF Board of Directors

Notes

The agenda comes from issues labelled with bootstrap-agenda across all of the repositories in the nodejs org. Please label any additional issues that should be on the agenda before the meeting starts.

Joining the meeting

• link for participants: https://zoom.us/j/868881095
• For those who just want to watch: https://www.youtube.com/c/nodejs+foundation/live

[jasnell]

I will be unable to attend at this time due to a scheduling conflict. If this meeting is held at this time, then I would ask that any discussion/decisions regarding any issues I have on the agenda (e.g. #25 and #9) be deferred until I am able to join on a future call.

[MylesBorins]

As no one had objected to the 2pm time, we had loosely agreed to it in the last meeting, and @dshaw has offered to move the other meeting I've readjusted the meeting to 2pm.

[rvagg]

Well, I object to the time slot, 5am for me. But I think I'm well outvoted by it. Current slot gets US and Europe but slices off all of APAC. But if we must choose a single slot, that's reasonable. Will be listening in to recordings.

I have two things top of mind, I'm not sure if these meetings would be the right forum or not:

1. I _still_ don't understand the status of this merger. Up until the announcement, I was under the impression that it was going to be announced as something being deliberated, but the formal announcement is "intent to merge". I'm still seeing conflicting messaging about this and I'd really like it cleared up. Is it a done deal? I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one puzzled, especially given the poll responses @ https://github.com/nodejs/bootstrap/issues/24.
2. _(Putting on my Gold member company hat)_ I don't believe that non-Platinum member feedback has been sought in any formal way. I have been in contact with other non-Platinum member companies and there is some very negative feedback about both the process and even the plan itself. Why has the board not sought to include its member companies, who pay non-trivial amounts of money for their size? This has been a continual failure of the Foundation, ignoring those members and riding primarily on the opinions of the Platinum members which are very different types of companies. The way this has been handled does not give us reason to be hopeful that any new Foundation is going to solve this fundamental problem and may just make it worse (which in turn may impact financials if smaller companies see little reason to be involved). The fact that non-board (i.e. Platinum) companies are left off the invite to these meetings is also illustrative about the way they have been overlooked. Do member companies need to be submitting feedback, and if so, to who? Or, would some kind of forum be set up for them to speak into this process? fwiw I don't believe that it's enough to just invite them to these meetings, they need the ability to provide more candid feedback about the fundamentals of this process.

[mkdolan]

On 1., the only announcement was an intention of both organizations to merge and open a more public discussion about what the structure of a merged foundation would look like.

On 2., between the Boards, the JSF TAC, the CommComm and TSC, most if not all of the members had at least one individual who was briefed on the intent to merge announcement. The announcement was the way to open up the conversation to a broader group and we had to make sure the internal governance groups were all in favor of doing that.

We're now looking for contributors and members to also provide feedback into the Bootstrap group as was invited through the press release. What they're trying to encourage is finding alignment on core principles of what the foundation will look like among a large entire ecosystem by opening up the dialogue through the Bootstrap working group here.

At Node+JS Interactive I had quite a few members approach me to say they were very positive on the announcement so I'm not sure who you heard from, but I'm happy to sync up with you on email and figure out how to have their concerns heard. If you feel like you want to provide feedback directly to me I'm happy to do a call and discuss it with you or anyone at any member directly at any time.

The key next steps are to identify how to structure the foundation governance and I really don't expect either group needs or wants to do anything radical here. You can start from the existing Node.js Foundation base and adjust it to be possible to add additional projects in a structured way - the key governance changes are figuring out representation and roles of various committees and groups in the expanded foundation. I think some in the community also have ideas for how we can improved what's already been done as well (e.g. the Community.js idea).

I hope this helps clarify where we're at. The Bootstrap meetings are the ideal place for input so that ideas can be discussed and evolved as we move forward. I hope you and others can and will join and participate.

[jasnell]

@mkdolan

On 1., the only announcement was an intention of both organizations to merge and open a more public discussion about what the structure of a merged foundation would look like.

I'm not sure this really answers @rvagg's question. Specifically the part, "Is it a done deal?" That is, at this point, is the merge definitely going to happen? Is it most likely going to happen? etc.

[boneskull]

Re @mkdolan's comments to @rvagg above: many here would prefer negative feedback be discussed in public instead of backchannel email. This gives us a better chance to correct problems in how the foundation(s) are run, going forward.

You can start from the existing Node.js Foundation base and adjust it to be possible to add additional projects in a structured way - the key governance changes are figuring out representation and roles of various committees and groups in the expanded foundation

This work is already in progress, unless I'm completely misunderstanding. See e.g., #12, #19 etc.

[jasnell]

@mkdolan

On 2., between the Boards, the JSF TAC, the CommComm and TSC, most if not all of the members had at least one individual who was briefed on the intent to merge announcement. The announcement was the way to open up the conversation to a broader group and we had to make sure the internal governance groups were all in favor of doing that.

I also do not believe that this really addresses @rvagg's second point, which is specifically about the Foundation proactively seeking input from Gold and Silver member organizations in a formalized and structured way. For instance, the only input that NearForm has been afforded has been informally via comments I've made and a couple of off the cuff conversations with our CEO. There's been zero formal outreach from the Foundation seeking input.

[rubys]

I also do not believe that this really addresses @rvagg's second point, which is specifically about the Foundation proactively seeking input from Gold and Silver member organizations in a formalized and structured way. For instance, the only input that NearForm has been afforded has been informally via comments I've made and a couple of off the cuff conversations with our CEO. There's been zero formal outreach from the Foundation seeking input.

I continue to read these comments and see a disconnect between how foundations I have had experience with operate and how these foundations (and the Node.js foundation in particular) operate.

As an example, people in the ASF routinely talk about _our_ foundation. I don't think I've ever seen that pronoun used here. People in the Node.js foundation instead generally talk about _the_ foundation. Pronouns Phrasing matters.

If these were foundations and we were all employees, the merger would simply be announced and completed within 6 to 8 weeks.

Instead, everybody I have personally talked to seems to deeply grok that the essential asset that these foundations have is their communities. Accordingly, "the powers that be" (whomever they might be) are encouraging and/or allowing this to proceed in the open. Where everybody participates as individuals.

And I can think of nothing more damaging to the community for this merger to either happen or be scuttled because of backroom input from corporations.

The very thought of a formal invitation is foreign to me. It would never had occurred to me that NearForm or any other organization would be waiting for an opportunity to participate in this process.

For me, I'm not seeking permission or even guidance. I'm actively working to craft a structure that I would be happy with and that I believe will survive the test of time. I'm assuming that if we define something that meets with general approval, it will happen. If, instead, we identify a showstopper, it won't.

[Trott]

As an example, people in the ASF routinely talk about our foundation. I don't think I've ever seen that pronoun used here. People in the Node.js foundation instead generally talk about the foundation. Pronouns matter.

@rubys From the Node.js side: I agree that it would heartening for people to think of it as _our_ foundation.

One reason for _the foundation_ being the phrasing might be that there is a deliberate firewall of sorts between the Board and the TSC. And the Board (along with some Foundation staff) is thought of as the manifestation of the Foundation. Er...I mean the manifestation of _our_ Foundation.

As a bit more than a mere aside: I do not at all believe it was your intention, but re-using the "pronouns matter" slogan in this context seems to me to devalue it's usual meaning in discussions around gender. I would ask you to consider editing that to "phrasing matters" or something like that. (Arguably, this isn't about pronouns exactly anyway. While _our_ in _our foundation_ is indeed a pronoun, _the_ in _the foundation_ is an article and not a pronoun.)

[rubys]

the Board (along with some Foundation staff) is thought of as the manifestation of the Foundation. Er...I mean the manifestation of our Foundation.

Bingo. Thanks for eloquently capturing a thought that I hadn't expressed.

While I guess I would prefer "our board", I would not have a huge problem with "the board". But I see a fair amount of evidence of confusion between "the board" and "the foundation", where people seem to use these terms virtually interchangeably. People who want to become part of the foundation want to be a part of the board. People who don't understand the need to interact with the board are seen as not wanting to be a part of the foundation. I find both concerning.

As long as I can produce coherent and constructive proposals, I should be able to directly participate in budget discussions, trademark discussions, travel assistance discussions, conference discussions, etc. should I be so inclined. Without being a board member. Or having any particular title.

I would ask you to consider editing that to "phrasing matters" or something like that.

Indeed that was thoughtless of me. Fixed.

[mhdawson]

After discussion with @rubys and understanding a bit more about how some other foundations are run, I am optimistic that we can use this opportunity to move towards "our" foundation. This would include collaborators having more participation in drafting budgets (even perhaps doing the drafting itself), marketing etc. Looking forward to some of the different proposals that will be discussed in the boostrap discussions.

[rubys]

@mhdawson thanks. I sketched out how it works at the ASF in https://github.com/nodejs/bootstrap/issues/28 . I see no reason why a similar approach couldn't work here.

[mhdawson]

@rubys thanks for the thorough description there. I'll be interested to hear what other people think about it in the meeting on Monday as well.

[SMotaal]

I just realized due to time change there is a conflict for this week for me so I won't be able to join.

[sendilkumarn]

I think the schedule (in the first comment) needs to be updated, taking time change into the account.

[SMotaal]

@sendilkumarn is it not momentarily?

[MylesBorins]

The current time is up to date for today. The meeting takes place in 1 minute

[knolleary]

Oh. Just saw the London time above is wrong due to the clock change and was having dinner with the kids. Will catch up later.

[SMotaal]

FYI next week will also have the same problem, where some of us will end DTS on Sunday. So it might help ask everyone to double check the times (assuming there is one next week).

[sendilkumarn]

@SMotaal discussed this briefly in the meeting.

@MylesBorins rather than putting the entire timezones and the times, just provide a single link to wolframalpha.com and let people take care of this. I think it is much easier WDYT?

[MylesBorins]

Thanks for joining everyone.

@sendilkumarn the times that are generated are done so by a tool. It was inaccurate this last time because I copy and pasted stuff instead of generating it after the time change... as such the various daylight savings time stuff was not accounted for. This should not be the case with the next meeting.

[SMotaal]

We should open an issue or contact support. @MylesBorins I am happy to take care of that, once I know where to knock.