Okay, I’ve written a draft team charter, with some inspiration from (and occasional plagiarism of) the Workstation Working Group.
I don’t expect that this is the final form, but it’s a lot easier to work with something than nothing, so here we go.
A few notes on why I did or did not include certain things, outstanding questions, etc:
- I chose the “core member”, “member”, and “contributor” as the names for the membership levels to keep them generic. I thought about “editor”, “writer”, and “contributor” but rejected those because 1. I felt like they implied that editors don’t write and writers can’t edit. 2. it ignores the technical/tooling contributions
- I made the membership period open-ended for simplicity, but included a process for removing folks who are inactive. The same process is used to remove someone who consistently makes bad contributions or is hostile to other team members.
- There’s not a lot of difference between core member and member, except in terms of repo permissions. I think that’s okay, but maybe we need to make core member seem more appealing?
- I intentionally left the contribution requirements for core member and member vague because trying to codify them seems like an exercise in edge case creation. This is in line with the Provenpackager policy
- I chose to not have an elected leader because most of what that person would do is chair meetings and that’s just as easily done by getting a volunteer to run the meeting on a week-by-week basis. However, there’s something to be said for having a team lead role, so if we were to add it, I’d suggest it be elected after each release and set core member status as a requirement.
- I avoided setting specific vote requirements wherever possible because we don’t have a fixed number of people the way, e.g. FESCo does. FESCo can have a well-defined voting policy because they have a well-defined membership count and period.