(Mark the proposal as outdated and link to issue #119)
|Line 1:||Line 1:|
== Modularity WG Governance ==
== Modularity WG Governance ==
Revision as of 13:17, 12 December 2018
Modularity WG Governance
This document describes the governing structure for the Modularity WG.
The Modularity Working Group has seven (7) voting members. However, we would like as many people to participate as possible.
Each voting member of the working group will confirm their continued membership every six months. In the event that a current voting member relinquishes their seat, the remaining voting working group members are responsible for appointing a new voting member to fill the seat from the active Fedora Modularity community via majority consensus.
The next appointed position is an auxiliary seat. It is intended to have an impact on the project as a whole, but his or her votes in the consensus process are expected to be related to the scope of the respective role.
Fedora Program Manager The FPgM helps to coordinate the planning and scheduling of releases with respect to milestones scheduled as part of Fedora release cycle. He or she also helps to track changes and features during the development and testing cycle, and also assists with the creation, maintenance, and execution of formal, repeatable processes.
- Langdon: Objective Lead and Council Member
- Jan Kurik: Fedora Program Manager
- Mike DePaulo
- Tim Flink
- Dennis Gilmore
- Harald Hoyer
- Stephen Tweedie
- Chaoyi Zha
The Modularity WG has two "modes," one, a traditional WG which sets the direction of the project and reviews progress. Second, an active development team made up of all aspects of software engineering from architecture, to QE, to release engineering.
The direction setting "mode" reflects that Fedora is a global project and will have regular IRC meetings. In general we will conduct business on the mailing list or announce either IRC meetings or Google+ hangout events in advance should they take place.
The Modularity Working Group strives to work on consensus and only vote on things where it’s clear people aren’t going to be convinced to agree. Many of our decisions can be made through "lazy consensus." Under this model, an intended action is announced on the mailing list, discussed, and if there is no controversy or dissenting views with a few days, simply done.
For bigger issues, where there may be disagreement within the Modularity Working Group itself where the necessary quorum is not reached (with 4 members being required for quorum,) or where there is long-term impact, or where an action may not easily be undone, we will schedule an IRC meeting during which a vote will be conducted. In the case where a voting member can not make a meeting, they can either pre-vote via the mailing list or abstain-by-default. Four positive votes will be required, regardless of the number of voting members present, for a proposal to be accepted.
In order to refine the Modularity Strategy, the Working Group will be presented, regularly, demos of what is being built so that they can comment or modify the direction of the development team. The strategy team and the development team both express their "changes" by "grooming" the taiga board to clarify, cleanup, add, etc user stories and epics.
The development team operates in a loose scrum/kanban agile development model using a 2 week sprint model. Before the beginning of every sprint, the team gets together and decides who will take on what. The team meets daily for a standup status. The team does bi-weekly sprint planning and retrospectives.
Changing these Rules
This document will be approved by consensus of the initial Modularity Working Group members and approved by Council. After initial ratification, any substantive changes can be approved by majority vote and sent to Council for acceptance.